Did Abraham Receive the Call to Go to Canaan While in Haran, or in Ur?

Answering this question is actually a fairly easy one to tackle. But there are two ways to go about it, and each way gives us a different picture of what the biblical writer is trying to do in Genesis.

In Genesis 11:26-32, we get the story about Terah, the father of Abraham (whose name was slightly different at this point, “Abram.”):

When Terah had lived 70 years, he fathered Abram, Nahor, and Haran. 
Now these are the generations of Terah. Terah fathered Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran fathered Lot. Haran died in the presence of his father Terah in the land of his kindred, in Ur of the Chaldeans. And Abram and Nahor took wives. The name of Abram’s wife was Sarai, and the name of Nahor’s wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran the father of Milcah and Iscah. Now Sarai was barren; she had no child. 
Terah took Abram his son and Lot the son of Haran, his grandson, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abram’s wife, and they went forth together from Ur of the Chaldeans to go into the land of Canaan, but when they came to Haran, they settled there. The days of Terah were 205 years, and Terah died in Haran (Genesis 11:26-32 ESV).

In summary, Abraham’s family moves from the land of Ur (in modern day Iraq), to Haran (in modern day Turkey), an area about half-way along the journey, across the Fertile Crescent, well short of reaching Canaan.

Terah eventually dies while the family is in Haran. But then the story picks up from there, in the very next chapter:

Now the Lord said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

So Abram went, as the Lord had told him, and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran. And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother’s son, and all their possessions that they had gathered, and the people that they had acquired in Haran, and they set out to go to the land of Canaan (Genesis 12:1-5a ESV).

You can spot a difficulty, highlighted in the first verse of chapter 12, where at first glance, the text tells you, “Now the Lord said to Abram….” If you assume a straight reading, of a chronological, sequence of events, it gives you the impression that Abraham received the call to go to the land of Canaan (arriving in Shechem, in the above map), after his father Terah died, while in Haran.

But when you compare this to other passages in the Bible, such as Stephen’s speech in Acts 7 (see Acts 7:2), and Genesis 15:7, you get a different idea as to where Abraham received his call:

And he said to him [Abraham], “I am the Lord who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess.” (Genesis 15:7 ESV).

Using the time-honored principle of comparing Scripture with Scripture, you get the clear idea that Abraham received his call to go the Canaan, while he was still living in Ur…. NOT Haran.

So, what is the deal with Genesis 12:1, where a translation like the ESV (English Standard Version) gives you the impression that Abraham got his call while in Haran?

Grammatically speaking, it all comes down to how verb tenses work in the Hebrew language. In a strictly literal sense, the verb structure of this verse indicates, when the Lord “said,” should be rendered in the past tense. Therefore, more strictly literal translations of this verse, like here in the ESV, as well as the CSB (Christian Standard Bible), and the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version), records something like, “Now the LORD said to Abram,” which is in the past tense, indicating that the event took place at that moment in the past, in the narrative of the text.

A looser, or less strictly literal translation, in this particular case, like the KJV (King James Version), the NIV (New International Version), or the NLT (New Living Translation), reads something like, “Now the LORD had said to Abram,” which is in the past perfect tense, indicating the event had already taken place, prior to where it appears in the text. If you look at the ESV passage again, you will see that the ESV sort of covers both bases, by having the “had said” down in a footnote. This would allow the reader to understand that the call of Abraham happened prior to Terah’s death in Haran, permissibly allowing the reader to sync up the chronology with those other passages of the Bible, to show that Abraham was called to go to Canaan, while still living in the land of Ur.

So, we get our answer to the question, that Abraham got his call from God while in Ur, but it still leaves a nagging thought: Why are there these differences in all of these English Bible translations?

Many modern Christians will often read the Book of Genesis, looking for a rather strict chronology of events, assuming that the author is laying things out in a sequential narrative from. But in order to get that strict chronology of events, some Bible translations opt to render the verb in the past perfect tense, in order to more clearly line up the chronology. We see this same type of verb syntax structure in Genesis 2:7 and Genesis 2:19.

But is it permissible for Bible translators to do that? Can a past tense verb, like this, be interpreted in the past perfect, and still stay true to Hebrew grammar? Is the Hebrew verb syntax that flexible? Apparently, some Bible scholars say, YES (C. John Collins), whereas others say NO (Claude Mariottini).

The scholars on the “YES” side of this debate help to easily resolve the chronological problem, but they do so at a cost. The ironic story with this controversy, is that in order to nail down and harmonize a strict chronology, you have to use a looser, or less strict method of biblical translation to arrive at harmonizing such a strict chronology. Conversely, if you follow a more strict method of biblical translation here, it can sort of gum up your ability to reconstruct a strict, chronological sequence of events.

Did you follow that?


Well, there is a bit more to it, actually.

One might conclude that the “NO” side of the scholars; that is, those who argue that the past perfect tense is not allowed here, is somehow insinuating that there might be some sort of “error” of chronology in the Bible. However, such a cynical judgment is not really necessary.

Consider how yet another strictly literal translation, in this case, such as the NET Bible, handles this difficulty in Genesis 12:1, in the notes:

The Lord called Abram while he was in Ur (see Gen 15:7; Acts 7:2), but the sequence here makes it look like it was after the family left to migrate to Canaan (11:31-32). Genesis records the call of Abram at this place in the narrative because it is the formal beginning of the account of Abram. The record of Terah was brought to its end before this beginning.

In other words, there is a reasonable chronology at play here in this text, namely that Abraham did, in fact, receive the call while in Ur, and NOT in Haran. However, the biblical writer is using a type of narrative style that is not exclusively concerned with giving the reader a strict chronology, upon a casual reading. Instead, the biblical writer is arranging the material in a more highly stylistic, and less chronologically-oriented, manner. First, Genesis 11:26-32 tells us the story of Terah. But once done with Terah, the writer refocuses the story on the person of Abraham. Still, Genesis 11:26-32 provides some general context for the “big story,” that centers around Abraham.

We will come back to that “big story” in a moment, but consider this: Those who are drawn towards a more modern approach, looking for a straight-forward, chronologically sequential report, when reading the Bible, might be puzzled:  Is there any good evidence for a less chronologically-concerned approach to telling the story?

Just look back in Genesis 11:26, where we read, “When Terah had lived 70 years, he fathered Abram, Nahor, and Haran.” When I first studied this passage years ago, I got the sense that Abraham, Nahor, and Haran, were all born in the same year. Furthermore, the writer of Genesis was following a practice, common in contemporary journalism and historical writing, of mentioning children being born, in their birth order: Abraham was born first, Nahor second, and finally Haran. Whether we are talking triplets or twins somewhere here, is another question, but the birth order seems self-evident (Some translations, like the NIV and NLT, try to help the reader out, by saying something like: “After Terah had lived 70 years, he became the father of Abraham, Nahor, and Haran,” but I digress).

Following a strictly chronological, sequential report approach, you might get the impression that Terah was 70 years old when Abraham was born. But if you do the math, such a strictly literal reading of the text does not work. For if Terah died at age 205 (Genesis 11:32) and Abraham was 75 when he left Haran to go to Canaan (Genesis 12:4), you end up with a contradiction, a 60 year difference (Terah’s age at death: 205 minus 75, gives you 130, NOT 70).

The issue is plausibly resolved by adopting a less chronological orientation to the text. This would indicate that Abraham was mentioned first in Genesis 11:26, not because he was the first born son, which would make him chronologically the first one born, but because Abraham had a special place of honor.

It would be through the line of Abraham that the Messiah would come, and not through the line of his two other brothers. This allows the reader to understand that Abraham was born at a later point in time, most probably after either (or both) Nahor and/or Haran, when Terah was 130 years old, and not 70. The discrepancy is resolved, but it requires a view of Genesis 11:26 that is not concerned with strict chronology.

Likewise, consider the ordering of events a bit earlier in Genesis, between Genesis 10 and Genesis 11. Genesis 10 tells us the table of nations, describing the status of the nations, after they were dispersed by differentiation in language. But Genesis 11:1 tells us that all of the peoples of the earth spoke in just one language! All this happens before the Tower of Babel incident, when the dispersal of the people, into different language groups, occurs.

Did the writer get confused in the chronological ordering of events? Not necessarily. The NET Bible comments on this discrepancy with the following:

Genesis 11 begins with everyone speaking a common language, but chap. 10 has the nations arranged by languages. It is part of the narrative art of Genesis to give the explanation of the event after the narration of the event.

Interesting. “The narrative art of Genesis.”

Here are yet a couple of additional examples, where a modern reader would normally assume a strictly chronological presentation of events, but the biblical writer has some other purpose in mind. It is less a chronological telling of a sequence of events, and more of a form of art. Even a ministry, such as Answers in Genesis, which normally assumes a very strict chronological sequencing in the text of Genesis, admits that a strict chronological sequencing of events between Genesis 10 and 11 is not in view here.

Let’s go back to Abraham. Here is the bigger story:

God is calling Abraham to leave everything behind in Genesis 12, including his family and his father’s household, to go the Canaan. But Abraham is only partway obedient to the call. Though we do not know the details, Abraham does not leave his family, as he was commanded by God to do, but instead, manages to possibly persuade his father to travel in the direction towards the land of Canaan. But Terah only gets so far. As both Ur and Haran were known to be centers of moon worship, it was perhaps considered too risky by Terah to make the entire journey to Canaan, and fully leave behind his paganism.

The partial obedience of Abraham highlights the character of Abraham, as a man who has faith in the God of the Bible, but who is a bit reluctant to follow through on everything God asks him to do. In many ways, the story of Abraham mirrors the story of Israel as a nation. Yes, Israel as a nation is the people of God, set aside for a purpose, in particular for bringing the Messiah into the world. And yet, Israel often fails miserably in being fully obedient to that very calling.

But what is the big deal about Abraham being called out of Ur, as opposed to Haran?

It is important to remember that Ur simply is not any old place on the map. The land of Ur is squarely located in the same geographical area as Babylon, what would later become Israel’s chief nemesis, that would destroy its first Temple, and lead God’s people into exile, in a foreign land, beginning in 587 B.C.

Abraham’s journey from Ur to Canaan sets the reader up to better understand the Jewish later hope, during the Babylonian captivity, that they might return to the Promised Land from their period of exile. As John Sailhamer puts it, in his Genesis commentary, in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary series, “Abraham thus becomes a prefigurement of future exiles who, like him, wait in faith for the coming of God’s blessing” (Kindle location, 5275). See also the prophet Micah’s identification of the Jews in exile, awaiting for their return to the land, with Abraham (Micah 7:18-20).

So, we got the big picture, but there are apparently two ways to get here.

Some focus on reading Genesis, in a very modern way, imagining it to be recording a strictly chronological sequence of events. But it is easy to get stumped by passages like Genesis 12:1 in the process of piecing that chronology together. Sure, you can probably put such a chronology together, but if you have made it this far in reading this blog post, you realize that you have to work pretty hard to get at it.

Perhaps the biblical writer does have a strict chronological sequence of events in mind, but he does not make it obviously easy for the reader to figure that out.

The other way is to take a more open-minded approach, appreciating that the writer of Genesis may not be so concerned about handing us a strict, sequential chronology, as so many modern readers tend to expect. As Old Testament scholar Michael Heiser says, we should have the courage to “let the Bible be the Bible,” and trust that God knows what He is doing through the writings of the human, biblical writer. This does not necessarily rule out the possibility of reconstructing a type of chronology, but it does encourage us to consider that reading the Book of Genesis is simply not like a reading a newspaper, or the latest David McCullogh, New York Times best selling history book. Rather, the Book of Genesis really stands as a unique type of art form, all on its own.


About Clarke Morledge

Clarke Morledge -- Computer Network Engineer, College of William and Mary... I hiked the Mount of the Holy Cross, one of the famous Colorado Fourteeners, with some friends in July, 2012. My buddy, Mike Scott, snapped this photo of me on the summit. View all posts by Clarke Morledge

10 responses to “Did Abraham Receive the Call to Go to Canaan While in Haran, or in Ur?

  • Jerry Dearmon

    As usual, you offer a reason to ponder scriptures that most of us at times read through with little if any questioning as to the structure and interpretation. A larger question in my mind is how was Abram able to be such a man of faith having lived in a household where his father was an idol worshiper. It would be interesting to hear the “rest of that story”.
    Thanks for your scholarship.
    Jerry Dearmon


    • Clarke Morledge

      Jerry: Wow, what a great question. It would have been very interesting to be a “fly on the wall” in Terah’s home in Haran!

      Ultimately, you’d have to attribute that to the grace of God intervening in Abraham’s life. It is quite amazing!

      Thanks, Jerry, for your comment. Clarke


  • Clarke Morledge

    A Veracity blog reader alerted me to the fact that Joshua 24:2 teaches that Terah, the father of Abraham, worshipped other gods, while still living in the land of Ur. This is reaffirms the context of Genesis 12.


  • Daniel Pech

    I’ve been taking the Genesis 12:1 text to be describing a reminder to Abe, and thus not to be describing the initial call.

    In any case, there is much to be said for the deep difference between an actual Normal Reading and an Idiot-Faith reading, in that the latter would rather the text have been authored by God and then this dumped onto Moses to write down.

    The Normal reading, I suggest, includes not assuming a knowledge of any portions further in the Bible. By this reading, the DIRECT point of the portion from Genesis 11:10-12:1 is not to tell us Gentiles the lineage to Christ, but simply to have the reader, in any case, to see a PERSONAL link from Shem to Abram. This even is the Jewish Oral Tradition, since, among other things, Shem is the ONLY man of the Blessing, in history, to outlive many generations of his own descendants.

    Shem’s likeness to Adam is here telling, especially after Noah dies. See the elderliness of the father each of Shem and Abe, and the fact Shem and Abe each is one of three brothers.

    Shem saw himself in Abe, and Shem saw Adam in himself in his relation to his descendants. When Noah died, Shem was akin to Adam after having been driven out of the garden. The pre-Flood ecology was akin to the uncursed Eden. Shem had been born in that pre-Flood ecology, as had Noah. Both Noah and Shem survived the Flood, but Noah, after a telling number of centuries, left Shem the only Blessed witness of that former world.

    I think Shem knew, as I think did the other several Flood survivors, of where, in correspondence to the post-Flood land-sea boundaries, the land of Eden had been, per both Eden’s broad foundational theology (Genesis 1-2) and its ultimate prophecy (Genesis 3:15).

    Terah is honored in the link, not at all dishonored. But his honor comes as a kind of parenthetical given what Genesis 12:1 says. And I notice that Terah’s small company does NOT name Abe’s one living brother (Nahor, of the same name as the grandfather (Genesis 11:22-25).

    And there is not trivia to be made of the bit about the other brother dying ‘before the face’ of Terah. This bit is key to the passage, when combined with what Genesis 12:1 says. In light of Joshua’s (or God’s) review to the People (Joshua 24), something happened to Terah to convince Terah to stop trying to serve both God and pagan idols. The Shemite faithful subline here (Genesis 11:10-12:1) does not dishonor Terah, and it is clear enough that Terah was very aged by the time Terah assayed to go to Canaan.

    The question is why Terah was going to go there at all. Is that just trivial happenstance? No. So, what is the probability that Terah was just too old not to die in the effort? Notice that God does not scold Abe for laying over with Terah in Haran. I suspect that this portion’s plain lesson upon Terah is a very singular and honoring one, in view of this line being in pure honor of Shem: Terah, though too late in terms of his impact on the world, had truly converted. God does not want for a Believing son to abandon the care of a Believing father in the father’s final years. And the town of Haran was no bed of roses for Believers. To whom, there, could Abe have entrusted the care of his aged father?

    I assume that God had not, in fact, commanded Abe to just up and leave, as if God thought Abe had already done all he rightly could to win his father over. The Jewish Oral Tradition says Abe was essentially an evangelist, like Shem, and that Abe, one day when his father went out, smashed all the idols save the largest, and that when Terah returned and asked Abe what transpired, Abe flatly replied that the big remaining idol had been jealous the Terah was dividing his loyalties with the other idols, and so the big idol had gone through the room smashing the others.

    That would have been the last-ditch effort, on Abe’s part, to change Terah’s willingness to serve other gods beside the God of Shem.


  • John Rokos

    I think God called Abraham twice, the first time in Ur as recounted by Stephen (Acts 7:2-4, the words “and thy father’s house” not being said), and then, after Terah’s death, in Charan, this time including “and thy father’s house”. Reasons for this opinion:
    In the Masoretic text of Genesis 11:1, the Hebrew for “said” is unambiguously in the uncompleted aspect (“future tense”), which marks it out as a vav chronologically sequential (vav consecutive) from the previous verse, i.e. God must have said it after the death of Terah. Reformation versions don’t agree, but this IS how the Septuagint translated it.
    There’s a chapter division in between – not a valid objection;
    Stephen said God spoke to Abram in Ur – Yes, but WHAT did God say to Abram in Ur? If God included “and thy father’s house”, why did Stephen omit it? Was he in such a great hurry to get to the stoning? I don’t think so. I think he got what he said from either another source (or by direct revelation – but I don’t think we need to invoke this) or from an infallible variant reading, edited out by the Temple authorities by 70 CE, but around at that time (How could there be such a thing as an infallible variant reading? Well, one possibility is that the author writes an account twice and writes it differently the second time, so both versions are consistent and correct, even if they are not saying the same thing).
    So what’s the scenario according to me?
    I think God calls Abram in Ur as recounted by Stephen. When Terah takes everyone to go to Canaan (Whether or not Chedorlaomer has subjugated the Vale of Sodom by then, it must surely already have a good reputation for prosperity), Abram has no reason not to go with him. When Terah dies, Abram may well be justified in concluding, perhaps regretfully, that Charan is the land God has promised him. But God scotches this with a second call, this time telling him to leave his father’s house. So he leaves Charan.


  • Ged Headwind

    it’s all just too long ago for anyone to know now, it seems to have become pure speculation and down to how it is all read, each time it is rewritten it get changed an amount, but it is still a great story


  • Carol Brands

    God called Abram while in Ur. At this same time, Haran died. Father Terah as patriarchal head was converted by the combination of his oldest son’s death and his youngest son’s call. As clan head, he led the way to Haran as step one in the journey to Canaan, but then being 200 years old, was too old to finish the journey. Abram stayed in Haran five years for two reasons: (1) to respect his dying father; and (2) to prepare for his monumental trip to Canaan. As soon as his father died, with all in readiness for the move, he continued on his way.

    This sequence makes total sense. We forget that Abram couldn’t simply go to a store to purchase his 308 servants, to arm them and train them. They had to make their many tents (one for Sarai, one for Abram, one for Lot, one for each family in the entourage). They had to make their weapons with which to train the servants. All this preparation took time.


    • mbembe36

      Carol, did you read what I wrote in 2019, 2 posts before yours, about there being two calls to Abraham, the first back in Ur, as recounted by Stephen, and the second in Charan after Terah’s death, as recounted in Genesis, the difference being the absence of “and thy father’s house” in the first call?
      The Scriptures tell us quite plainly that Abraham left, not knowing whither he went, so he cannot have known that Canaan was land promised before he got there and God promised it him. But the Scripture also tells us that Terah left Ur with the intention of going to Canaan. So whatever Terah’s reason for wanting to relocate to Canaan was, it can’t have had anything to do with God’s promise to Abram. It can, however, have had something to do with Chedorlaomer having overlordship of the very prosperous vale of Sodom (either then or very soon after), and the area having a reputation for desirablility.


  • M. Blondino

    The issue for most Christians is the attempt to square Genesis with Stephen’s sermon in Acts. It can’t be done because Stephen (not Genesis) was materially wrong on numerous points. It should be noted that Paul was a witness to Stephen’s sermon and likely provided support to Luke who authored Acts since it is clear that they were together when Acts was written. Paul was incarcerated at the end of his life Luke was with both in Roman prison (Col. 4.14) and home arrest (Acts 28.1,30-31) and at the end of his life (2 Tim 4.11). Regardless of the correctness of Stephen’s main thesis, his facts were errant:

    – Acts 7.1 – God’s glory appearing in Mesopotamia is not recorded in Scripture.
    – Acts 7.4 – Terah was not dead when Abram left it is a misreading of the Genesis summary of 11:32. It summarizes Terah’s life but does not say Abram left after Terah died.
    – Acts 7.14 – There were 70 not 75 people who came from Canaan with Jacob when they arrived in Egypt. He relies on the LXX which includes 5 additional names. It is an understandable citation. The LXX includes Manasseh’s son Makir and grandson Gilead, and Ephraim’s sons, Sutalaam and Tam and grandson Edem.
    – Acts 7.17 – It is a confusion of facts. Abraham did not purchase land from Hamor in Shechem for burial. Abraham purchased the field and cave of Machpelah in Hebron from Ephron the Hittite. Jacob purchased the land on which they stayed outside of Shechem and this is where Joseph was buried. (Gen. 33.19, Josh. 24.32)
    – Acts 7.23 – Moses did not flee Pharaoh at 40. He fled at 18 to Cush according to history. At the age of 27 he became ruler of Cush (Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book II, chapters 9-11 and Jasher 72-76). Since Moses does not disclose his royal career in Exodus, it is an understandable but incorrect statement.

    The main point of Stephen’s sermon was right, but his historical accuracy is not always on point. Our faith should not be hindered by good research it should be built by reliance on truth.


  • Clarke Morledge

    M. Blondino,

    Thank you for commenting at Veracity. This particular blog post was really focused on the interpretive problems within Genesis itself regarding the historical narrative, and not interacting with Acts 7. I would agree that trying to reconcile Acts 7 with what we find in Genesis is one of the major criticisms against various definitions of inerrancy.

    Unfortunately, I do not have the time now to address each one of your points, though I would like to. Please allow me to summarize in brief:

    To your argument, you affirm the main point of Stephen’s sermon but still contend that errors exist regarding historical accuracy. Here is my quick response: Inerrancy itself is not a binding article of faith, in my view, but the real difficulty here is in how inerrancy is defined. Nevertheless, a nuanced view of inerrancy is still worth defending. For now, let me just suggest to you two resources:

    (a) Apologist John Oakes addresses some of your concerns regarding the accuracy of Stephen’s speech here. Oakes’ main point is that Stephen “is not giving a Western-style careful chronological treatise on the history of the Jews. That is certainly not his intent. This is a highly emotionally charged condemnation of the spiritual pride of the Jews and their stubborn refusal to accept the Messiah who God had prepared all these years for them to accept”:


    (b) A helpful book for me that goes through the Stephen’s speech passage in detail, regarding your apologetic concerns, is _The Gospels and Acts (Volume 1) (The Holman Apologetics Commentary on the Bible) _

    I hope that helps at least a little bit!


What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: