, , ,

Must I Forgive THIS Sin?

The first step towards forgiving is committing to forgive, but to do that, I need to know: must I forgive this offense? Part 2 of “Forgive Intentional Sin—Don’t Just Manage Emotions.”

In my last post on What Forgiving Isn’t, I shared six substitutes that masquerade as forgiving, but which merely manage emotions for a time. Forgiving deliberate sins that cause significant hurt and loss can be difficult, but it’s possible with the Holy Spirit’s help.

My first real struggle with forgiving came in my twenties with the sudden revelation that my mother had known her hatred and mistreatment were wrong. For years I had prayed, “I forgive her because she doesn’t know better.” I thought I had forgiven her because this prayer immediately eased the anger and hurt. But the revelation that she knew better crashed into the fence of excuses I’d used to corral my emotions, and now anger, hurt, jealousy, and rage galloped over me like wild horses.

I tried telling God, “I forgive her,” but the tumultuous emotions wouldn’t go away. I wondered if it were possible to forgive and still be angry.

The first step towards forgiving when forgiving is hard is making a commitment to forgive. But before we can make such a commitment, we need to know if we need to forgive.

Must I Forgive If I’ve tried But I’m Still Angry?

I truly thought I’d forgiven. But had I? Was saying “I forgive” enough?

I looked at Scriptures about anger. Ephesians 4:31 said, “Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice.” Truth be told, I was filled with rage and anger, possibly even bitterness and malice. I tried to get rid of it by emotionally thrusting it away, but it wouldn’t go.

Must I forgive? Ephesians says yes

Ephesians 4:32

I read the next verse: “Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.” It was easy to be compassionate when I thought she didn’t know better, but how was I to be compassionate towards someone who had intentionally wronged my siblings and me? Yet this verse juxtaposed compassion and forgiving with rage and anger. It didn’t look like I could claim I’d forgiven.

Besides, a few verses earlier said, “’In your anger do not sin’: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry” (v. 26). This anger had built up over years.

While it’s true that it takes time for emotions to calm after a loss, the level of anger made me sure I hadn’t yet forgiven from the heart.

A thought occurred to me and I asked God, Must I forgive? I looked at different situations.

Must I Forgive What the Bible Doesn’t Call Sin?

No, the presence of hurt or anger doesn’t necessarily mean someone has sinned against me. If something’s not sinful, I need to overlook it. For example, I might not like it that two of my girlfriends had lunch without me, but they didn’t sin.

We should also pray for the Holy Spirit to show us why we’re offended over something not wrong; it might be that what’s wrong is in us rather than the other person: impatience, pride, poor planning skills. For instance, if I’m bothered that a friend corrected me, I probably should confess pride and pray for the wisdom to take correction graciously: “Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you; reprove a wise man, and he will love you” (Proverbs 9:8).

Must I Forgive Unintentional Sin?

Jesus taught that unintentional sins are lesser sins than intentional sins: “And that servant who knew his master’s will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more” (Luke 12:47-48).

So unintentional sins—sins of ignorance and sins of weakness—are still sins, and yes, we must forgive them, not excuse or ignore them.

Must I Forgive Repeated Sin?

“But he’s done it over and over again! He says he’s sorry, but he’s not changing so how I can I believe him?” Many spouses bring this one up.

Mk11_25They’re in good company. After Jesus taught about restoring a believer who has sinned against you, Peter went to Jesus and asked how often he had to forgive: “Seven times?” Jesus answered, “Seventy-seven!” Then he told the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant. The bottom line is that if we’re grateful for the mercy God has shown us, then we must show mercy to others because the debt we owe God far exceeds the debt others owe us (Matthew 18:21–35).

Besides, how many of us haven’t repeated the same sins we’ve confessed many times before? If we want God’s mercy, others must have ours.

Must I Forgive Deliberate Sin?

Yes. Jesus never said to forgive only unintentional sins. He said, “For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (Matthew 6:14-15).

Must I Forgive Unrepentant Sin?

My mother wasn’t repentant. In fact, she still threw verbal darts. Did I need to forgive her?

I searched my Bible for the answer. Although a couple passages talked about forgiving the repentant, others spoke about forgiving all sin: “But when you are praying, first forgive anyone you are holding a grudge against, so that your Father in heaven will forgive your sins, too” (Mark 11:25). It seemed that even if we ended relationship with someone unrepentant, we must still forgive in some sense. I didn’t know in what sense yet.

But I did know I had to get rid of the bitterness and anger, and forgiving seemed the only way.

Out of sheer obedience, I prayed, “Father, I forgive her.” The anger remained, but I knew my willingness pleased God. I committed to finding a way to forgive, trusting that the God who made me willing to change would also make me able (Philippians 2:13).

The first step towards forgiving is committing to forgive Share on X Must I forgive? Six situations examined. Share on X
Forgive Intentional Sin—Don’t Just Manage Emotions | In this series: 
  1. What Forgiving Isn’t: 5 Stand-ins that Masquerade as Forgiving
  2. Must I Forgive THIS Sin?
  3. What Makes Confessing and Forgiving Inseparable
  4. Four Sins that Require Faith to Forgive
  5. The Ultimate Reason Behind Unforgiveness
/0 Comments/by
, , ,

What Forgiving Isn’t: 5 Stand-ins that Masquerade as Forgiving

Forgiving isn’t always what we think it is. Part 1 of “Forgive Intentional Sin—Don’t Just Manage Emotions.”

Forgiving isn’t managing emotions. Most Christians know Jesus taught that we must forgive. But when anger and hurt linger, we sometimes turn to forgiveness substitutes that merely manage our emotions—and not all that well.

Here are five stand-ins that masquerade as forgiveness.

Forgiving Isn’t Pretending

One of my most vivid, recurring nightmares was about me lying in my bed as a man and woman quietly opened the door to my bedroom to see if I were asleep. In the nightmare, I watched them through nearly closed eyes as I pretended to sleep, repeating over and over again in my head, “I’ve got to pretend I didn’t hear or they’ll kill me; I’ve got to pretend I don’t remember or they’ll kill me.”

Our childhood home was violent. Pretending nothing happened was required.

But pretending nothing happened isn’t forgiving because forgiving is always based on truth.

When I started dating Clay, I brought the habit of pretending into our relationship. He’d ask if something were wrong and I’d respond, “No, everything is fine.” I thought telling myself everything was fine and making myself believe everything was fine was the same as being fine. Clay never let it pass and always probed. I’d be surprised at the anger that would come out when I tried to talk about things: obviously, everything wasn’t fine.

God wants us to speak truth in our heart (Psalm 15:2, 51:6). Pretending nothing is wrong is not only a lie, it’s a form of holding a grudge. Pretending’s purpose is to make others think you’ve forgotten or forgiven when you haven’t.

Forgiving isn't pretending nothing happened or nothing is wrong Share on X

Forgiving Isn’t Forgetting

As with many authors, movies often play in my head. Years ago I was with a group of ministry leaders when a woman spoke up about her struggles with forgiving an abusive mother. She said, “Maybe I just need to forget.”

Immediately in my mind’s eye I saw a raincoat-clad girl begin to climb down from a boat’s deck as the boat swayed gently in a calm sea. She reached the lower deck and entered a tidy, brightly colored room with yellow walls and a painting of a red boat on a calm, blue sea. On the back wall a dark brown curtain covered a closet. The girl went to retrieve something near the closet.

Suddenly the tip of what looked like an octopus tentacle reached out from beneath the curtain and grabbed her ankle. The girl struggled, but quickly broke loose, overturning a chair as she escaped. However, the tentacle—surely a sea monster’s arm—thrashed around, toppling more furniture and knocking the painting askew before retreating behind the curtain.

Forgiving isn't easy

Jesus said we must forgive

That, I thought, is exactly what happens when you try to forget. Life seems calm and tidy, until something happens that brings you too close to the sea monster memory you’re avoiding. That memory disrupts everything.

Shoving Out of Mind Doesn’t Work

I was skilled at shoving things out of my mind. Perhaps it was because our father claimed he could read our minds and would punish us if he found we were thinking anything bad about him. I believed him. At a hair’s-breadth notice, my mind would blank out every negative experience.

In my twenties, another occurrence of my father’s rage triggered an onslaught of memories and all those shoved-down emotions came roaring back with more intensity than I thought possible.

Doesn’t God Forget Sins?

Sometimes I hear someone say that God forgets when he forgives and so should we. God doesn’t give up his omniscience such that every time a pastor preaches on David and Bathsheba, he declares, “What? I didn’t know David sinned!” In the Bible, when God says he’ll “remember” someone’s sins against him, he means he’ll punish them, and when he says he’ll “forget,” he means he will no longer punish. God knows the depth of what he forgives.

Shoving things out of your mind and trying to forget is merely an ineffective way to manage emotions: ineffective because life will trigger memories along with the accompanying emotions now multiplied.

Forgiving is neither forgetting nor shoving memories out of mind Share on X

Forgiving Isn’t Taking the Blame

Victimizers blame their victims. Unless they repent and turn to Christ for forgiveness, how else can they live with their conscience?

I’ve accepted blame I shouldn’t have; I’ve jumped in with a “That’s my fault” plenty of times when it wasn’t true. Sometimes it was because I mistakenly thought something good or neutral to be bad. But other times I was simply hoping to be liked or looking for the easiest way out of conflict.

Jesus paid the price for our sins; he didn’t say he caused them. We can forgive without taking blame that isn’t ours. Knowingly accepting blame we don’t own is deception, not forgiveness. It’s a sign of being a people-pleaser rather than a God-pleaser.

Forgiving Isn’t Taking Revenge

On the other side, I’ve also given blame I should have owned, justifying cutting words because the other person was “more” wrong or was the first to do wrong. This makes forgiving harder because it requires the other person to take more blame than he or she is due, and most people refuse. Besides, God won’t let anyone truly walking with him get away with such nonsense for long.

It may feel like getting back at someone will make you feel better so you can “forgive,” but it won’t. Revenge escalates matters. Revenge—whether responding tit-for-tat, unleashing anger, or back-biting—exacts payment in place of forgiving. It’s also sin (Rom. 12:19, Col. 3:8).

Forgiving Isn’t Excusing

In my pre-teens and teens, I struggled with anger, particularly towards my mother. I longed to know why she hated me. My mom said it was because I’d ruined her life; my dad said it was because he wanted to hurt her so he told her I was smarter than she. Both answers hurt and I wanted something else: an answer that made neither my mom nor me bad people.

At about fifteen, I read the New Testament. I became a Christian in the middle of the Gospel of John. I read what Jesus said about forgiving, so I prayed, “I forgive,” over every hurt that happened.

At sixteen, I took a psychology class. The nice, graying teacher soothingly said that abusive parents were either abused themselves or just didn’t know better. I finally had an answer. I knew my grandparents weren’t abusive (my aunts have since confirmed that), so I hung on to ignorance: it’s easy to forgive someone who doesn’t know better. The anger washed away.

Until nearly a decade later when I sat in her dark living room with my sister and three-year-old nephew. He started whining that he wanted to go home. Both my sister and I jumped to hush him before my mother yelled or hit him.

She stopped us and said, “This house has a rule: No one is to say an unkind word to him.” I jerked back, stunned. She knew better! Jealousy consumed me and I said I had to leave. For years I had corralled all the anger and hurt behind the fence of “She doesn’t know better,” and now that fence had fallen and the emotions galloped out like horses finally freed.

Unintentional sin is much easier to forgive than intentional sin. But telling ourselves that deliberate sin is involuntary just because it makes it easier to forgive isn’t honest. When it comes to intentional wrongs, we must do the much harder job of forgiving without excusing.

What Forgiving Is

So forgiving isn’t pretending, forgetting, taking wrongful blame, taking revenge, or excusing. So what is it then? That topic begins in my next post.

A brief note is due: My father has changed and no longer has bouts of rage. My mother was prone to depression and was an alcoholic. I believe that before she died, she had deep regrets over many things.

Forgiving isn't excusing Share on X When it comes to intentional wrongs, we must do the hard job of forgiving w/o excusing Share on X Are you forgiving or merely managing emotions? Share on X
Forgive Intentional Sin—Don’t Just Manage Emotions | In this series: 
  1. What Forgiving Isn’t: 5 Stand-ins that Masquerade as Forgiving
  2. Must I Forgive THIS Sin?
  3. What Makes Confessing and Forgiving Inseparable
  4. Four Sins that Require Faith to Forgive
  5. The Ultimate Reason Behind Unforgiveness
/10 Comments/by
, ,

Conscience Says Abraham Wrong? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 5

Does God expect us to deny our conscience by accepting the story of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac?

This is my fifth and final post addressing Rachel Held Evans’s October 2014 blog post, “I would fail Abraham’s test (and I bet you would too).” Her main argument (as I understand it) is this:

The conscience “God … imprinted us all with” tells her “that I would sooner turn my back on everything I know to be true than sacrifice my child on the altar of religion” as Abraham (in her opinion) almost did; therefore, either God’s “real test is in whether you refuse,” or “stories” such as these are not “historical realities,” or the “deity you were taught to worship does evil things” so “question the deity’s very existence.”

This is clearly a faulty dilemma because there are at least two more alternatives: we’re missing facts about the story which clear up the dilemma, and/or our conscience misinforms us. My last three posts explained missing facts that should clarify the passage and resolve conscience issues.

The Sacrifice of Abraham and conscience

“Abraham’s Sacrifice” by Rembrandt, 1655

But what if our conscience still bothers us about this story? This appears to be an important question to Rachel Held Evans—she uses the word “conscience” eleven times in this blog. Here’s an example:

But why would the very God I believe imprinted us all with a conscience—with a deep sense of right and wrong—ask me to deny that conscience by accepting [God’s command in another Bible story] as just? … And how could I ever bring myself to worship a God who, if these accounts are true, ordained and derived glory from actions I believe are evil?

I agree with Evans that God gives people a conscience. But accepting these Bible passages as historically true does not require one to “deny that conscience.” We’ll look in a moment at how Jesus addressed people whose consciences disagreed with his words. But first we must understand why people’s consciences differ.

Why do people’s consciences differ?

Our political system shows a nation deeply divided on issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and gun laws with people on both sides claiming the moral high ground. How can this be if all our consciences come from God?

Let’s look at two facts about conscience.

Moral convictions are learned

Talbot Seminary theology professor Klaus Issler calls the conscience “moral sensitivity and moral reasoning.” He says:

The particular convictions within our conscience … are not set and fully formed at birth. “The biblical notion of conscience does not imply that we are given an innate moral code common to all human beings, as popular usage sometimes suggests. It is rather a conscious sensitivity … that needs to be informed, sharpened, and directed.” Like a personal computer, our conscience must be programmed with appropriate input for it to be useful. Since our convictions are learned throughout life … we will acquire both good and sinful values. Thus, the urgency arises for growing believers to regularly evaluate and educate their conscience toward righteousness.[ref]Klaus Issler, “Conscience: Moral Sensitivity and Moral Reasoning,” in Christian Perspectives on Being Human: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Integration, ed. J. P. Moreland and David J. Ciocchi (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1993), 268. Issler quotes Arthur F.Holmes, Shaping Character: Moral Education in the Christian College (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 27. [/ref]

For example, the Apostle Paul testified, “I have lived my life before God in all good conscience up to this day” (Acts 23:1). Yet for a time his conscience told him it was right to kill Christians (Acts 22:3-4). Once the risen Lord appeared to him, he became one of the Christians he formerly thought deserved death. New information informed his conscience and he realized what he formerly judged right (killing Christians) was actually wrong.

Conscience of Martha and Mary differed

Martha’s and Mary’s consciences differed. St. Nicholas Church, Orebro, Sweden. Public domain photo by David Castor.

While God gave us our conscience, he did not fully form it. Instead, it’s shaped by influences such as parents, teachers, culture, religious texts, persuasion, reason, fear, and desires—including the desire for praise from others. Because it’s subject to such influences, people differ in what they think is right or wrong and their moral convictions can change, as Paul’s did.

Conscience is not fully reliable

If there are absolute moral truths (and I agree with Evans that there are), then because conscience is shaped by outside forces and because it can change, it is a guide, but it’s not fully reliable. Indeed, the Scripture warns that “The heart is deceitful above all things” (Jeremiah 17:9), and experience shows us humans are adept at justifying in themselves actions they normally condemn in others.

The Apostle Paul recognized that conscience can mislead: “My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me” (1 Corinthians 4:4). Therefore, while we must keep our conscience clear, we must also properly inform it.

How did Jesus address faulty consciences?

God asks us to keep a clear conscience, but he also asks us to change mistaken beliefs that affect our conscience.

  • Jesus corrected those who said wrong things were right. Jesus told the scribes that seeking places of honor and praying long public prayers for a pretense—things they thought right and honorable—were wrong and would bring them condemnation (Mark 12:38-40).
  • Jesus corrected those who said right things were wrong. When the Pharisees told Jesus that healing on the Sabbath was wrong based on their traditions, Jesus explained why their rules contradicted God’s commands and, when they persisted, pointed out that the reason they rejected his arguments was they were people-pleasers rather than God pleasers (Matthew 12:10-13; John 5:15-17, 44).
  • Jesus condemned hypocrisy. Jesus said those who condemn others for behaviors they excuse in themselves would be judged by the standards by which they judged others (Matthew 7:2).

What does conscience tell us about human sacrifice?

Rachel Held Evans appears to believe that “everyone person with a conscience” would agree all human sacrifice wrong. But that’s not so.

People’s consciences differ regarding human sacrifices

As I explained in Part 2, people in Abraham’s culture considered human sacrifice to be morally good because they believed that unconcerned deities were behind the forces of nature and that they could manipulate these deities through human sacrifices in times of need (such as famine).

Today, however, people in our Western culture typically believe most human sacrifices are wrong because (a) our laws have a Judeo-Christian heritage that forbids people sacrificing humans (Leviticus 18:21); and (b) we do not believe idols who grant blessings for human sacrifices exist.

Note that a belief against sacrificing children to attain blessing is not universal, however, even in our culture. Ethicist Peter Singer argues that parents should be allowed to kill infants up to thirty days old if it will increase the family’s happiness to do so.[ref]Scott Klusendorf, “Peter Singer’s Bold Defense of Infanticide,” Christian Research Journal (Charlotte: Christian Research Institute, April 16, 2009), accessed January 5, 2015, http://www.equip.org/article/peter-singers-bold-defense-of-infanticide/. [/ref] Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, said, “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” [ref]Margaret Sanger, Woman and the New Race (New York: Truth Publishing, 1920), page 63, accessed January 5, 2016, http://books.google.com/books?id=a-skAAAAYAAJ&dq=The%20most%20merciful%20thing%20that%20a%20large%20family%20does%20to%20one%20of%20its%20infant%20members%20is%20to%20kill%20it.&client=firefox-a&pg=PA63#v=onepage&q=&f=false. [/ref] And many see no problem with partial birth abortion, which is the killing of an infant whose living body has been birthed feet-first to the neck.

Human sacrifice is not always wrong

Was it wrong for the Allied generals to send troops to the Normandy beaches on D-day knowing there would be great human sacrifice in order to accomplish the defeat of Hitler and the saving of other human lives?

Was it wrong to scramble F-16 fighter jets to down “an airliner full of kids and salesmen and girlfriends” on September 11, 2001, in order to accomplish the saving of human lives on the ground?[ref]Steve Hendrix, ”F-16 pilot was ready to give her life on Sept. 11,” The Washington Post (DC: Washington Post, September 8, 2011), accessed January 5, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/f-16-pilot-was-ready-to-give-her-life-on-sept-11/2015/09/06/7c8cddbc-d8ce-11e0-9dca-a4d231dfde50_story.html. [/ref]

Conscience and human sacrifice

The ultimate human sacrifice. “The Three Crosses,” by Rembrandt, 1653

Was it wrong for the Father to send his Son Jesus to earth knowing he would be sacrificed in order to accomplish the defeat of sin and death and the saving of human souls?

Definitely not.

Then was it wrong for God to ask the prophets Abraham and Isaac to be portents of that event by acting it out at a time in history in which such deeds were not considered wrong?

No. God was showing what love looks like: It looks like sacrifice.

Does God expect us to deny our conscience?

Rachel Held Evans asked, “Why would … God … ask me to deny … conscience by accepting” God’s commands in certain Bible stories “as just?”

God doesn’t ask anyone to deny conscience; rather, he asks us to change the mistaken beliefs that misinform our conscience.

Rachel Held Evans says, “I would sooner turn my back on everything I know to be true than sacrifice my child on the altar of religion.” God isn’t asking her to sacrifice her child: he made it clear when he stopped Abraham and when he gave the Law of Moses that he does not want humans sacrificing humans on altars.

And she doesn’t need to “turn my back on everything I know to be true”; she can accept the New Testament’s testimony of the historicity of this story by simply turning from the belief that because she “would have failed Abraham’s test,” nothing could justify Abraham’s test. Her situation—and ours—has little in common with Abraham’s. His was

At the same time, Abraham’s test has one important thing to do with us: it demonstrates what the Father did when he sent his Son as a sacrifice to save us. Hallelujah.

Does God expect us to deny conscience by accepting hard Bible stories? Share on X Her conscience says Abraham's wrong? Answering Rachel Held Evans Share on X
Related Posts
/1 Comment/by
, ,

Do God’s Motives Matter? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 4

If God’s defining characteristic is supposed to be love, why would he ask Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac? Do God’s motives matter?

In Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, Elizabeth Bennet spurns Mr. Darcy’s marriage proposal despite his vast wealth and enviable social standing. Why? Because, she declares, Darcy had ruined the romantic prospects of her sister and the financial prospects of Mr. Wickham, and these actions are proof of “your arrogance, your conceit, and your selfish disdain of the feelings of others.”

Mr. Darcy's motives and God's motives matter

Darcy and Elizabeth at Charlotte’s house. Illustration by Hugh Thomson, 1894. (Austen, Jane. “Pride and Prejudice.” London: George Allen, 1894.)

The next day, however, she learns Darcy’s motives. He had discouraged his friend from courting her sister mostly because she seemed indifferent towards the young man—and an embarrassed Elizabeth recalls she had been warned her sister was too guarded! More mortifying was the news that Wickham had rejected the clergyman livelihood he claimed Darcy had denied him, requesting and receiving money instead, and when he had gambled that away, had tried to elope with Darcy’s fifteen-year-old sister to snag her inheritance. Only then do past discrepancies in Wickham’s actions come clear to her. “‘How despicably have I acted!’ she cried; ‘I, who have prided myself on my discernment! … But vanity … has been my folly. Pleased with the preference of one, and offended by the neglect of the other … I have courted … ignorance, and driven reason away, where either were concerned.’” [ref]Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice (New York: Walter J. Black), 179-198. [/ref]

Understanding motives can make all the difference in our judgments of others. When it comes to Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac, we need to look at God’s motives, and this is something Rachel Held Evans seems to have misjudged. She echoes atheists such as Richard Dawkins by likening Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac to abuse:

… it doesn’t make sense to me that a God whose defining characteristic is supposed to be love would present Himself to His creation in a way that looks nothing like our understanding of love. If love can look like abuse … everything is relativized! Our moral compass is rendered totally unreliable.

In this series, so far we’ve looked at two missing facts that clear up the story. Today we’ll look at a third: God’s motives.

God’s motives

In the story, God asks Abraham to take his son Isaac whom he loved to a mountain and offer him as a burnt offering. It was a test, we’re told. God asked tenderly: The word now in “Take now your son” (NASB) is often translated “please” and has the sense of an entreaty. Scholar Paul Copan says, “God’s directive is unusual: ‘Please take your son’ … God is remarkably gentle as he gives a difficult order. This type of divine command (as a plea) is rare.”[ref]Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011), 47. [/ref] But at the moment of no return, the angel of the Lord stops him and shows him a ram to offer instead.

Why did God ask Abraham to do something he didn’t intend for him to follow through on?

The story tells us one of the motives: It was a test that proved Abraham’s devotion (Genesis 22:1, 12): “Now I know that you fear God.” It also showed God did not want humans sacrificing humans. But there are more.

God’s motives: preaching the gospel to Abraham

Galatians 3:8 tells us that in this story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac, the Scripture foresaw “that God would justify the Gentiles [non-Jews] by faith” and “preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham.” In other words, “the good news of salvation was to be extended to all peoples, including the Gentiles, who would be declared righteous by God, just like Abraham, on the basis of faith.”[ref]Timothy George, New American Commentary – Volume 30: Galatians, (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1994), WORDsearch CROSS e-book, 224. [/ref]

So how did this story preach the gospel?

By portending the Father sacrificing Jesus

Abraham and Isaac were prophets.[ref]Abraham is called a prophet in Genesis 20:7. Isaac received visions and divine revelations in 26:1-4, 24. Psalm 105:9, 15 calls Abraham and Isaac “anointed ones” and “prophets.”[/ref] Sometimes God asked prophets to be portents by performing actions that foreshadowed and explained future events (Isaiah 8:18: “Behold, I and the children whom the Lord has given me are signs and portents”). The actions were often shocking so that they would be remembered when the future event occurred, and people would recognize its significance and that it came from God.

portent (POUR-tent): a sign or warning that (something, especially something momentous or calamitous) is likely to happen

portend (pour-TEND): be a portent

There’s something important here that we shouldn’t miss: When Abraham began to bind Isaac, Isaac understood he was the sacrifice. He was between 15 and 30 and was stronger and faster than his elderly father, but he allowed Abraham to bind him and lay him down on the stack of wood. At this point, Isaac participated willingly.[ref]Kenneth A. Matthews, New American Commentary – Volume 1b: Genesis 11:27-50:26, (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2005), WORDsearch CROSS e-book, 295. [/ref]

Abraham’s near sacrifice of his willing son Isaac portended the Father sacrificing his willing Son Jesus to atone for human sins.

By showing how God would fulfill his promises to Abraham

After the angel stopped Abraham from completing the sacrifice, God said, “In your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice” (Genesis 22:18). According to Galatians 3:16 and 19, this “offspring” is Jesus, and Jesus blessed “all the nations of the earth” by dying to pay the penalty for people’s sins so that those who had faith in him could be declared righteous.

By foretelling Jesus’ substitutionary provision

Just as the Lord God substituted a ram for Isaac, so would the Lord God substitute his Son as a sacrifice for others. Rightly Abraham prophesied, “The Lord will provide” (Genesis 22:8, 14).

God’s motives: providing evidence that Jesus’ crucifixion was in his plan

God preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand so that when Jesus died and rose again, Abraham’s descendants might recognize the parallel and accept his work on the cross as from God. Jesus told the Jews, “For if you believed Moses [that is, the first five books of the Bible], you would believe me; for he wrote of me” (John 5:46). This story is one of the places that the first five books of the Bible talk about Jesus.

But the evidence wasn’t for Jews alone. God also gave this evidence so that non-Jews could see that saving humans through Jesus’ sacrifice was always God’s plan.

God’s motives: showing what his love looks like

Rachel Held Evans said, “The story of Abraham’s binding of Isaac should unsettle every parent and every person with a conscience.” I agree. The story of Abraham and Isaac should unsettle us, just as I’m sure it unsettled Abraham. That’s the point. The Passover Lamb was another sign pointing to Jesus’ sacrifice. But an animal sacrifice didn’t come near to expressing the fullness of what the Father and Son were willing to do to save humankind. Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac does.

Evans said, “It doesn’t make sense to me that a God whose defining characteristic is supposed to be love would present Himself to His creation in a way that looks nothing like our understanding of love.”

Actually, God was demonstrating exactly what his love for sinful people looks like: The Father sending his willing Son to die for humankind’s sins. But no angel stayed the hand of the Father.

Because that’s what love looks like.

Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13

Do God's Motives Matter? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 4 Share on X 'That's what love looks like!' Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 4 Share on X Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac portended the Father sacrificing Jesus Share on X

Part 5 of this series addresses other questions RHE’s post raises, such as, “Might God repeat the request?”

Related Posts
/2 Comments/by
, ,

What made Abraham Different? Answering Rachel Held Evans: Part 3

Rachel Held Evans says if she’d been Abraham, she’d have sooner been struck dead than obeyed; what made Abraham different?

In The Hound of the Baskervilles, Sir Henry Baskerville fumes at a hotel waiter over losing two boots a maid was to have polished: a new brown boot the night before and now an old black boot. Sir Henry returns to his room and finds the first, never-worn boot beneath a cabinet under which he is sure he already looked.

Most see the hotel’s ineptness as annoying, but certainly not connected to the Baskervilles’ larger worries about the curse of a deadly, demonic hound that locals claimed to have seen and heard about the time Sir Henry’s uncle died. Only Sherlock Holmes grasps the boots’ significance and concludes the uncle was murdered and Sir Henry himself is now in danger. Later when all is resolved, Holmes explains to Watson about the missing boots:

… a most instructive incident, since it proved conclusively to my mind that we were dealing with a real hound, as no other supposition could explain this anxiety to obtain an old boot and this indifference to a new one. The more outré and grotesque an incident is the more carefully it deserves to be examined, and the very point which appears to complicate a case is, when duly considered and scientifically handled, the one which is most likely to elucidate it.

In many mystery stories, the key to the solution is found in some odd fact that is overlooked by unskilled observers.

The story of God asking Abraham to sacrifice Isaac is like such mystery stories. The key to understanding Abraham’s response is in a fact whose significance is often missed: God’s miraculous, unmistakable revelation of himself, his trustworthiness, and his power to Abraham. Indeed, it’s a fact that Rachel Held Evans’s post, “I would fail Abraham’s test (and I bet you would too),” overlooks.

What made Abraham different?

Woodcut of the Lord directing Abram to count the stars, for “Die Bibel in Bildern” by Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld, 1860 [public domain]

Recap. In Part 1 of this series, we looked at Evans’s main argument about the Bible story of Abraham’s near sacrifice of Isaac: Either God’s “real test is in whether you refuse,” or “stories” such as these are not “historical realities,” or the “deity you were taught to worship does evil things” so people should “question the deity’s very existence.” This is a faulty dilemma because missing facts make everything clear. Part 2 of this series looked at the missing fact that Abraham’s culture considered ritual human sacrifice to be morally good. Today we’ll look at a second missing fact, one that’s there in the story but which is easily overlooked as significant: miraculous revelation.

About God asking Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, Evans says:

I’d like to think that even if those demands thundered from the heavens in a voice that sounded like God’s, I’d have sooner been struck dead than obeyed them. 

So what made Abraham different?

Abraham different in how God prepared him

The significant fact leading up to Abraham’s test is God’s revelation of himself to Abraham. God prepared Abraham for the test by giving Abraham and his family unmistakable evidence of himself and his character.

  • God revealed his Person: For seventy-five years, Abraham and his family worshiped the moon god Sin and various idols of wood and gold (Joshua 24:2). Then one day God spoke to Abraham and said, “Go … to the land that I will show you” (Genesis 12:1). Think of the significance of this: God spoke. This was a God whom Abraham didn’t know, but this God knew him. When Abraham obeyed and went to the land, God appeared to him in a theophany (12:7). In fact, the story tells us God appeared to him in visions and theophanies multiple times (15:1, 17:1, 18:1). He also appeared to Abraham’s wife (18:9-15). In one theophany, the Lord and two angels ate food Abraham and Sarah prepared (Genesis 18:8). This was unmistakable evidence of God’s presence—in other words, it wasn’t a dream or a vision but a physical encounter.

theophany: A manifestation to humankind of God that is tangible to human senses

  • God revealed he sees, hears, and helps: “Fear not, Abram, I am your shield,” the Lord told Abraham. Abraham and at least five family members—Hagar, Sarah, Lot, Lot’s wife, Lot’s daughters—spoke with angels in ways that communicated that God hears when people cry out and he watches over those who are his (Genesis 16:7, 18:20-21, 19:15-16, 21:17). Additionally, God protected Sarah twice when powerful men tried to take her as wife (12:17-20, 20:3), and he helped Abraham defeat four armies with just 318 men (Genesis 14:1, 14-15).
  • God revealed his justice: The Lord told Abraham that the “outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great,” and he was investigating whether they were as bad as the outcry said (Genesis 18:20-21). Abraham knew the evil of the city so he interceded, asking if the Lord would destroy entire cities if “ten are found there” who are righteous. The Lord said, “For the sake of ten I will not destroy it” (18:32). But ten righteous people could not be found. Two angels rescued Abraham’s nephew and his nephew’s daughters, and fire from heaven destroyed the cities. When Abraham saw the smoke rising from the cities, he knew that God investigates when people cry to him about injustice, and there is a point at which he will destroy those intent on harming others.
  • God revealed his grace: From all we know, Abraham hadn’t lived the first seventy-five years of life honoring God or following his ways. But when God appeared to Abraham in a vision and promised him a son and future offspring as numerous as the stars (Gen. 15), Abraham “believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness.” God showed He cared for Abraham.
  • God revealed his trustworthiness: When God first called Abraham to move to Canaan, he said that he would make of him a great nation. But twenty-four years later, his wife Sarah was ninety, past menopause (“the way of women had ceased to be with Sarah,” Genesis 18:11), and still childless. Yet the Lord appeared and told Abraham and Sarah that Sarah would bear a child by that time the following year. Impossible? Humanly speaking, yes. But God was true to his word, and Sarah conceived and bore Isaac (21:1-2).
  • God revealed his miraculous power: Through all these revelations, theophanies, destruction of evil, extraordinary helps, fulfilled promises, and the miraculous birth of the child of promise—Isaac—Abraham saw God’s unmistakable power and God’s willingness to use it.

Abraham and the angeles

“Abraham and the Angels” by Aert de Gelder, 1680-1685 [public domain]

It’s important not to miss the significance of all this: Abraham knew God. By the time God asked him to sacrifice his son Isaac, Abraham knew God well enough to believe he could trust God even when he didn’t know all the answers. God had promised to make a nation from his son Isaac, and God had asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. To Abraham, both must be true. Thus, as Hebrews 11:19 says, Abraham reasoned that God would raise Isaac from the dead.

Abraham different in calling

The harder the call, the more evidence God gives. God gave Abraham unmistakable evidence of himself not only because he was establishing a covenant—involving God revealing himself to the world through a nation descended through Isaac that could teach his ways—but because he was going to call Abraham to do something exceedingly difficult: the sacrifice of Isaac. For that Abraham needed complete faith in God’s character and promise. Over the 40-55 years between God’s call to Abraham to go to Canaan and his call to sacrifice Isaac, God gave him the evidence he needed to complete the task.

Abraham different in faith

Rachel Held Evans says that if she had been in Abraham’s place, “I’d have sooner been struck dead than obeyed.” What made Abraham different? Abraham saw the evidence of God’s power and goodness; Abraham heard God’s promises about Isaac; and Abraham believed God.

***

Why was this test so important that God carefully prepared Abraham for it? The next post reveals the third missing fact: motive.

Related Posts
Rachel Held Evans says she'd rather be struck dead than obey like Abraham; why'd A obey? Share on X Why Abraham passed the test Rachel Held Evans said she'd sooner be struck dead than pass Share on X Why in the world did Abraham obey when God asked him to sacrifice Isaac? Share on X
/4 Comments/by
, ,

Abraham & Human Sacrifice? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 2

Did Rachel Held Evans miss cultural facts about the binding of Isaac and human sacrifice?

As I read Rachel Held Evans’s blog, “I would fail Abraham’s test (and I bet you would too),” I was reminded of Dorothy Sayers’s mystery novel, Strong Poison. In it, Harriet Vane stands accused of murder with substantial evidence against her. The police are certain of her guilt, but the novel’s hero, Lord Peter Wimsey, knows they’re wrong. Author Os Guinness describes why:

But into that grave situation steps the fearless hero, Lord Peter Wimsey. He knows Harriet, so he believes in her innocence, and his logic has a steel to match the prosecutor’s case. The known facts may be against her, but because he knows her, he knows that the known facts cannot be all the facts. The challenge is to find the missing facts that change the picture entirely. The police had jumped to the wrong conclusion on watertight-seeming evidence that was actually incomplete.[ref] Os Guinness, Fool’s Talk: Recovering the Art of Christian Persuasion (Downers Grove: IVP, 2015), 48, emphasis his. [/ref]

Abraham & human sacrifice

“The Sacrifice of Isaac” by Juan de Valdes Leal, 1659

It’s no surprise that by the end of the novel, Lord Peter has uncovered the missing facts and proven Harriet was framed.

Here’s what the novel has to do with the story of Abraham’s binding of Isaac. Just as the police jumped to conclusions about Harriet Vane’s guilt before they had all the facts, so we can jump to conclusions about God’s guilt in this story before having all the facts, as Evans’s blog post appears to do. Just as Lord Peter knew Harriet enough to trust her and search for the missing facts he knew had to exist, so many Christians know God well enough to trust him until the missing facts come in; Evans readily admits that she is not in such a place of trust yet.

Evans’s main argument, as I understand it, is that the conscience “God … imprinted us all with” tells her “that I would sooner turn my back on everything I know to be true than sacrifice my child on the altar of religion” as Abraham almost did; therefore, either God’s “real test is in whether you refuse,” or “stories” such as these are not “historical realities,” or the “deity you were taught to worship does evil things” so “question the deity’s very existence.” In short, either Abraham failed God’s test, or the story isn’t historically authentic, or a good God doesn’t exist.

I addressed why the first two options of Evans’s argument are unsatisfactory: (a) both the Old and New Testaments affirm that Abraham’s obedience was what God wanted; and (b) the New Testament treats the story not only as historically authentic, but as preaching the gospel beforehand, with Abraham and Isaac prophetically acting out a momentous future event (more on this in a future post).

Now, the question remains, if the story is historically accurate, does it make God into a deity who “does evil things” that “look like abuse” such that “our moral compass is rendered totally unreliable”? No, this is a faulty dilemma: we could be missing the facts that clear up the issues.

Indeed, most of us when we first read this story are missing three types of facts:

  1. Cultural facts: facts about the culture which are missing from the story
  2. Overlooked facts: facts that are in the story but which have significance that is easily overlooked
  3. Motive: theological facts that are revealed later

It is the cultural facts that I want to examine today.

Now, Evans does say the story “makes a bit more sense in its ancient Near Eastern context.” But she neither explains that context nor tells why she considers it insufficient.

Abraham lived in a culture gone terribly wrong

Genesis says that Abraham was born in the city of Ur (traditionally in 2166 b.c.). Abraham and his extended family worshiped “other gods” (Josh. 24:2). Throughout the ancient Near East by this time, people believed that deities were behind the forces of nature. These deities weren’t much interested in human lives, and so to get their attention and manipulate them to drive nature in beneficial ways (for instance, send rain), people acted out rituals.

In Abraham’s birthplace Ur, religious rituals included human sacrifice. One of the most startling excavations from Ur is the so-called “Royal Cemetery” with its pits containing human sacrifices, most of them adults.[ref] Laerke Recht, “Symbolic Order: Liminality and Simulation in Human Sacrifice in the Bronze-age Aegean and Near East,” Journal of Religion and Violence (Academic Publishing, ISSN 0738-098X, 2014), 2:3, 413-414. [/ref] One pit had over seventy human sacrifices elaborately arrayed.

Human sacrifices found in Ur date prior to and during the age in which Abraham lived.[ref]Laerke Recht, “Human sacrifice in the ancient Near East,” Trinity College Dublin Journal of Postgraduate Research (Dublin: Brunswick Press, 2010), 9:171. Recht says, “The tradition of human sacrifice appears to have continued at Ur into the Ur III period, as shown by the evidence from the Mausoleum of King Shulgi and Amar-sin, where one tomb chamber belonged to the king, and another contained a number of human skeletons, interpreted as sacrificial victims.” [/ref] Later, Abraham moved to Haran, not far from other sites where human sacrifices have been uncovered from the same age in which Abraham lived (see ANE Human Sacrifices).

Although there were also infant sacrifices in the regions, these are mostly adult sacrifices. This is significant because at the time God tested Abraham by asking him to sacrifice Isaac, Isaac was not a child: he was around fifteen to thirty.

na’ar: boy or young man?

The story of Abraham binding Isaac is in Genesis 22; the prior chapter (21) brings Isaac to adolescence and in the following chapter (23) he is thirty-seven. The ESV translates the Hebrew word na’ar as “boy” in Genesis 22:5, 12, but elsewhere translates it “young man.” The word is used of the trained men who went with Abraham to rescue Lot (Gen. 14:24); of the men who attempted to rape angels (Gen. 19:4); of Joseph at age 28 (Gen. 41:12); of the spies whom Rahab hid (Jos. 6:23); of trained soldiers (2Sam. 2:14); and of Absalom when he tried to overthrow David’s throne (2Sam. 18:32).[/notice]

Abraham’s culture did not think human sacrifice wrong

The people of Abraham’s day would not have thought there was anything immoral about human sacrifices. In fact, they considered it an act of great piety. Archaeologist Laerke Recht notes that we should take care in our assumptions because “we may see a creature being sacrificed as a ‘victim’, while others could see it as honoured, sacred or some other aspect not immediately clear to us.”[ref]Recht, Journal of Religion and Violence, 404. Emphasis mine. [/ref]

Additionally, in cultures that believed in gods that give blessings in return for sacrifices, sacrificing offspring would be considered a moral good. Imagine living in such a culture during a time of catastrophic drought: Children will die if no rain comes. In such a culture, it would be morally obligatory to do all you can to appease the gods and save your village. Oxford professor John Day says, “Desperate circumstances required desperate measures … and the offering of human sacrifice was thought to possess especially strong apotropaic power.”[ref]John Day, Molech: A god of human sacrifice in the Old Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 62-63. [/ref]

apotropaic: intended to ward off evil[/notice]

Abraham would not have thought that God’s request to sacrifice Isaac was morally wrong; it is more likely he considered it normal. Still, he believed God’s promises about Isaac and told his servants that he and Isaac would return together after the sacrifice (Genesis 22:5); Hebrews 11:19 says he considered that God would raise Isaac from the dead.

God’s provision brought a shift

Abraham lived in Ur where human sacrifice was practiced

“Ram Caught in Thicket” was found in Royal Cemetery of Ur along with many ritual human sacrifices

When Abraham took his knife to sacrifice Isaac, the angel of the Lord called to him and told him not to touch Isaac. Abraham looked and saw a ram caught in a thicket. Abraham offered the ram as a sacrifice and called the name of the place, “The Lord will provide.”

The answer

Rachel Held Evans asserts that if God did not mean for Abraham to protest and the story is historically accurate, then God is a deity who “does evil things” that “look like abuse” such that “our moral compass is rendered totally unreliable.” But the cultural facts tell us something different.

God asked Abraham to perform the ritual act that his culture considered the ultimate sign of devotion and perhaps the ultimate moral good. It was a test and proof to all that Abraham’s devotion to his God was as high as all others’ devotion to their gods. Then the Lord God provided a ram to show that this God was different: This God did not want humans sacrificing humans.

By this act the Lord showed he wanted his followers’ full devotion, as much devotion as they gave to other gods, but—again—he did not want humans sacrificing humans. By this act he depicted a future event which would open the way for sinful humans to have relationship with God and show the fullness of the Prophet Abraham’s words, “The Lord will provide.”

***

In the next post, we’ll examine a fact whose significance is often overlooked.

Did Rachel Held Evans miss cultural facts re: Abraham & Isaac? #apologetics Share on X Was Abraham wrong? Part 2, answering Rachel Held Evans #apologetics Share on X Human sacrifice in Ur helps explain Abraham's test #apologetics Share on X
Related Posts
/4 Comments/by
, , ,

Was Abraham Wrong? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 1

Does conscience require us to stamp the story of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac as unhistorical or Abraham wrong and a moral failure?

Was Abraham wrong in the binding of Isaac?

“The Sacrifice of Abraham” by Rembrandt, 1635: In this earlier work, the angel knocks the knife from Abraham

Best-selling author Rachel Held Evans has a popular blog, speaks frequently, and has published three books through the Christian publishers Thomas Nelson and Zondervan. One of her blogs garnered a lot of attention: “I would fail Abraham’s test (and I bet you would too).” You may recall that in Genesis 22, God tests Abraham by asking him to sacrifice his son Isaac on a mountain. The aged Abraham and young man Isaac go to the mountain. Isaac allows his father to bind him and lay him atop a stack of wood, but as Abraham takes up his knife, an angel stops him. Abraham then sees a ram caught in a thicket behind him and sacrifices it instead.

Rachel Held Evans’s Reimagined Text

Here’s what Evans wrote about Genesis 22 (emphases hers):

It’s a test I’m certain I would have failed:

Get your son. Get a knife. Slit his throat and set him on fire.

I’d like to think that even if those demands thundered from the heavens in a voice that sounded like God’s, I’d have sooner been struck dead than obeyed them.

Regardless of one’s interpretation of this much-debated and reimagined text (which makes a bit more sense in its ancient Near Eastern context), the story of Abraham’s binding of Isaac should unsettle every parent and every person with a conscience. Yes, God provided a lamb, but only after Abraham gathered the wood, loaded up the donkey, made the journey, arranged the altar, tied his son to the stake, and raised the knife in the air.

Be honest. Would you have even gathered the wood?

I think I would have failed Abraham’s test.  And I think you would have too.

And I’m beginning to think that maybe that’s okay….

Evans’s “reimagined text” has God callously barking out orders and Abraham tying his son to a stake—embellishments that make a difficult text more difficult, that create a straw man that’s easier to defeat than the actual text, and that obscure the text’s real meaning.

straw man fallacy: Arguing against a distortion, an exaggeration, or a misrepresentation of someone’s position rather than against the actual position.

Alternative: Not Historical Reality

Evans later brings up Joshua driving the Canaanites out of the Promised Land to show why the two stories may not be true:

Those who defend these stories as historical realities representative of God’s true desires and actions in the world typically respond to challenges to that interpretation by declaring: “God is God, and … we have no business questioning [what he commands]”

Here Evans is not among those who “defend these stories as historical realities”; in other words, she thinks Genesis 22 may be false.

The Sacrifice of Abraham Wrong?

“Abraham’s Sacrifice” by Rembrandt, 1655: In this later work, the angel tenderly wraps his arms around Abraham

Why does Evans doubt these passages are real events? She says that “God … imprinted us all with a conscience—with a deep sense of right and wrong,” and to accept “as just … actions I believe are evil” would be “to deny that conscience.” One of the actions her conscience tells her is wrong is God’s command to Abraham, because she (like atheist Richard Dawkins) thinks the command looks like abuse:

… it doesn’t make sense to me that a God whose defining characteristic is supposed to be love would present Himself to His creation in a way that looks nothing like our understanding of love. If love can look like abuse … everything is relativized! Our moral compass is rendered totally unreliable.

Alternative: God Doesn’t Exist

She explains that she doesn’t want to accept these stories as true because if they are

This is a hard God to root for. It’s a hard God to defend against all my doubts and all the challenges posed by science, reason, experience, and intuition. I once heard someone say he became an atheist for theological reasons, and that makes sense to me. Once you are convinced that the deity you were taught to worship does evil things, it’s easier to question the deity’s very existence than it is to set aside your moral objections and worship anyway.

Alternative: Abraham Wrong & Failed the Test

So far she’s presented two alternatives: the stories are not historical realities or God doesn’t exist. Evans ends with a third alternative:

I am not yet a mother, and still I know, deep in my gut, that I would sooner turn my back on everything I know to be true than sacrifice my child on the altar of religion. 

Maybe the real test isn’t in whether you drive the knife through the heart.

Maybe the real test is in whether you refuse.

So if God is good and did ask Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, then, in Evans’ mind, the test was in whether Abraham would refuse, and since Abraham didn’t refuse, he failed the “real test.” This alternative makes Abraham wrong and a moral failure.

***

Those strong statements contradict the Bible’s estimation of Abraham being an exemplar of faith for this very deed. And Evans’s first alternative—pitching perplexing Bible passages—always leads to bigger doubts about the Bible as a whole and about whether any of it can be trusted.

Should Christians follow Evans’s lead? Do we need to reject the Bible’s assessment of Abraham or call the chapter fiction?

Not at all.

My husband tried to contact Evans through her publicist and referenced my 2011 post, “Abraham, Isaac & Child Sacrifice,” and the publicist said Evans would get back to him, but she never did. Her post poses questions I didn’t address, so I’ll address them here in a series, beginning today by defining and examining Evans’s main argument. Although Evans flits from Bible story to Bible story as she presents her reasons for doubting this one, for this series I’ll address the questions as they pertain just to the story of Abraham binding Isaac.

Rachel Held Evans’s Main Argument

Evans is right to ask questions and seek answers. Of course she should not “disengage my emotions and intellect and keep them a safe distance from my faith.” It saddens me whenever I hear anyone has been told that.

The sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham wrong?

“The Sacrifice of Isaac” by Juan de Valdes Leal, 1659

But there are good, solid answers to the Abraham-Isaac questions that don’t call for discarding parts of the Bible and historic Christian doctrine.

Let’s look at Evans’s main argument. As I understand it, it goes like this:

The conscience “God … imprinted us all with” tells her “that I would sooner turn my back on everything I know to be true than sacrifice my child on the altar of religion” as Abraham almost did; therefore, either

    • God’s “real test is in whether you refuse,” or
    • “stories” such as these are not “historical realities,” or
    • the “deity you were taught to worship does evil things” so “it’s easier to question the deity’s very existence than it is to set aside your moral objections and worship anyway.”

To summarize:

Her conscience tells her sacrificing an offspring is wrong; therefore, either

    • God meant for Abraham to refuse to obey, or
    • the story about Abraham and Isaac is historically false, or
    • the God revealed in the Bible does not exist.

Let’s look at that first option.

Was Abraham wrong? Did he fail the test?

Evans says, “Maybe the real test is in whether you refuse,” proposing that Abraham failed the test. Here obedience made Abraham wrong. In her follow-up post the next week, she quotes a rabbi who says that Abraham failed the test because he should have protested.

Is this interpretation valid?

No, because it doesn’t fit the text.

Both the OT and NT affirm that Abraham’s obedience was what God wanted.

First, Genesis 22 says God neither rebuked nor corrected Abraham; rather, he blessed him for his action: “because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you … because you have obeyed my voice” (Genesis 22:15-18, emphasis mine).

Second, the New Testament repeatedly praises Abraham for the offering. James writes that Abraham was “justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar” and that this act fulfilled the Scripture that said, “Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness (James 2:21, 23). The author of Hebrews tells us, “By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac” because he “considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead” (Hebrews 11:17-19).

Both the Old Testament and New Testament, then, affirm that Abraham’s obedience was what God wanted. His obedience did not make Abraham wrong and a moral failure.

So the first option—that Abraham should have refused to obey—doesn’t at all fit the text. Let’s look at Evans’s second option: the story about Abraham and Isaac never happened.

Is Rachel Held Evans right that Abraham failed the test when he bound Isaac? #apologetics Share on X

Is the story not “historical reality”?

The main trouble with this view for Christians is that, as we saw above, the New Testament treats the story as something that actually happened. Jesus himself honored Abraham and praised his works (John 8:39).

Moreover, Paul writes that Genesis 22 “preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham … the man of faith” (Galatians 3:8-9). How? The prophets Abraham and Isaac were acting out a future event—the Father sending the Son as a sacrifice for sins—so that the Jews would recognize the significance of the future event when it happened (more on this in a coming post).

New Testament scholar D. A. Carson says that when Jesus said, “Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad” (John 8:56), he referred to the binding of Isaac and the promise resulting from it of the blessing of all nations:

Even if ‘to see my day’ does not mean some prophetic vision of the literal fulfilment of prophecy in Jesus and his ministry, but some vision, however vague, of the promise inherent in the binding of Isaac or (better) of the covenant promising that in him all the nations of the earth would be blessed …, the fact remains that Jesus identifies the ultimate fulfilment of all Abraham’s hopes and joys with his own person and work.[ref]D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 357.[/ref]

Sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham

“Sacrifice of Isaac” by Caravaggio, 1603

Besides the New Testament’s testimony to the binding of Isaac being an actual historical event, there’s the difficulty that atheists will consider it cheating that Evans claims that the parts of the Bible she likes are true and the parts she doesn’t like are false. Tim Keller calls this making a God in your own image, and, ironically, Evans agrees that “we can’t go …bending God into our own image.”

This course of action doesn’t ultimately console Christians either, because they know that once you toss out passages you don’t like, you’re going to wonder whether you have any logical reason to keep the passages you do like.

Such as salvation by grace.

Is Rachel Held Evans right--the story of Abraham binding Isaac isn't historical? #apologetics Share on X

Does a good God exist then?

Are we stuck then with Evans’s final alternative: a good God doesn’t exist?

Certainly not.

This is a faulty dilemma. There are at least two more alternatives: (1) we could be missing facts that clear up the issues, or (2) we could have a mistaken conscience. We’ll look at those options in the rest of this series. There we’ll see the bigger context of what God was doing in Abraham’s life and what the Scripture means when it says Scripture “preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham.” We will see why this story is an integral part of the gospel and how it served to bring people to know him.

faulty dilemma: presenting two (or three) views, options, or outcomes in such a way that they seem to be the only alternatives.

***

Next, part 2 of this series addresses Rachel Held Evans’s main argument by explaining missing cultural facts that clear up parts of the story.

Does conscience force us to reject the story of Abraham binding Isaac? #apologetics Share on X
Related Posts
/8 Comments/by
,

Courage: Jacob’s Example Part 5

Part five of a five-part message accompanying chapter 2 of The Story

What happens when we know what’s right to do, but doing it is a struggle? I resonate with Jacob’s seven courageous steps as he returned home despite his brother’s vow to kill him. In earlier posts, I mentioned that Jacob in faith immediately started on his way. When circumstances worsened, he prayed and repeated God’s promise to him. He arranged to repay the debt he owed his brother. Then he risked losing everything dear to him by sending his family and all his possessions across the river where Esau advanced. We come now to Jacob’s final two courageous steps.

Wrestle in Prayer

Ruben's painting of Jacob and Esau reconciling
Peter Paul Rubens, “The Reconciliation of Jacob and Esau,” 1624

Several years ago I wrestled in prayer late into the night seeking wisdom. Finally, at 2:00 a.m. the answers came clearly, I understood the situation in a new way, and realized what needed to be done, and was at peace.

The next morning I turned to a Psalm, and there found a verse declaring God’s attitude towards the type of situation I faced. Marveling at God’s continued guidance, I scribbled notes in my Bible’s yellowing pages and pondered over how often it seems that effective wrestling prayer happens at night. Paul talked about “wrestling in prayer … that you may stand firm in all the will of God, mature and fully assured” (Colossians 4:12). Wrestling prayer is transformational and especially suited for finding God’s will and standing firm in it.

From there I turned to Genesis and read that just as I’d wrestled through the night as I prepared to meet my situation, so Jacob wrestled through the night as he prepared to meet Esau.

After Jacob sent his loved ones and treasures across the cold river in the darkness of night, he remained behind. By the river’s banks in an outward struggle that mirrored the conflict within him, he wrestled with a man through the night (Genesis 32:24). It turned out this was no ordinary man: the Divine had appeared in a physical form that allowed Jacob to interact.

Jacob wrestled until daybreak, when the man touched Jacob’s hip, wrenching it and making obvious the man was no human and could have disabled Jacob at any time. Now Jacob lost the physical strength on which he depended, and would be unable to fight if his brother attacked.

The man commanded Jacob to let go of him, but Jacob refused, entreating the man to bless him first. The man then said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome (Genesis 32:28).

Wrestling through the night transformed him from Jacob—“he who supplants”—to Israel—“God struggles.”

Just as Jacob wrestled until he was transformed, so we wrestle in prayer until we’re transformed and God blesses us with the understanding and peace we need.

The man disappeared and Jacob had just one step left.

Just Obey

As the sun arose, Jacob crossed over the river and limped ahead of his family to meet his brother. He bowed seven times before Esau.

Limping, weak, and tired, he courageously faced that day’s challenge.

In so doing, he showed his changed character. He advanced first before his family, not holding back in case he needed to escape. He bowed to Esau and called him lord, thus respecting him as older instead of trying to supplant him. He humbly acknowledged all he had came from God instead of greedily grasping for greater. He made restitution, and when Esau refused it, he insisted on repaying his wrongs.

God gave Jacob the covenant blessing. It was a gift, not a treasure taken by treachery. His character was transformed. And God delivered him as promised, for unbeknownst to Jacob God had already changed Esau’s heart: “But Esau ran to meet Jacob and embraced him; he threw his arms around his neck and kissed him. And he wept” (Genesis 33:4).

By humbly and courageously obeying God, Jacob had allowed God to change him.

***

Do you have before you a task which takes courage? Here are the seven ways Jacob courageously obeyed:

Start on the way
Be still and pray
Promises say
Try debt to pay
Risk come what may
Wrestling pray
Then just obey

Related posts

Courage: Jacob’s Example Part 1

Courage: Jacob’s Example Part 2

Courage: Jacob’s Example Part 3

Courage: Jacob’s Example Part 4

/4 Comments/by
,

Courage: Jacob’s Example Part 4

Part four of a five-part message accompanying chapter 2 of The Story

How do we courageously obey God when obedience is risky? I find help in Jacob’s seven courageous steps as he returned home despite his brother’s vow to kill him. In earlier posts, I mentioned that Jacob in faith immediately started on his way when God told him to go home; that when circumstances worsened, he prayed and repeated God’s promise to him; and that he arranged to repay the debt he owed his brother. We come now to Jacob’s fifth step of courage: risking all to obey the God he trusted.

Risk Come What May

Ruben's painting of Jacob and Esau reconcilingPeter Paul Rubens, “The Reconciliation of Jacob and Esau,” 1624

At eighteen, I worked for a secretarial agency during a bad recession. Business was scant. One day the owner excitedly told me she had an idea on how to increase income by restructuring rates, and she asked me to call competitors, say I had a large job, and ask for quotes. I thought, “She’s a Christian and an adult, and she thinks it’s okay. Besides, who could it hurt?” I complied, but was dismayed when a competitor excitedly asked for details. I realized I’d raised the hopes of someone desperate for work. Convicted because I knew the Bible forbade lying, I committed to never do this again.

Years later, that commitment was tested. I’d been at a new job only a couple months when a successful and driven sales VP asked me to make a similar call. I prayed for alternatives, and then offered to see if my assistant would take the assignment directly from him and, if not, to call the competitor and ask for pricing directly, explaining that as a Christian I wasn’t comfortable lying. His pricey pen froze midair as his deep-set eyes glared under thick gray eyebrows.

My assistant declined, so the next morning I prayed for God’s help, called the competitor, and requested pricing. When he asked from what company I was calling, I told him honestly. Sounding surprised, he gave me the numbers and said they were public knowledge anyway. I passed them on to my still angry boss. He didn’t fire me, but he did pile on unpleasant work for a couple weeks, apparently testing whether I would refuse anything else. It took time, but we eventually had a good working relationship.

A year later he told me what happened. He had gone home that night furious and told his wife he was firing me the next day. She asked him why he would fire someone he’d just learned he could trust even at the risk of losing her job. He grudgingly delayed firing me, and finally decided having an honest employee was valuable.

We all face times when obeying God brings risk. That’s what Jacob faced as he stood at the bank of a cold river in the middle of the night. On the other side was the home to which God commanded him to go. But also on the other side was danger, for his brother Esau was advancing with 400 men.

Working in darkness, Jacob trusted in God’s promise and sent his entire family and all his possessions across the water that separated him from Esau.

It’s one thing to pray as he had earlier, “God, all that I have is undeserved.” It’s another to actually obey knowing we may lose what’s dear to us. That takes courage.

The willingness to suffer the repercussions of doing right, to accept loss as a possible part of God’s plan, and to embrace an uncertain future as being part of the trustworthy plans of a just and good God requires recognizing that we are servants of the most high God. It’s where we do what’s right despite the potential cost. It’s where the mother releases her college-bound child, the husband his financial security, and the grief-ridden their beloved into the hands of God. It’s where we let go and trust.

We leave our story now with Jacob still on the safer side of the river, knowing God wants him to cross over and face his brother. The next post brings us Jacob’s final two courageous steps.

Related Posts

Courage: Jacob’s Example Part 1

Courage: Jacob’s Example Part 2

Courage: Jacob’s Example Part 3

Courage: Jacob’s Example Part 5

 

/3 Comments/by
,

Courage: Jacob’s Example Part 3

Part three of a five-part message accompanying chapter 2 of The Story

Years ago I decided that any time I said something negative about someone to a person who didn’t need to know, I would go to the person I’d talked to and say, “When I told you about so-and-so, I was gossiping and that was wrong. I apologize, and I ask that you not let the story go further.” I dreaded doing this, but I knew it was the least I could do to repay my debt to the person I’d wronged.

Ruben's painting of Jacob and Esau reconciling

Peter Paul Rubens, "The Reconciliation of Jacob and Esau," 1624

It’s often hard to admit our wrongs. We may fear losing face or suffering retaliation. Some people avoid those they’ve wronged at all costs. Yet Jesus said we should make things right with those who have something against us even before we bring God gifts (Matthew 5:23–24). This was Jacob’s predicament as he paused before the river separating him from Esau.

In my last two posts we saw that God told Jacob to go home, a place he’d fled twenty years before because his brother Esau vowed to kill him. Jacob courageously started on his way, but panicked when he heard Esau was coming with four hundred men. He stopped franticly planning long enough to pray and repeat God’s promise to him.

Apparently during Jacob’s prayer time, the Holy Spirit encouraged him to make amends. After all, the split between Esau and him was his fault: he had deceitfully defrauded his brother.

Isn’t that a common result of prayer? The Holy Spirit reminds us of the issues we haven’t really dealt with appropriately and tugs our conscience, reminding us we actually have to make things right. Jacob’s return home required another courageous step.

Repay Debts

Jacob stayed up that night and selected a gift for his brother Esau (Genesis 32:13). Officially, he didn’t owe Esau anything: his father’s oral blessing was legally binding even though Jacob had tricked his dad into thinking he was Esau. But spiritually, he needed to make things right. From all that Jacob had, he separated out that which would make restitution to his brother. In so doing, he let go of the greed that had driven him to defraud Esau.

Coming clean when we’ve wronged someone takes courage. Our pride likes to keep us from admitting our wrongs, and tempts us to justify ourselves by looking at the other person’s wrongs (real or not). But repaying debts we have the means to repay and apologizing for wrongdoing is essential for spiritual growth and healthy relationships.

Jacob couldn’t make up for all the pain he’d caused, but he readied what he could before meeting the challenge that comes next in this series.

Related Posts

Courage: Jacob’s Example Part 1

Courage: Jacob’s Example Part 2

Courage: Jacob’s Example Part 4

Courage: Jacob’s Example Part 5

 

 

/3 Comments/by
,

Courage: Jacob’s Example Part 2

Part two of a five-part message accompanying chapter 2 of The Story
Ruben's painting of Jacob and Esau reconciling
Peter Paul Rubens, “The Reconciliation of Jacob and Esau,” 1624

Sometimes doing what’s right brings hardship. An addict who finally seeks help must face all those things he was running from that got him hooked in the first place. Obeying Jesus’ command to talk to others about sin can strain relationships. Moving because we sense God’s call brings difficult adjustments and many losses. As happened to me, addressing a co-worker’s inappropriate actions can increase tensions in the workplace. The courageous course often passes through dark valleys.

Jacob’s was. In my last post, Jacob courageously started on his way to obey God’s command to return home, but heard Esau was coming with four hundred men.

With adrenaline flowing and heart racing, Jacob planned for the worse. He divided the people into two groups, thinking if Esau attacked one, the other could escape. Perhaps he considered fleeing back with the escapees if God didn’t come through.

But Jacob was a prophet and God’s command to go home was unmistakable. He didn’t allow panic to rule: he took another courageous step.

Be Still and Pray

Jacob stopped his frantic planning and prayed, a courageous step both because he had to pause from preparing to protect himself and because honest prayer opens us up to hearing what we might not want to hear, such as a word to move in a direction we’d rather not go.

Here’s Jacob’s faith-fostering prayer:

First, he recalled his relationship with God: He called God the God of his grandfather, Abraham, and his father, Isaac. He cried out, “O Lord, who said to me, ‘Go back to your country and your relatives, and I will make you prosper’” (Genesis 32:9).

Second, he remembered that God’s blessings are undeserved: “I am unworthy of all the kindness and faithfulness you have shown your servant. I had only my staff when I crossed this Jordan, but now I have become two groups” (32:10). When we fear losing something, remembering that what we have is undeserved keeps us from concluding God owes us.

Third, he honestly stated his fear: “Save me, I pray, from the hand of my brother Esau, for I am afraid he will come and attack me, and also the mothers with their children” (32:11). Sometimes we think fear is of itself sinful, and that keeps us from admitting our fears to God and honestly asking for what we need. But Jacob didn’t do that: He told God exactly what he was afraid might happen.

Prayers like this calm fear. Do we fear financial ruin and loss of status? Do we worry about others’ opinions? Do we dread the loss of a beloved who brings us joy, companionship, and strength? Are we anxious over our child’s uncertain future? We can pray like Jacob.

Jacob’s prayer had a fourth element, but it’s so important that it stands alone as an important step of courage.

Promises Say

Jacob repeated God’s promise to him: “But you have said, ‘I will surely make you prosper and will make your descendants like the sand of the sea, which cannot be counted’” (Genesis 32:12). Can’t you just hear peace calming his heart in the words, “But you have said,” as Jacob courageously put his trust in God’s promise? “But you have said” turns our focus from fear to faith.

Few things build faith and calm fear more than repeating God’s promises. When we need courage, we can write out God’s promises on cards and place them where we’ll see them often. We can memorize his promises and repeat them over and over until they’re a part of us. We can pray, “But you have said.” There’s nothing like God’s promises to bring peace in the presence of fear.

Jacob still hadn’t completed God’s task, though. We’ll continue this story in the next post.

Related Posts

Courage: Jacob’s Example Part 1

Courage: Jacob’s Example Part 3

Courage: Jacob’s Example Part 4

Courage: Jacob’s Example Part 5

 

 

/4 Comments/by
,

Courage: Jacob’s Example Part 1

Part one of a five-part message accompanying chapter 2 of The Story
Ruben's painting of Jacob and Esau reconciling

Peter Paul Rubens, "The Reconciliation of Jacob and Esau," 1624

When I was about 21 and working at a megachurch, a co-worker more than twice my age to whom I didn’t report moved two brown filing cabinets into my cubicle and dropped on my desk a foot-high stack of invoices to be filed and handwritten letters on yellow paper to be typed. A manager laughed when I told him and said to tell the co-worker his work wasn’t my job. As I tried, this much taller man with tight, grizzled curls and bristly beard lifted his chin high, stared down at me from watery blue eyes that drooped slightly at the outer corners, frowned, and said that I had to do whatever he said because I was a woman and he was a man.

As I tried to get myself out of this increasingly tense situation, my mouth felt full of cotton, my hand trembled, and I stuttered for the first time in my memory.

Later that afternoon he repeated his comments to the church’s chief administrator and was fired. But one thing I learned from that bizarre experience is that sometimes nervousness, tension, and fear bring unexpected physical responses that we can’t control.

I used to think just feeling fear was sinful: it’s not. God gave us physical responses so we could perceive and escape danger quickly. Many “Do not fear” verses are akin to a loving mother telling her child on the first day of school, “Don’t be afraid—you’ll be okay.” Others, like Jesus’ admonition not to fear those who can kill the body but not the soul (Luke 12:4), exhort us to courageously obey despite fear of consequences.

Courage isn’t the absence of fear, but the willingness to do what’s right despite fear.

Revelation 21:8 initially struck me as odd: it says that the coward’s final destination is hell. You see, to continually disobey out of fear of losing something is to love that thing more than God—it’s idol worship. It’s the opposite of what Jesus said his followers must do: deny themselves and be willing to lose everything in the world and even their own lives for him (Matthew 16:24–26). Following Jesus takes courage.

C. S. Lewis put it this way in The Screwtape Letters: “Courage is not simply one of the virtues but the form of every virtue at the testing point, which means at the point of highest reality.”

The Old Testament gives us an example of courageous obedience in the story of Jacob’s reunion with his twin brother, Esau. Jacob had fled Esau, who wanted to kill him. Yet God told Jacob to return home despite his fear. Jacob met the challenges he faced courageously in seven ways we can emulate.

Start on the Way

When God told Jacob to return home to his family, he’d been gone twenty years. His brother had vowed to kill him after Jacob tricked their father into giving him what belonged to Esau. Their mother had told Jacob she’d let him know when Esau’s anger subsided, but word never came. Nonetheless God told him to go home and promised to be with him. Jacob set out with his family, possessions, herds, flocks, and servants without knowing how God would protect him.

When we know what’s right to do, the first courageous step is to simply start on the way.

Starting out courageously is no guarantee all will go smoothly, however. Jacob sent Esau a message saying he was heading home. But when the messengers returned, they reported Esau was coming with four hundred men.

As with Jacob, when we courageously obey, our situation may seem to worsen. Jacob needed to continue to courageously act, as we’ll see in my next post.

Related Posts

Courage: Jacob’s Example Part 2

Courage: Jacob’s Example Part 3

Courage: Jacob’s Example Part 4

Courage: Jacob’s Example Part 5

 

/4 Comments/by