Christian Living, Encouragement, Message Series, Spiritual Practices

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.

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:

May 26, 2016/10 Comments/by Jean E. Jones

Apologetics, Bible Perplexities, Bible Study, Psalms

Does God send good people to hell?

A reader asks this about good people:

There seem to be a lot of good people doing kind things out there; it’s hard to believe they will be condemned to hell because the only way there is Jesus. I reconcile myself with knowing my Savior is 100% good. But does God send good people to hell just because they don’t accept Jesus as Savior?

To paraphrase R. C. Sproul, “Nothing happens to good people because good people do not need salvation.” Of course, the clear teaching of both the Old and New Testaments is that although some people appear outwardly good, there are no truly good people:

The LORD looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one. Psalm 14:2-3

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, Romans 3:23

Now, the Biblical notion that no one is good puzzles people, especially Americans. A 2006 Barna survey found that Americans “generally see themselves as good people, spiritually stable, and living a good and honorable life.” They “hold a generally favorable impression of themselves”: 97% think they are “a good citizen,” 94% think they’re “friendly,” and 90% say they’re “generous.”

Fallen fence stripped of ivy that hid termite infestation

So why the disparity between what Americans think about themselves and what the Bible says? I think that’s best explained with an analogy.

Fifteen-foot New Zealand tea trees with ruby red flowers screened and shaded our yard for twenty-five years, until they died suddenly a few weeks ago. When we pulled them out, our five-foot wood fence covered in English ivy stood visible for the first time in decades, swaying a bit. That night, the wind knocked the fence over, stripping away ivy as it fell and exposing extensive termite damage and decay.

A fence can look good without actually being good.

So can people. Here are seven reasons why.

1) Looking Good Doesn’t Make Us Good People

Today in America, we’ve got a “fence” of laws and etiquette rules. We tend to think that those who stay on the law-abiding side of that fence are good people.

In Jesus’ day, there was a group of people who likewise had a “fence” of rules that went beyond what God commanded, rules that, if you followed them, most people would say that you’re a good person. Though we think negatively about them now, in Jesus’ day most everyone thought the Pharisees were the epitome of good. Except Jesus: Jesus knew their hearts weren’t pure.

Americans are like Pharisees: We think law-abiding, charitable people are good, because we forget the heart.

Termite damage

The English ivy covering our fence hid the infestation of termites beneath; we had to look closely and peel back the ivy to see the true condition of the fence.

In the same way, outwardly following decent laws and rules can cover what’s in our hearts and can hide an infestation of hatred, lusts, self-indulgence, and greed within. We need to look closely and peel back our outward good deeds to see the true condition of our hearts.

For example, Jesus explained that fantasizing things you want to do but don’t want to get caught doing—such as hurting someone you hate or sleeping with someone other than your spouse—is sinning in your heart and taints you (1 John 3:15; Matthew 5:28); after all, if the only reason you don’t do what you want to do is you don’t want to get caught and suffer the consequences, then you’re refraining out of self-interest, not goodness. Jesus called controlling outward actions while letting the heart run amok to be equivalent to splashing white paint over a sepulcher of decay, stench, and rot (Matthew 23:27-28).

2) Mere Looking Good has to Go

Although Clay had often examined the fence closely and knew of the termite damage for years, the neighbor who planted the ivy declined replacing the fence because it meant losing the ivy he liked so much. Similarly, we can decline to fix our heart issues because it may mean we’ll lose the outward trappings we think make us look good.

3) Doing Good Doesn’t Make Us Good People

Rufous hummingbird perched on orange honeysuckle vine that hid fence’s damage

In a narrow stretch where the tea trees didn’t grow, our fence started curving awkwardly beneath its green ivy load a few years ago, letting us know something was amiss. But an orange honeysuckle vine took root and quickly shot up a dozen feet, hiding the evidence that anything was wrong with the fence while displaying gorgeous orange trumpet flowers that delighted rufous hummingbirds and bright yellow orioles.

Likewise, if we donated money to help Hurricane Katrina victims and watch our neighbors’ yards while they vacation, these good deeds shoot up, look gorgeous, and delight those they help. But just as the honeysuckle hid the termites but didn’t remove them, so our good deeds may hide our sins but can’t remove them.

4) What Darkness Hides Decays

The variegated ivy that clambered up the fence and tea trees grew so thick that sunlight couldn’t break through. In the dank darkness, the fence decayed.

In the same way, Jesus said those who thought they were good—“who trusted in themselves that they were righteous”—wouldn’t bring their deeds to God’s light because “anyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed” (Luke 18:9-14; John 3:20). Because they didn’t acknowledge their sins, they didn’t ask for forgiveness and so they were left unjustified, with their moral decay spreading in spiritual darkness (Luke 18:14, 16:25; Matthew 23:27).

5) What Darkness Hides Breeds

‘Aventures de la famille Raton’ by Felicien de Myrbach-Rheinfeld (1853—1940) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

The darkness under the thick ivy drew rats that nested and bred more rats. Ugh.

Similarly, those who believe they’re good have the dark environment that draws hypocrisy and lets it nest and breed. Here are hypocrisies Jesus identified in outwardly good people

Publicly giving donations and offering showy prayers to gain others’ admiration (Matthew 6:1-6)
Showing contempt towards others (Luke 18:9-14)
Making a show of following some of God’s commands while ignoring the greater—but less eye-catching—commands of justice, mercy, and faithfulness (Matthew 23:23)
Excusing in ourselves what we condemn in others (Matthew 23:28; Matthew 7:1-5)
Using human laws unjustly (Mark 7:9-13)

6) Unfallen Sometimes Means Untested

New Zealand tea trees on left supported fence for decades

When our tea trees came down, the fence couldn’t stand on its own against the wind. Though it survived strong winds with the tea trees’ help, by itself it fell to minor gusts.

Sometimes we think the reason we haven’t fallen to a particular sin is our goodness, when really it’s just that we’ve never been tested without supports such as health, steady income, strong relationships, dutiful children, success, peace, security, etc.

For instance, the Pharisees claimed they would never have committed their ancestors’ sins, such as killing prophets; they were too good for that. Not true, Jesus said (Matthew 23:29-36). Their “goodness” was being upheld by their positions of authority and popular opinion. When Jesus’ popularity caused those to fall, jealousy and rage set them to do the very deeds to which they were sure they’d never stoop.

7) What’s Perishable Perishes

The trouble with wood fences is that wood by nature is susceptible to termites and decay, so it’s not eternal.

Our bodies are susceptible to sin and decay too. In fact, “all have sinned” and no one is truly good (Psalm 14:3; Romans 3:10, 12, 23).

But there’s good news. Jesus told Nicodemus—an outwardly good Pharisee—that without Jesus all stand condemned, but with Jesus we can born again and have eternal life (John 3:1-21). Our present bodies will die, but we’ll enter God’s kingdom with a new, imperishable body that’s neither sinned nor been sinned against (1 Corinthians 15:42, 50-54).

That’s very good news.

Americans are like Pharisees (but not in the way you think!) Share on X Does God send good people to hell? Share on X Why even 'good' people need Easter's message Share on X

March 23, 2016/6 Comments/by Jean E. Jones

Apologetics, Jesus in the Old Testament, Message Series

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.

“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.

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]

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 a different time: a time when human sacrifice was considered morally good
To two unique people: two prophets who had seen unmistakable miraculous evidence of God’s power and love and intention to create a nation from Isaac
For a unique purpose: to prophetically portend a momentous future event

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

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 failure?
Abraham & Human Sacrifice? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 2: Did Rachel Held Evans miss cultural facts?
What made Abraham Different? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 3: Rachel Held Evans says she’d sooner be struck dead than obey, so why did Abraham nearly sacrifice Isaac?
Do God’s Motives Matter? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 4: If God’s defining characteristic is love, why would he ask Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac? Do motives matter?
Abraham, Isaac & Child Sacrifice: A short version of this series
Jesus in the Old Testament

January 26, 2016/1 Comment/by Jean E. Jones

Apologetics, Jesus in the Old Testament, Message Series

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?”

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 false or Abraham a moral failure?
Abraham & Human Sacrifice: Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 2: Did Rachel Held Evans miss cultural facts?
What Made Abraham Different? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 3: Rachel Held Evans said she’d sooner be struck dead than obey, so why did Abraham nearly sacrifice Isaac?
Conscience says Abraham Wrong? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 5: Does God expect us to deny conscience by accepting the story of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac?
Abraham, Isaac & Child Sacrifice: A short version of this series
Jesus in the Old Testament

December 10, 2015/2 Comments/by Jean E. Jones

Apologetics, Jesus in the Old Testament, Message Series

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.

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 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.

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 false or Abraham a moral failure?
Abraham & Human Sacrifice: Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 2: Did Rachel Held Evans miss cultural facts?
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 Isaac?
Conscience says Abraham Wrong? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 5: Does God expect us to deny conscience by accepting the story of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac?
Abraham, Isaac & Child Sacrifice: A short version of this series
Jesus in the Old Testament

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

November 24, 2015/4 Comments/by Jean E. Jones

Apologetics, Jesus in the Old Testament, Message Series

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]

“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:

Cultural facts: facts about the culture which are missing from the story
Overlooked facts: facts that are in the story but which have significance that is easily overlooked
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

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 false or Abraham a moral failure?
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?
Does God’s Motive Matter? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 4: If God’s defining characteristic is supposed to be love, why would he ask Abraham to sacrifice Isaac?
Conscience says Abraham Wrong? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 5: Does God expect us to deny conscience by accepting the story of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac?
Abraham, Isaac & Child Sacrifice: A short version of this series
Jesus in the Old Testament

November 4, 2015/4 Comments/by Jean E. Jones

Apologetics, Bible Perplexities, Jesus in the Old Testament, Message Series

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.

“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:

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 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

Abraham & Human Sacrifice? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 2: Did Rachel Held Evans miss cultural facts?
What Made Abraham Different? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 3: Rachel Held Evans said she’d sooner be struck dead than obey, so why did Abraham nearly sacrifice Isaac?
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 Isaac?
Conscience says Abraham Wrong? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 5: Does God expect us to deny conscience by accepting the story of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac?
Abraham, Isaac & Child Sacrifice: A short version of this series
Jesus in the Old Testament

October 27, 2015/8 Comments/by Jean E. Jones

Apologetics

Witnessing to Darwinists

Slightly smirking, he asked, “Don’t Christians believe God created the earth in six days?” He was a Jewish atheist scientist with a PhD. And a staunch Darwinist. We stood outside a laboratory of green-mirrored walls next to a man-made pond. There damp turtles rested on rocks and orange-and-white koi darted beneath the floating, round leaves of waterlilies. The smells of wet moss, mown grass, and dusty chaparral wafted in the hot breeze. Water splinked and splankled from a fountain in the center of the pond, mingling with bird songs, chirps, and calls—especially the harsh caw of a large, bluish-black bird with a trailing tail thrice its length. (Lab employees speculated about the stunning bird’s origins: imported illegally and dumped? zoo escapee?)

“Some Christians believe God created the earth in six earth days, some that he created it in six eras, and some believe God guided evolution,” I replied. “The way I see it, if an all-powerful God exists, he could create the earth in any of those manners.”

This male Long-tailed Widowbird is similar to the bird that appeared suddenly at the California lab. The Widowbird’s tail puzzled Darwin, who surmised that sexual attractiveness trumped survivability (by Dr. Ron Matson [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons).

He raised his eyebrows, pushed his lower lip up, and nodded. He obviously hadn’t expected that answer. After a moment, he smiled and said, “I believe all religions are equally true.” He sounded like an indulgent grandpa not wishing to crush a child’s belief that shouting, “I believe in fairies,” saved Tinkerbell.

I laughed. “No, you don’t! You may believe all religions are equally false, but you certainly don’t believe that religions with contradictory premises can all be true.”

His smile disappeared and then returned. He bowed slightly. “You’re right. I believe all religions are equally … FALSE.”

“And I believe one of them is true—Christianity—based on the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” I gave him a short explanation. He listened with surprise; he seemed to have never heard evidence for the resurrection before. When I concluded, he politely changed the subject.

But the next time Clay and I ran into him at Costco, he said to Clay, “I want to talk to you about something, doctor to doctor. I want to hear your opinion about why this God you believe in allows evils like the Holocaust.”

With six-day creation no longer an impassable mountain, he was willing to ask further questions—with someone whose degrees more closely matched his own.

Another Lab, Another Way

Contrast that with a conversation that started similarly a year earlier at different lab, this one with white-painted concrete walls surrounded by loiterers and litter, black pavement and congested streets, honking horns and impatient shouts. We sat inside in a gray conference room with PCs shoved hastily against the sides so I could teach a computer class. On a break, one of my students—a dark-haired secretary in her late twenties—said, “Christians don’t believe in evolution, do they? That’s stupid.” She smirked and rattled off evidences for evolution.

I explained that her examples were of microevolution, and that while no one disputes microevolution (small changes within a single animal group, such as changes in beak shapes among finches on the Galapagos Islands), some scientists doubt that Darwin’s theory of evolution can account for the development of all life as we know it. For example, his theory says that all life evolved from small, successive changes that increase a creature’s ability to survive, but biochemist Michael Behe says that some cells can’t have evolved that way because they’re irreducibly complex: they require multiple parts to be present at once before the creature sees any advantage (see his excellent book, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, for the full argument).

She stared incredulously a moment and then said, “My two brothers are scientists and they say evolution is a fact.”

She couldn’t answer my argument, but neither would she address it. As other students filed back in, she returned to ridiculing Christians. I realized that she would never consider Christianity if it were tied to a position on evolution her brothers would mock. It was too big a barrier. And neither would she listen to someone who lacked scientific credentials.

Removing the Stumbling Block When Witnessing to Darwinists

That’s when I decided that when I’m witnessing to Darwinists who ask me what Christians think about Darwinian evolution, it’s better for me (a non-scientist) to say Christians have a variety of opinions. The evidence is certainly against Darwinism, but one’s position on it is not an essential Christian doctrine. Bible-believing Christians interpret Genesis 1 in different ways.

Physics professor and Christian apologist John Bloom puts it this way:

I don’t like creation models being laid as a stumbling block to the cross, and prefer an old-earth creation model in apologetic situations for its unifying power in showing the God of the Bible as the Creator of the universe. For seekers who feel that macro-evolution demands more than two individuals as the founders of the human race, I advise patience as the size of the pool of human common ancestors has been shrinking in recent decades, and there even exists plausible evidence for an initial pool size of two. For impatient seekers, I would commend an allegorical interpretation of Genesis regarding human origins, as many theistic evolutionists already do.

John Bloom, “The Lost World of John Walton,” Christian Research Journal 38, no. 3 (2015): 60.

I have friends (and a husband) who have the degrees that keep them from being dismissed out-of-hand. They keep up with the latest scientific developments. They deftly and convincingly handle these conversations when witnessing to Darwinists. I’m happy to steer curious people to them. After all, some seekers do come to believe in God on the evidence of design.

But for me, when I sense that evolution is a hurdle and my arguments will be written off based on my lack of scientific credentials, I often judge it best to postpone a discussion of Darwinism until after they have come to believe in the God of the Bible.

Show Respect for Different Views

Paul in Romans 14 tells us how to get along with those who hold different views on disputable matters (non-essential gray areas). He says neither judge them as faithless nor despise them as foolish. Instead, keep what we believe to ourselves, resolve not to put stumbling blocks in another’s way, and pursue peace and mutual edification (Romans 14:22, 20, 19). When witnessing to Darwinists, we can extend this courtesy to seekers stumbled by some views of creation.

But we must show respect for those holding views that differ from ours. Little hinders the gospel message more than disunity and lack of brotherly love.

Think of it this way. The first lab could welcome bird photographers seeking the long-tailed bird without involving them in a controversy of its origin. Likewise, we can welcome religious truth seekers without involving them in the controversy of human origin. We can explain the different views without disparaging those who hold them as being faithless or foolish. In that way, we’ll remove a stumbling block in the path to the cross.

When witnessing to Darwinists, you don’t have to let Darwinism be a stumbling block to faith Share on X

September 1, 2015/0 Comments/by Jean E. Jones

Christian Living, Encouragement, Psalms

God’s Hidden Blessings

Our twenty-one-year-old Green Machine (aka Honda Accord) won’t pass the next California smog test, so we’re car shopping. (We save oodles of money by driving a car till it or Sacramento calls it quits. Since I don’t commute, that can take years.) As we drove into the big parking lots with rows of shiny cars, fluttering flags, and bright signs announcing “New!” and “Deals!,” I favored Honda because this is our second Honda that lasted twenty years with few trips to the shop.

Look for God’s hidden blessings & you’ll find joy

But last week our eleven-year-old silver CRV needed $1200 work to put out an engine light, and today it needs $1600 to fix the air conditioner that gasped, clattered, and died amidst a triple digit heat wave. Thankfully, it perished on a Sunday so driving a black labyrinth of freeways winding through brown and olive-green hills with the windows down and a big barrette clamping my hair back was rather nice. We even made a game out of counting cars with open windows during the thirty-mile drive: There were three.

But while I had forgotten the fun of a weekend open-air drive, I clearly remembered summer weekdays in stop-and-crawl traffic before AC when I would arrive at work with damp hair plastered to my forehead and neck and with the back of my blouse soaked. Yuck. Thankfully, we have the funds, so Clay took it to the Honda dealer first thing this morning and pounded away on his laptop in their chilled waiting room that smelled of coffee and just-baked chocolate chip cookies. (Yes, he indulged.)

The two big repair bills a few days apart made me wonder: Was it really that Hondas are exceptionally well made that we’ve been so blessed with low maintenance costs? Or have I been attributing to a carmaker something that was really God’s hidden blessings during tight times? There’s no way to know for sure how active God was in all of this, of course, though we do know that God takes good care of us.

God’s Hidden Blessings Come Daily

Psalm 71:15 God’s hidden blessings are beyond counting

In fact, Psalm 71:15 tells us that every day God acts for our good in ways we don’t even know about:

My mouth will tell of your righteous acts,
of your deeds of salvation all the day,
for their number is past my knowledge.

This gem is in the middle of an elderly saint’s prayer psalm. He’s walked with God since childhood. He’s met many troubles, and he knows how to pray with hope and praise. He’s described his dilemma, recounted God’s character, and recalled God’s past help.

And something happens: He remembers his purpose is to tell others what God has done for him—a purpose that old age can’t rob from him. He announces how he’s going to do just that, for God does so much for him in twenty-four hours that he doesn’t even know the extent of God’s help!

What faith! The many ways he’s seen God act assures him that God has acted invisibly, too.

Noticing God’s Hidden Blessings

The psalmist’s attitude isn’t natural. It’s easier to forget God when things go well and blame him when things go awry. Ironically, people who are quick to grumble that God didn’t intervene in misfortune seem slowest to acknowledge the divine hand in blessings.

Conversely, those who are attune to God’s blessing begin to see his blessings even in the midst of hardship:

Jacob held to God’s promises, despite grief over news of his son’s death. He was unaware the young man was alive and in God’s care.
Joseph obeyed God, despite betrayal and false imprisonment. He was oblivious to God’s plan for him to save his family.
David sang of God’s faithfulness, despite King Saul’s jealous pursuit. He didn’t know how God would fulfill his promise to make him king.
Daniel prayed faithfully, despite the king’s edict against prayer. He wasn’t privy to God’s purpose to use this to proclaim his power throughout the empire.
Paul sang hymns, despite imprisonment. He didn’t suspect God planned an earthquake to open the prison doors.

God's hidden blessings come daily! Share on X

Am I Missing God’s Hidden Blessings?

So am I oblivious to God’s hidden blessings in my everyday life? When my health is good, do I take it for granted or do I give thanks? When it’s bad, do I complain first or do I thank God for my prior good health? Likewise, when a project goes well, do I congratulate myself on my exceptional foresight, skill, and hard work? Or do I thank God for giving me skills and help? When a project falls apart, do I blame God or do I acknowledge how my past successes may have depended on him?

Praise for God’s Hidden Blessings

The psalmist saw God’s saving hand everywhere. He knew God acted daily in his life. Looking back, he remembered that even when God made him see calamities, God always revived him. He acknowledged that God delivered him more times than he knew. And so he praised God.

Today I pause to thank God for hidden acts:

the car parts and house pipes and computer drives that lasted through the recession until funds arrived
the dangers avoided during many travels
my elderly father-in-law signing over his trust a few weeks before a mini-stroke left him mentally unfit
the mistakes I could have made but didn’t
the friends and mentors who’ve encouraged and guided

Surely, I do not know the number of his righteous acts, and I give thanks for God’s hidden blessings

I'm thankful for God's hidden blessings Share on X

August 25, 2015/0 Comments/by Jean E. Jones

Bible Study, Encouragement, Psalms

What’s So Good about Royal Psalms?

What is a royal psalm anyway? And why should we care?

Just as today we hear many types of songs—love songs, anthems, lullabies, ballads, odes, rap and more—so the ancient Hebrews heard many types of psalms—royal psalms, wisdom songs, laments, thanksgiving songs, hymns, confidence songs, and more. Knowing a psalm’s type helps us know how to interpret it.

Royal psalms tell us how God intends to destroy evil

Acts 4 identifies all the people in Acts 2:1-3

About ten psalms are categorized as royal psalms because they’re about the Davidic monarchy; for example, a coronation song, a royal wedding song, and prayers for the king.

Since ancient Israel was a type of the heavenly kingdom, and King David was a type of King Jesus, royal psalms often have elements that apply to the kingdom of heaven and to Jesus’ reign. When they do, they’re also called Messianic psalms. Messiah means “anointed one”; Messianic psalms are about the One anointed to rule forever: Jesus. Sometimes an entire psalm can apply to Messiah Jesus, while other times just portions suit him.

Why is that important? The ten royal psalms help us celebrate our future and how God intends to end evil. They partially answer those big questions that stab our hearts when jihadists gloat over beheadings; when a friend’s spouse abandons her for a new love; and when pancreatic cancer threatens a young father.

The 10 royal psalms help us celebrate our future and how God intends to end evil Share on X

Let’s look at which psalms are royal and then see how to interpret them.

Ten Royal Psalms

Here are ten psalms scholars commonly classify as royal.

Psalm	Author	Royal Topic
Psalm 2	David	King’s coronation
Psalm 18	David	King’s battle victory
Psalm 20	David	Prayer for king for battle victory
Psalm 21	David	Praise by king for battle victory
Psalm 45	Sons of Korah	King’s wedding
Psalm 72	Solomon	Prayer for king’s dominion
Psalm 89	Ethan the Ezrahite	Davidic covenant
Psalm 101	David	King’s charter
Psalm 110	David	Priestly kingdom
Psalm 144	David	Peace by king’s victory

How to Interpret Royal Psalms

God set Jesus on the throne of the heavenly Zion

When we read royal psalms, we should consider first what they meant in their original context because that clues us in to what they mean when applied to King Jesus. Then we should look at any New Testament citations; to do this, check out your Bible’s text notes or cross references. Next, reflect on how the psalm might illuminate Jesus’ second coming and eternal reign. Finally, read the psalm with all of these contexts in mind.

Here’s a step-by-step example of how to interpret Psalm 2. Its verses are in the images so you can follow along.

Consider the Royal Psalms’ Original Purpose

How was the royal psalm originally used? For example, Psalm 2 doesn’t list an author, but Acts 4:25 tells us the Holy Spirit spoke Psalm 2 through David’s mouth. Psalm 2:7 speaks about God’s decree to David that his throne would be established forever, so Psalm 2 was probably written by David for Solomon’s coronation. After Solomon’s crowning, the kings descended from David most likely continued to use the song at their coronations since the decree was the authority by which all the sons of David ruled.

Psalm 2 was probably written by David for Solomon’s coronation Share on X

Notice Psalm 2:7 says the Lord calls the king his “son.” God called these kings “sons” because in those days, lesser kings (vassals) who served greater kings (suzerains) were referred to as “sons” of the greater king (1 Chronicles 28:5); God was the greater King whom these earthly kings served.

Still, coronations weren’t the psalm’s only use since it could inspire hope and purpose whenever the choirs sang it at the temple.

Look at New Testament Citations of Royal Psalms

The theme of Psalm 2 is in the center

How the New Testament cites the psalm tells us its current and future significance. Here are the New Testament citations of Psalm 2 (see the psalm’s text in the images).

Psalm 2:1-2
- Acts 4:25-26—Identifies all the people in Psalm 2:1-2: Jesus is the Anointed One; the Gentiles are the raging nations; the people of Israel are the peoples plotting in vain; and Herod and Pontius Pilate are the kings and rulers who set themselves against the Lord.
Psalm 2:7
- Acts 13:33—Jesus is the promised Son through whom God fulfills his promises
- Hebrews 1:5—Jesus sits at the right hand of the Majesty on high; he is superior to angels, for to no angel has God said, “You are my Son”; the Son’s inheritance in Psalm 2:8 is more excellent than angels’ inheritance
- Hebrews 5:5—God appointed Jesus, his begotten Son, to be high priest to offer sacrifices for sin

New Testament citations tell us Psalm 2 is ultimately about Jesus Share on X

Psalm 2:9
- Revelation 2:27—Jesus declares saints who conquer on earth will have authority like he has to rule with a “rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken”
- Revelation 12:5—Symbolically, a woman gives birth to a male child who will rule all nations with a “rod of iron”; a dragon tries to devour the child, but the child is caught up to God and his throne
- Revelation 19:15—Jesus as The Word of God riding on a white horse leads the armies of heaven; he will rule with a “rod of iron”; he defeats the beast, the false prophet, and the earthly armies gathered against him; the beast and false prophet are thrown into the lake of fire; the armies perish

From these we see that Psalm 2 is ultimately about Jesus. This is why most Bible translations capitalize “Anointed” in verse 2, “King” in verse 6, and “Son” in verse 7 so readers don’t miss the application to Jesus. Psalm 2 was partly fulfilled on earth when those against him crucified him. But now he sits at the right hand of God, enthroned on the heavenly Zion. Some still rebel against his rule. One day, though, he will return and end all rebellion.

Reflect on Messianic Elements in Royal Psalms

Other New Testament passages shed light on Psalm 2 even though they don’t directly cite it.

The final fulfillment of royal psalms is Jesus' reign Share on X

Remember how in verse 7 God called the kings descended from David “sons”? The relationship between the Davidic kings and the Lord God foreshadowed the greater, unique relationship between Jesus and his Father, for Jesus was born of God literally (Luke 1:32-35). When Jesus was baptized, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:17).

Revelation 21 tells the final fulfillment of royal psalms: a new heaven and new earth where God’s Son Jesus will reign forever.

Read Royal Psalms with All their Contexts in Mind

To really gain a rich understanding of and appreciation for the psalm, consider all of its contexts. Here are some suggestions for reading Psalm 2.

The King is coming so be wise

Original Context: Read the decree that Psalm 2 has as its central theme: 2 Samuel 7:12-16. Here God decrees that he will raise up one of David’s sons (Solomon) to build a temple, and he’ll establish David’s throne forever. Also consider the story of Solomon’s coronation and his brother’s two attempts to seize the throne; that’ll give you an idea of the revolt newly crowned kings often faced (1 Kings 1:5-53; 2:13-25). Then read Psalm 2 while paying attention to how it fit Solomon’s situation.
Jesus’ First Coming: Consider the rebellion Jesus faced from Jewish and Roman rulers (Acts 4:24-29) as well as Satan’s forces (symbolized in Revelation 12). Think about how that rebellion causes the stuff that fills the newspaper—evil, injustice, violence, betrayal, death, pain. Think about the Christians in other nations who are persecuted and slaughtered. Read Psalm 2 in the context of the rebellion against Jesus on earth then and now.
Jesus’ Eternal Reign: Ponder Jesus’ future reign (the White Rider in Revelation 19:11-16; the Judgment in Revelation 20:11-14; the new heaven and earth in Revelation 22:1-8). Follow that by reading Psalm 2 with the kingdom of heaven in mind.

Royal Psalms: The Hope of Messiah’s Reign

What is the hope of royal psalms like Psalm 2? It’s the hope of Messiah Jesus’ reign.

Yes, all around us we see rebellion, rejection of God and his commands, great evils, violence, death, and tears. But that is coming to an end. King Jesus is coming. “Blessed are all who take refuge in him.”

What is the hope of royal psalms like Psalm 2? It's the hope of Messiah Jesus' reign. Share on X

July 16, 2015/3 Comments/by Jean E. Jones

Encouragement, Psalms, Spiritual Practices

Psalm 2: Hope in the Midst of Injustice

Terrorists murder and maim. Con artists bilk the elderly. The rich exploit the poor. Abusers scar children. The promiscuous mock the chaste. Liars lock the innocent behind bars. Those who’ve sworn to uphold justice overturn it.

What is our hope in the midst of injustice? Psalm 2 tells us.

It’s a psalm originally composed for singing at the coronations of kings descended from David. It’s one of about ten psalms categorized as royal psalms because they’re about the Davidic monarchy.

Psalm 2:1-3 shows us from where injustice comes

A good, effective king was a cause for rejoicing. Such a king fought wickedness, judged righteously, executed justice, defended the poor, and crushed oppressors. A godly king brought the hope of justice and righteousness to the kingdom.

Since ancient Israel was a type of the heavenly kingdom, and King David was a type of King Jesus, royal psalms often have elements that apply to the kingdom of heaven and to Jesus’ reign. Psalm 2 is no exception, and the New Testament quotes it frequently, applying its words to Jesus, the Son of David. It foretells the crowning of Jesus the Anointed One—the Messiah—so it is also a Messianic psalm.

So what does Psalm 2 tell us?

God Decreed His Son King

Psalm 2:7a is the psalm’s center and tells us the psalm’s theme:

I will tell of the decree:

The rest of the verse explains the decree:

The Lord said to me,
“You are my Son;
today I have begotten you.”

This refers to the decree God made regarding King David. When David wanted to build a temple for the Lord, he asked the prophet Nathan to ask God if that would be acceptable.

That night the Lord spoke to Nathan and told him to tell David no, David would not build a house (that is, a temple) for God, but rather God would build a house (that is, a dynasty) for David. God decreed that he would establish the throne of David’s son’s kingdom forever (2 Samuel 7:13). These sons of David would be called sons of God—a political term in those days because lesser kings (vassals) were called “sons” of the greater king (suzerain) whom they served. David and his sons were to be vassals of God.

The first son of David to reign would be Solomon. Most Bible translations capitalize “Son” so you don’t miss that the last Son is Jesus, not son in the same political sense as David’s other sons—that was mere foreshadowing of the Son of God born of a virgin. It is Jesus’ throne that will last forever.

Well and good, but what does that have to do with the evil we see around us? For that we look back to the beginning of the psalm.

Many Rebel Against the Decree

Psalm 2:1-2 (see figure) tells of a rebellion of those who don’t want to submit to the newly crowned king. Newly crowned kings often faced rebellion from those ready to test their strength. In Jesus’ case, the religious leaders rebelled and turned Jesus over to Rome to be crucified on trumped-up charges. They celebrated, thinking the threat to their authority demolished. They didn’t know God had raised Jesus from the dead and anointed him king on the heavenly Mount Zion.

Psalm 2:10-12 the final answer to injustice

Psalm 2:10-12 Those who refuse God’s Son’s rule will perish, but those who embrace it will be blessed

When Jesus ascended to heaven, his followers proclaimed that Jesus was the Messiah who had sat down at the Father’s right hand. They offered the grace found in Psalm 2’s close: Be wise and warned, serve the Lord God, and “kiss the Son” (that is, pay homage to him as ruler) so that you will not perish, but have eternal life.

Today, Christians continue to spread this message in a world in which most still rebel.

For one day, trumpets will sound and the Lord will return (Matthew 24:31). On that day, it will be seen that all the plotting to reject his rule will be in vain (Psalm 2:1), and every knee will bow. Some will bow as the conquered bow, yielding to the inevitable before perishing. But those who willingly bowed on earth will bow then in gladness and joy, the hope of Jesus’ reign finally come.

“Blessed are all who take refuge in him” (Psalm 2:12). Yes, truly blessed: They will be in Jesus’ kingdom where there will be no injustice, no tears, no pain. All will be made right.

That is our hope in the midst of injustice today.

His Kingdom Comes!

Until that day, we pray, “Maranatha!” There in one word is the cry, “Our Lord, come!” (1 Corinthians 16:22). It encapsulates what Jesus teaches us to pray: “Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10).

When we pray for God’s kingdom to come, we express our yearning for that kingdom in which our Lord rules with righteousness and justice. We offer ourselves as obedient servants longing to dwell under his reign. We agree that God’s commands are right and holy, and that justice demands sin’s wages be paid. We give thanks for Jesus paying the penalty for our sins through his death on the cross in order that we might live. We trust that as he rose from the dead, so shall we.

Maranatha!

Adapted from Discovering Hope in the Psalms (Harvest House, 2017)

July 1, 2015/0 Comments/by Jean E. Jones

Psalms, Spiritual Practices

Art as Worship

Whether you consider yourself to be artistic or not, you can worship God through art. It doesn’t have to be a masterpiece, for God sees the heart: “For if the willingness is there, the gift is acceptable according to what one has, not according to what he does not have” (2 Corinthians 8:12).

Worship is an offering of ourselves “as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God” (Romans 12:1-2). It involves adoration, submission, proclamation, and service, all of which can be done through art.

Stained glass portraying Saint Luke | Cathedral Basilica of St. Francis of Assisi

Art has played a significant part of Christian service: Consider Handel’s Messiah, the medieval illuminated manuscripts, Milton’s epic Paradise Lost, and the stained glass of the great cathedrals. Even culinary arts are represented during feasts that celebrate Christ’s birth and resurrection—particularly when lamb is served for Easter accompanied by an explanation of Jesus being the Lamb sacrificed for our sins.

Take a look at how the arts played a part in Israel’s worship of God. Here is just a sample.

Art as Worship in the Bible

Performing Art as Worship

Members of three choirs greeted worshipers at the temple’s gates, played music, and sang throughout the temple facility. Men and women alike wrote and sang songs commemorating God’s mighty works. All the people acted important historical events, such as Passover—where families dressed and feasted in the way the Israelites did on the night God freed them from Egyptian slavery—and the Feast of Tabernacles—where they lived in palm booths for a week to reenact the wilderness experience and the entrance to the Promised Land.

Literary Art as Worship

Moses, Miriam, and other men and women in the Bible wrote songs for others to sing so they would remember God’s instructions and mighty deeds. At least one shepherd boy (David) wrote psalms for use in personal worship. Later, worship leaders wrote psalms to be sung by the choirs and recited by the masses. Some wrote histories and testimonies to teach others about God. Church leaders wrote letters to encourage, admonish, and bless.

Culinary Art as Worship

Illuminated manuscript (Genesis) | Wenceslas Bible, 1389, from freechristimages.org

Worship included feasts, the elements of which often symbolized an aspect of God’s care. For example, the spring Passover feast included lamb to represent the Passover Lamb slain that they might live, and unleavened bread signifying the haste with which the people fled Egypt. The summer Feast of Weeks included leavened bread in celebration of the grain harvest God provided in the Promised Land; to the early church it symbolized the falling of the Seed that produced the harvest of the church. The fall Feast of Tabernacles celebrated the year’s final harvest; it also symbolized the Last Day’s harvest of souls.

Visual Art as Worship

At homes, Scripture adorned doorposts and gates, providing teaching opportunities. But where the visual arts really stood out was at the temple. There wood carvings, gold inlays, intricate embroidery, and bronze statues reminded worshipers that this was the temple of the Creator of all in heaven and earth. He was holy and they drew near him through sacrifice. The artistry reminded people who God was so they could worship appropriately.

Why Attempt Art as Worship?

Many of us have enjoyed stained glass windows in cathedrals and Bible stories in plays or movies. But this level of art as worship is beyond the skills of most: We can enjoy it, but not do it.

Still, artistically expressing what we’re learning in Scripture has these benefits:

Deepens our involvement with the passage
Helps us remember the passage’s message
Gives us a means to easily and vibrantly share the passage with others
Is a part of loving the Lord with our whole being: heart, soul, mind, and strength

Art as worship deepens our involvement, helps us remember, & gives us a means to share Share on X

Simple Ideas for Art as Worship

“A tree planted by streams of water” (Psalm 1:3) | Art doesn’t have to be skillful to be meaningful–I enjoyed creating this and was blessed by the layers of meaning that came out

So what are some simple ways to use art as worship? Here are ideas based on Psalm 1, most of which could be used with any Scripture passage:

Performing Arts

Find a musical version of the psalm to play or sing (such as that of Kim Hill)
Act out the psalm as you read or recite it aloud to music (spoken word poetry)
Write music and lyrics based on the psalm

Literary Arts

Write a psalm similar to Psalm 1 based on a particular biblical instruction.
Form this psalm’s message into a poem of any type you like

Culinary Arts

For a picnic, gather chaff (papery seed covering) from plants that have gone to seed (or weeds if you can’t find chaff) and place it on a container. Prepare fresh fruit and place it on another container. Show children or friends the contents of the two containers. As you explain how chaff is good for nothing, toss it in the air and let the wind drive it away (or pour it into the trash if the day is windless). Serve the fruit as you explain how healthy and desirable it is. Explain what Psalm 1 says about our lives being like chaff or well-watered fruit trees.

Clockwise from top: 1. cross stitch in progress; 2. stamped tile; 3. bookmarks; 4. scale as reminder of justice.

Visual Arts

Create a container garden with a small plant pruned like a tree and tiny rocks suggesting a stream
Write part or all of the psalm in calligraphy
Create an art journal: sketch, paint, and affix photos and words from magazines
In a journaling Bible, pick one verse to illuminate in the wide margin
Overlay a verse on top of a photograph of a fruit tree by a river
Create a diorama or sculpture or piece of jewelry
Create fabric art using cross stitch, embroidery, or applique
Turn what you are learning into an artistic expression to encourage others: bookmarks, greeting cards, t-shirt, coaster

“‘A merry heart createth a cheerful countenance’ Proverb 15:13” | My MIL Rae disliked housework so she painted her laundry room in a way that would remind her that her service was worship.

My favorite ways of creating art as worship are writing new psalms based on other psalms, turning a passage into a story or poem, sketching passages, and fabric art. My husband, Clay, has written several encouraging psalms during difficult times. I have a friend who makes coasters from tiles, another who illuminates verses in a journaling Bible, one who made a container garden to illustrate the Parable of the Sower, and still another who makes bookmarks.

What ways have you used art in worship? What might you try?

Adapted from Discovering Hope in the Psalms (Harvest House, 2017)

Whether you consider yourself artistic or not, you can worship God through art Share on X

June 18, 2015/10 Comments/by Jean E. Jones

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

Forgiving Isn’t Pretending

Forgiving Isn’t Forgetting

Shoving Out of Mind Doesn’t Work

Doesn’t God Forget Sins?

Forgiving Isn’t Taking the Blame

Forgiving Isn’t Taking Revenge

Forgiving Isn’t Excusing

What Forgiving Is

Forgive Intentional Sin—Don’t Just Manage Emotions | In this series:

1) Looking Good Doesn’t Make Us Good People

2) Mere Looking Good has to Go

3) Doing Good Doesn’t Make Us Good People

4) What Darkness Hides Decays

5) What Darkness Hides Breeds

6) Unfallen Sometimes Means Untested

7) What’s Perishable Perishes

Why do people’s consciences differ?

Moral convictions are learned

Conscience is not fully reliable

How did Jesus address faulty consciences?

What does conscience tell us about human sacrifice?

People’s consciences differ regarding human sacrifices

Human sacrifice is not always wrong

Does God expect us to deny our conscience?

Related Posts

God’s motives

God’s motives: preaching the gospel to Abraham

By portending the Father sacrificing Jesus

By showing how God would fulfill his promises to Abraham

By foretelling Jesus’ substitutionary provision

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

God’s motives: showing what his love looks like

Related Posts

Abraham different in how God prepared him

Abraham different in calling

Abraham different in faith

Related Posts

Abraham lived in a culture gone terribly wrong

Abraham’s culture did not think human sacrifice wrong

God’s provision brought a shift

The answer

Related Posts

Rachel Held Evans’s Reimagined Text

Alternative: Not Historical Reality

Alternative: God Doesn’t Exist

Alternative: Abraham Wrong & Failed the Test

Rachel Held Evans’s Main Argument

Was Abraham wrong? Did he fail the test?

Is the story not “historical reality”?

Does a good God exist then?

Related Posts

Another Lab, Another Way

Removing the Stumbling Block When Witnessing to Darwinists

Show Respect for Different Views

God’s Hidden Blessings Come Daily

Noticing God’s Hidden Blessings

Am I Missing God’s Hidden Blessings?

Praise for God’s Hidden Blessings

Ten Royal Psalms

How to Interpret Royal Psalms

Consider the Royal Psalms’ Original Purpose

Look at New Testament Citations of Royal Psalms

Reflect on Messianic Elements in Royal Psalms

Read Royal Psalms with All their Contexts in Mind

Royal Psalms: The Hope of Messiah’s Reign

God Decreed His Son King

Many Rebel Against the Decree

His Kingdom Comes!

Art as Worship in the Bible

Performing Art as Worship

Literary Art as Worship

Culinary Art as Worship

Visual Art as Worship

Why Attempt Art as Worship?

Simple Ideas for Art as Worship

Performing Arts

Literary Arts

Culinary Arts

Visual Arts