Good Point. Wrong Text.

Abimelech Restoring Sarah to Abraham

Recently, the Association of Biblical Counselors published a blog post arguing that we should not use Sarah lying in Genesis 12 and 20 as justification for a woman to stay in an abusive relationship. The argument runs like this. Sarah did obey Abraham and lie. She put herself in a situation where she could be abused. She submitted to her husband. But 21st century women cannot follow in her footsteps because we are not in the same cultural situation. 

"Abraham and Sarah were nomads. They had no family nearby or “church” community to provide accountability or protection. They lived in a patriarchal culture where women had little choice and few rights.

When Abraham told Sarah to lie and pretend she was his sister, God was Sarah’s only protection. She had no pastor to tell, no elders to turn to, no counselor or hot line to call. God himself stepped in to protect her from Abraham’s foolishness and selfishness, not once, but twice."

Besides misrepresenting patriarchy in the Scriptures by saying, "women had little choice and few rights" I found the post strange because it twists two texts (Genesis 12 & 20), which only tangentially touch on the main subject of the post, while ignoring more obvious texts and then uses those twisted texts to subvert another clearer text (I Peter 3:6). Got that? No? Let me explain.

First, the author could have gone to a hundred different passages to prove her point that wives should not stay in abusive relationships with their husbands. She says, "I could quote verse after verse about how God hates injustice, oppression, revilers, pride, liars, and those who misuse their authority to hurt others." Yes, you could. So why don't you instead of relying upon a difficult interpretation of Sarah's story? Even a simple verse like "be kind to one another" (Ephesians 4:32) could be used to defend a wife against an abusive husband. Men (and women) use the Bible to defend all sorts of nonsense. A man who thinks the story of Sarah allows him to abuse his wife or a pastor/counselor who thinks this proves a wife should stay an abusive situation has more problems than their interpretation of Genesis. His entire picture of salvation and Christ is skewed. Trying to prove that Sarah's actions are not an example of godly submission is not the best tactic.

Second, and more importantly, it is not clear that Abraham was asking Sarah to do something wicked. The author says, "We know that God was displeased with Abraham when Abraham told Sarah to lie and say she was his sister, putting her at risk for sexual abuse."  She goes on to say that God "confronted Abraham's sin." Actually that is not what the text says or implies. Abraham comes out relatively clean.

These texts are difficult, but there are several indicators that Abraham was not the sinner in the story. 

• Abraham is not rebuked by God in either situation. Both kings are rebuked and chastised by the Lord. Pharaoh is plagued by God (Genesis 12:17). Abimelech's women were barren (Genesis 20:18). Both Abraham and the kings could be guilty, but only the kings are declared guilty by God in the text.  
• Abraham leaves both scenarios richer (Genesis 12:16, 20:14). Why would God prosper Abraham when he had thrown his wife to the wolves? On the author's interpretation God is subsidizing disobedience.
• God tells Abimelech to have Abraham pray for him (Genesis 20:7). God also tells Abimelech if he does not restore Sarah he will die. Abraham is the righteous prophet who calls on God to save Abimelech. God answers this prayer (Genesis 20:17). How does this fit with Abraham being a sinner who put his wife in a position to be abused (Psalm 66:18, James 5:16)?
• Abraham specifically says that he asked Sarah to say she was his sister because there is no fear of God in the land (Genesis 20:11). It is possible that Abraham asked Sarah to lie not to expose her "sexual abuse" but to protect her from it.  
• Genesis 20:18 says that the women of Gerar were barren. This means there was sex happening in Abimelech's house and that it had been going on long enough for folks to start to wonder why there were no growing bellies. That would be at least 2-3 months, possibly longer. And Sarah had been there the whole time. One option is that God protected Sarah despite her lying. Another option is that God protected Sarah because she lied. I think the latter is more plausible.
• God tells Abimelech that He (the Lord) kept him from sinning (Genesis 20:6). This implies that if Abimelech had slept with Sarah he would have been sinning. No mention is made of Abraham's sin. 
• Abimelech calls Abraham Sarah's "brother" in Genesis 20:16, which means that he accepted Abraham's story about Sarah being his half-sister as legitimate.  

The blog post makes Sarah's story about God protecting her from Abraham's sin, when the text makes it about God protecting Sarah from the wicked kings.

The author of the post implies that I Peter 3:6 is not talking about Sarah's submission to her husband in these two circumstances. I can see why she wants to say that. If Abraham purposely put Sarah in a position for her to be sexually abused by various kings then we would not want to use that as a godly example of submission. 

But if her interpretation of Sarah's actions is off then Sarah is a great example of godly submission. These two situations are the clearest examples of submission by Sarah in Genesis 12-23 outside of leaving Ur. What other examples do we have in those chapters of Sarah obeying Abraham and trusting God (I Peter 3:5)? What else could Peter be thinking of? The author, unnecessarily I believe, strips I Peter 3:6 of some of its power by removing two real life examples from Sarah's life.

The author is right that Sarah's obedience to Abraham should not be used to justify abuse. On that point we agree. But that is not because of anything found in Genesis. It is because of the rest of Scripture, which makes it clear that men are to love their wives as Christ loves the Church. Therefore Genesis 12 and 20 fit well with Peter's purposes in I Peter 3:6. Godly women trust in the Lord and obey their husbands, even calling them lord. That is what Sarah did throughout her life and these two situations are places where the Lord rewarded her for that trust and obedience.

Fearing God Means Withholding Nothing

In Genesis 22 we have a narrative example of what it means to fear God. The story is one of the most famous in Scripture. God calls Abraham to take his son, his only son, the son of promise, up to the top of a mountain and kill him. Abraham obeys the Lord. He takes his son on a three day journey. He ascends the mountain, ties his son down, and prepares to sacrifice him. The Angel of the Lord appears and tells Abraham to stop. Abraham sees a ram in the thicket and uses it for the sacrifice instead of Isaac.

But when the Angel of the Lord appears he says something to Abraham,which shows us what it means to fear God. 

Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me (Genesis 22:12).

Why was Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac such an act of faith? Isaac was Abraham's son. What man kills his own son, especially at the command of someone else? Isaac was not just any son. Isaac was the son of the promise. Isaac was the only way all of God's promises could be fulfilled. God had given Abraham great promises (Genesis 12:1-3, 15:4-5). What man takes the promises of God, lays them on the altar and prepares to put a knife in them?  Abraham was not only willing to kill his son, he willing to kill the son that fulfilled all of God's promises.

In Abraham we see a picture of what it means to fear God. The Lord knew that Abraham feared Him because when he asked for Isaac, Abraham gave him up. The lesson is not difficult to understand though it is difficult to live out. When God asks for something we surrender it.  When someone is in need and we have the goods to help them we do. When a child needs help we give up our time to help them. When God calls upon us to minister to friend in pain we do that. When God calls upon us to move jobs to get our family in a better church we do. When God calls upon us to move churches, leaving behind friends, so we can be in a theological sound church, we do. When God calls upon us to sacrifice our reputation in the name of Christ, we do. When God calls upon us to care for our aging parents, we do. When God calls upon us to preach the sermon that will cause parishioners to leave we do. When God calls upon us to sacrifice that great job to care for our wife, we do.

But there is no sacrifice, like the sacrifice of our children. Our  greatest hopes and dreams often live in our children. We are not Abraham. My sons are not the children of promise like Isaac, though they are building blocks in the Kingdom. Nonetheless we are required to give them up. They are not ours. They belong to God. What if God called my son to Africa and I only got to see him every three years? What if my daughter marries a missionary to India? What if my son is martyred for his faith? What if my daughter's reputation is destroyed on the Internet because of her love for Jesus? What if I have great dreams for my children, but God has ordinary ones? It is true that whatever we lay on the altar will be resurrected (Hebrews 11:17-19). Abraham was willing to kill Isaac because he knew that God raises the dead. Whatever we give up we will receive back in the next life. But that doesn't make the sacrifice any less painful or necessary. We know we have the faith of our father Abraham when we withhold nothing from God, including that which we value most, our children.

Two Fields, Two Promises

In the Old Testament there are two men who buy fields. First, there is Abraham buying a field to bury Sarah in (Genesis 23). Then there is Jeremiah buying a field in Jeremiah 32. Why does God have both of these stories in the Bible? Why do we need to know that Abraham bought a field in Machpelah? Why do we need to know that Jeremiah bought a field right before Israel went into exile?

The answer is that God wanted Abraham, Jeremiah, and us to remember that he is faithful. God had promised Abraham the land. When he died the only plot he owned was Machpelah. But it was a symbol and reminder to his descendants that one day he would own the whole land.

The same idea is behind the command to have Jeremiah buy a field right before Israel is taken into exile. God is promising that Israel will come back. Fields will be planted and harvested again. Jeremiah actually doubts God's promise to do this (32:24-27). But the Lord swears that he will plant Israel in this land again (vs. 41). The field is a sign of God's promise to be faithful.

But neither man saw God's promises fulfilled. Abraham was long dead when his people took the land. Jeremiah was long dead when Israel returned to the land. Yet they believed even when their eyes did not see.

It is good to know that God is faithful to his promises whether we see them fulfilled or not.