Just a few passages from the Bible that I fully accept, despite the words that are uttered:
1. God says to Abraham: “Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love,” Gen. 22:2
2. David says in Psalm 51: 4 “Against You, You only, have I sinned, And done this evil in Your sight— That You may be found just when You speak, And blameless when You judge.”
In 1., the reader knows that there was a son before Isaac, yet God articulates a chasm between the two that Isaac possesses all significance with God & Ishmael; none.
2., is similar, the reader knows that David committed adultery with Bathsheba and orchestrated the death (killing) of Uriah (violated two of the Commandments), yet he proclaims in the Psalm how his sin was only against God.
In Bible studies, I have had many men hold fast to a view that Isaac was not Abraham’s only son. They will not bend on that. As to David, the same men hold that, on the horizontal, David sinned against a woman and a man. They also will not bend on that point that David gives no mention, only addressing the Vertical.
As I process both, I go back to Deut. 6 “…Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thine heart….”
Not saying I am right, just trying to understand how God inspired David to write Psalm 51.
Hi Phil! I have some thoughts along the lines of your comment that I think might be helpful:
There's a slight difference in what David is saying in Psalm 51 that gets lost in translation. We can see from David's actions that he was repentant of his sin (transgression) against Bathsheba and Uriah that resulted in the death of their son. In the account, David takes Bathsheba into his household rather than abandoning her to ruin like his son Amnon would do to his step-sister Tamar.
In the Psalm, David is appealing to God as the only one who can cleanse him from his sin and submitting to God's justice and the blamelessness of His ways. Keep in mind that this is a solid year after the events of Bathsheba's rape and Uriah's orchestrated death. It is a paragon of confession in which David confesses his actions taken in contempt of God (sin proper), the malformation and twisting of his heart (iniquity) and the transgressions that resulted. When David says that He has sinned against God alone, it is in the proper understanding of sin as acting in knowing contempt of God and therefore everything that resulted was the fruit of David's sin. Contempt for God was the proper sin, contempt malformed David's heart and the resulting transgressions were seen, at the time, as the sensible thing to do.
The end of Psalm 51 has David asking God to teach him this lesson so thoroughly that he could be a teaching example to those who follow and would deign to act in contempt of God. The vertical relationship that David is attempting to restore has been predicated on the horizontal actions David undertook to ensure that all those who were affected were restored to places of honour as well as the horizontal relationships that would benefit from David's fall as more than a forewarning; a deeper understanding of what it means to love God's law which, I think, came afterward as a direct result.
--
As an aside, the "take your son," passage is likely directed at Abraham and Sarah and not singularly to Abraham as the promise was to both of them even though we only ever really think of Abraham as receiving the promise. It's also worth mentioning that God blessed Ishmael with the same blessing that Isaac received minus the Messianic line which we see repeated in the generations to come--the chosen one was only ever supposed to receive the Messianic line and not the generational wealth that was conventionally given to the first born.
I was referring to when God directly instructs to take his only son to a place he will show him (Mt. Moriah) for a sacrifice ( he rides there on a donkey & carries the wood for his own sacrifice). Not sure Sarah heard that one.
I wonder about this. He confesses his faith here, but it isn't until he acts on his faith that God intercedes and gives a substitute. Typologically, it isn't until Abraham offers the substitute as his son until he passes the test.
I'm unsure. The scriptures don't make it plain, but the indication is that he travelled to Moriah for the test and then settled in Beersheba with no mention of going back, so it is likely that it wasn't just Abraham, Isaac, and his servants but the whole caravan as well who were left behind when Abraham tells his servants to wait while he and the boy go to make a sacrifice.
Again, we can only conjecture but it is Abraham specifically who is being tested, seemingly to the exclusion of Sarah. The child sacrifice is a test of Abraham's faith. This makes me think that Sarah's faith had already been tested and that she had been found in God's favour. God's rejection of Ishmael and now command to destroy the child promise is a test of whether Abraham was in this for himself or for God and he passed with flying colours. God saying, "take your only son," could also be a reminder that Ishmael is not a backup--Isaac is all Abraham has in connection to the child promise.
I try my hardest not to ever get “extra-Biblical”, for example, God gave the admonitions to Adam. So I read what you wrote about Sarah, but that may be extra-Biblical.
I appreciate your response, over the years, others have reminded me that all sin is against God. David’s confession leaves-out the mortals he sinned against…the reader knows that. I have taken 51 to have David recognizing the enormity of his sins (measured by God’s yardstick) compared to the sins against mortals (God’sCreation). I do see a conformity between David, and earlier, with God in that they both omit truth as the reader sees truth, example : C’mon God, you know Abraham first sired Ishmael, saved him in the wilderness and ultimately blessed him, so why are you having Moses record what you said to Abraham about having only one son?
Or:
C’mon, David, you know you committed adultery and had your loyal servant murdered on the front lines, so why are you having David express his sin “only” against God, when the reader and David know that he also sinned against mortals.
As I wrote when I first posted, I accept both passages, but I have had many fellow Bible students that have problems with both passages. I think that they both make Bible students go deeper as they ponder those things that were omitted.
The reason I say that Sarah was promised the child is because of Gen 18 where the Angel of the Lord specifically says that Sarah will be the one to have a child. This is the whole reason why Ishmael is rejected because the promise belonged not just to Abraham but also to Sarah. So when God tells them to take their only child, we had to be paying attention to see that they really did only have one child together which was the child of the promise. It's also worth mentioning that the first child promise was given to Eve and not Adam though it is accepted that it was given to both in the same way that Abraham and Sarah are both given the child promise.
Rev. Andrew Jukes, in his 1896 “The Types in Genesis”, in his Chapter on Abraham (representing Faith) addresses your point, in the following Chapter on “Sonship” he uses Isaac’s Faith in his father as he shoulders the wood & asks dad from where will the sacrifice originate. Abraham truthfully tells him that God will provide…now that is surely the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen. A long time ago I heard a sermon on David & Goliath and the giant’s taunting words regarding God. The preacher said that David’s holy response was so pure & truthful that the words killed Goliath before the stone crushed his forehead. The Types in Genesis is free on Google Books. Just reading the introduction is tough, but it is a gem.
absolutely and there are WAY too many poeple who have more empathy for those who abuse their authority and power and influence - and far less empathy for the victims who are most harmed by them.
Thank you for this! So well written and much needed truth. 2 Sam 11 is one of the narratives my thesis will address and your post has my wheels spinning with some fresh insights.
This is a helpful pairing of biblical accounts. Thank for bringing this up!
Thank you!
“There is a lot of empathy… but only for the men.” Ugh. Good article!!!
Thanks so much!
Just a few passages from the Bible that I fully accept, despite the words that are uttered:
1. God says to Abraham: “Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love,” Gen. 22:2
2. David says in Psalm 51: 4 “Against You, You only, have I sinned, And done this evil in Your sight— That You may be found just when You speak, And blameless when You judge.”
In 1., the reader knows that there was a son before Isaac, yet God articulates a chasm between the two that Isaac possesses all significance with God & Ishmael; none.
2., is similar, the reader knows that David committed adultery with Bathsheba and orchestrated the death (killing) of Uriah (violated two of the Commandments), yet he proclaims in the Psalm how his sin was only against God.
In Bible studies, I have had many men hold fast to a view that Isaac was not Abraham’s only son. They will not bend on that. As to David, the same men hold that, on the horizontal, David sinned against a woman and a man. They also will not bend on that point that David gives no mention, only addressing the Vertical.
As I process both, I go back to Deut. 6 “…Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thine heart….”
Not saying I am right, just trying to understand how God inspired David to write Psalm 51.
Hi Phil! I have some thoughts along the lines of your comment that I think might be helpful:
There's a slight difference in what David is saying in Psalm 51 that gets lost in translation. We can see from David's actions that he was repentant of his sin (transgression) against Bathsheba and Uriah that resulted in the death of their son. In the account, David takes Bathsheba into his household rather than abandoning her to ruin like his son Amnon would do to his step-sister Tamar.
In the Psalm, David is appealing to God as the only one who can cleanse him from his sin and submitting to God's justice and the blamelessness of His ways. Keep in mind that this is a solid year after the events of Bathsheba's rape and Uriah's orchestrated death. It is a paragon of confession in which David confesses his actions taken in contempt of God (sin proper), the malformation and twisting of his heart (iniquity) and the transgressions that resulted. When David says that He has sinned against God alone, it is in the proper understanding of sin as acting in knowing contempt of God and therefore everything that resulted was the fruit of David's sin. Contempt for God was the proper sin, contempt malformed David's heart and the resulting transgressions were seen, at the time, as the sensible thing to do.
The end of Psalm 51 has David asking God to teach him this lesson so thoroughly that he could be a teaching example to those who follow and would deign to act in contempt of God. The vertical relationship that David is attempting to restore has been predicated on the horizontal actions David undertook to ensure that all those who were affected were restored to places of honour as well as the horizontal relationships that would benefit from David's fall as more than a forewarning; a deeper understanding of what it means to love God's law which, I think, came afterward as a direct result.
--
As an aside, the "take your son," passage is likely directed at Abraham and Sarah and not singularly to Abraham as the promise was to both of them even though we only ever really think of Abraham as receiving the promise. It's also worth mentioning that God blessed Ishmael with the same blessing that Isaac received minus the Messianic line which we see repeated in the generations to come--the chosen one was only ever supposed to receive the Messianic line and not the generational wealth that was conventionally given to the first born.
I was referring to when God directly instructs to take his only son to a place he will show him (Mt. Moriah) for a sacrifice ( he rides there on a donkey & carries the wood for his own sacrifice). Not sure Sarah heard that one.
“I and the lad shall return.” Abraham had already passed the test.
The substitutionary Ram was caught in a thicket, atop Mt. Moriah, caught in briars in a scene that is laden with typology & foreshadowing
I wonder about this. He confesses his faith here, but it isn't until he acts on his faith that God intercedes and gives a substitute. Typologically, it isn't until Abraham offers the substitute as his son until he passes the test.
I'm unsure. The scriptures don't make it plain, but the indication is that he travelled to Moriah for the test and then settled in Beersheba with no mention of going back, so it is likely that it wasn't just Abraham, Isaac, and his servants but the whole caravan as well who were left behind when Abraham tells his servants to wait while he and the boy go to make a sacrifice.
Again, we can only conjecture but it is Abraham specifically who is being tested, seemingly to the exclusion of Sarah. The child sacrifice is a test of Abraham's faith. This makes me think that Sarah's faith had already been tested and that she had been found in God's favour. God's rejection of Ishmael and now command to destroy the child promise is a test of whether Abraham was in this for himself or for God and he passed with flying colours. God saying, "take your only son," could also be a reminder that Ishmael is not a backup--Isaac is all Abraham has in connection to the child promise.
I try my hardest not to ever get “extra-Biblical”, for example, God gave the admonitions to Adam. So I read what you wrote about Sarah, but that may be extra-Biblical.
I appreciate your response, over the years, others have reminded me that all sin is against God. David’s confession leaves-out the mortals he sinned against…the reader knows that. I have taken 51 to have David recognizing the enormity of his sins (measured by God’s yardstick) compared to the sins against mortals (God’sCreation). I do see a conformity between David, and earlier, with God in that they both omit truth as the reader sees truth, example : C’mon God, you know Abraham first sired Ishmael, saved him in the wilderness and ultimately blessed him, so why are you having Moses record what you said to Abraham about having only one son?
Or:
C’mon, David, you know you committed adultery and had your loyal servant murdered on the front lines, so why are you having David express his sin “only” against God, when the reader and David know that he also sinned against mortals.
As I wrote when I first posted, I accept both passages, but I have had many fellow Bible students that have problems with both passages. I think that they both make Bible students go deeper as they ponder those things that were omitted.
Thank you, I will check out your site.
The reason I say that Sarah was promised the child is because of Gen 18 where the Angel of the Lord specifically says that Sarah will be the one to have a child. This is the whole reason why Ishmael is rejected because the promise belonged not just to Abraham but also to Sarah. So when God tells them to take their only child, we had to be paying attention to see that they really did only have one child together which was the child of the promise. It's also worth mentioning that the first child promise was given to Eve and not Adam though it is accepted that it was given to both in the same way that Abraham and Sarah are both given the child promise.
Rev. Andrew Jukes, in his 1896 “The Types in Genesis”, in his Chapter on Abraham (representing Faith) addresses your point, in the following Chapter on “Sonship” he uses Isaac’s Faith in his father as he shoulders the wood & asks dad from where will the sacrifice originate. Abraham truthfully tells him that God will provide…now that is surely the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen. A long time ago I heard a sermon on David & Goliath and the giant’s taunting words regarding God. The preacher said that David’s holy response was so pure & truthful that the words killed Goliath before the stone crushed his forehead. The Types in Genesis is free on Google Books. Just reading the introduction is tough, but it is a gem.
absolutely and there are WAY too many poeple who have more empathy for those who abuse their authority and power and influence - and far less empathy for the victims who are most harmed by them.
Another zinger! Very good.
Thank you for this! So well written and much needed truth. 2 Sam 11 is one of the narratives my thesis will address and your post has my wheels spinning with some fresh insights.