EFAC
Australia

   
 

EFAC National Leadership Consultation
  Gen 18-19 
  Paper for E.F.A.C. Conference 2001 by  Paul Blackham 
  In the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. AMEN 
  Genesis 18-19
  The Old Testament must be a very difficult book for Jehovah's Witnesses to read. Because they deny the doctrine of the Trinity, because they think that Jehovah/Yahweh is just one Person, they face quite terrible problems. On the one hand, one Person who calls Himself Jehovah/Yahweh says that He cannot be seen, and yet there is somebody called Yahweh who is appearing to people all over the Old Testament. 
  Genesis 18 is one of the classic occasions on which this happens. The LORD appeared to Abraham at the oaks of Mamre. Straight away we know who we are dealing with -- this is God the Son, the Second person of the Trinity, the one who reveals God to humanity. As Colossians 1:15 tells us - "He is the visible form [the ikon] of the invisible God". 
  Jonathan Stephen, the President of The Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches, begins his study on Genesis 18 with the following words: 
  Genesis 18 is quite simply one of the most remarkable chapters in the Bible. From the point of view of theophany, no one who knows and loves the Lord Jesus Christ of the New Testament could fail to recognise him there. 
  Although Jonathan Stephen identifies the main character of Genesis 18 so easily, not everyone has enjoyed the same clarity. 
  In Genesis 18:2 the fact that there were three men who approached Abraham has meant that the Eastern Orthodox branch of Christianity have taken this incident to be an appearance of the Three members of the Trinity to Abraham. It is one of the most popular Biblical scenes in icons.
  Before we say any more about this, let's reflect on the fact that the Eastern Church has always tended to be more deeply Trinitarian than the Western Church. Heresies of Unitarianism are much more common in the West than the East – and we must meditate long and hard on that fact. Why is that the East thinks nothing of a thoroughly Trinitarian exegesis of the OT, whereas such a task is only done with great reserve and caution in the West?
  The roots of this Trinitarian disorder in the West takes us beyond our brief today, but Colin Gunton's book The Promise of Trinitarian Theology is a brilliant survey of the deeper issues. However, having appreciated the Eastern comfort with the Trinitarian nature of God, we must reject the dominant Eastern exegesis of Genesis 18. Once we actually think it through we can see how impossible it is.
  First, no-one has ever seen the Father at any time. To postulate that this is only the appearance of the Three Persons according to the divine energias rather than the divine ousia seems to be bringing too much systematic luggage into the passage.
  Second, as we read the story through into chapter 19 we clearly see that it is the LORD plus two angels. 
  Let's see how it all happens.
  Verse 1, the Eternal Son plus two angels came to see Abraham. Abraham and Sarai have been waiting for their promised child for a long time. They certainly needed some serious encouragement – and they were definitely going to get it in this visit. The LORD appeared to Abraham at the great trees of Mamre.
  Following the trees in Abraham's life is a fascinating study in itself. The other patriarchs do not seem to view trees with the significance that Abraham does.
  Verse 2, as soon as Abraham sees the LORD and the two angels he is very excited and rushes out to greet them.
  Now, how Abraham treats this visit from the Living God is very important. He doesn't go into some kind of spiritual ecstasy or begin religious chants. He offers Christ and the two angels a bit of foot-washing - verse 4 - and then, verse 5, he offers to get them some food, so that they can be refreshed.
  In fact, verse 5 should be more like, "This is why you have come to me, to receive this hospitality." The reason for the visit is to enjoy table-fellowship with Abraham.
  This is so like Christ! By the time we have read to the end of the Bible we will have seen Him display this same pattern of ministry many times. It was the last time that Abraham would have one of these direct appearances of Christ – and Christ determines to enjoy table-fellowship with the one who is twice described as His friend. 
  In the Western philosophical tradition God is always assumed to be some kind of abstract entity that doesn't actually get directly involved in the world. The god of Aristotle, the god of Islam, lies behind many modern doctrines of god. From this perspective it is ridiculous to think that god could have such earthy interactions with Abraham. These kind of Biblical passages are always dismissed as 'primitive anthropomorphisms'. But, in stark contrast, we find that the real God, the God of the Bible, is so committed to and involved in His creation that, in the Bible, it is a common occurrence to find Him eating meals with people -- or walking around or wrestling with Jacob or fighting battles for Israel or whatever. The Living God loves His creation and has no problem whatsoever in dealing with it through the Son. 
  So, let's take the text seriously as it stands. The LORD Himself appeared to Abraham and enjoys fellowship with him. 
  See the end of verse 5 -- they visitors agree with Abraham's invitation -- a cool wash and a bit of food would be nice. Again this tells us a lot about the LORD -- He doesn't say, "why would I want some food and water? I don't need anything off anybody." No, He created food and water and He thinks they are very good and He likes the idea of having some quality time with His friend Abraham. 
  So, verse 6, Abraham races off, all excited, to Sarah -- "Quick, Sarah, the Angel of God has arrived for a spot of lunch. Get the oven on and bake Him something nice." Then, Abraham ran off to his animals to get the very best calf he could find. Then he got some cheese and milk and set the whole lot out in front of Christ and the angels, under the tree. Bread, steak and cheese -- I guess it was a kind of cheeseburger picnic. 
  The part of this passage that has attracted plenty of controversy is the end of verse 8, where it clearly states that they ate the food that Abraham had given them. 
  In the middle of the second century AD, Justin Martyr, a Christian, had a discussion with a Jew called Trypho. One part of their discussion centred on Genesis 18:8, because as far as Trypho was concerned Yahweh was so high and far removed from the world that He couldn't possibly literally eat the food. But, as Justin Martyr said, the Old Testament only makes sense when we trust in Christ as the OT fathers did. In the gospels we see the LORD God of Israel doing all kinds of ministry at meal-tables. He likes food and uses meal-table settings for His teaching. 
  From these historical debates we need to be reminded to pay very careful attention to the doctrine of God that we bring with us to the text. Do we have a conception of God that is more like the god of Greek philosophy -- utterly transcendent, timeless, passionless, unitarian, the exact opposite of all that we know? Or have we repented of that God and begun to know the real God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the God who is a vibrant community of love from everlasting to everlasting, the God who has made a creation that He enjoys and loves? We need to beware of a doctrine of God that predetermines the possibilities of the text. 
  The Christian gospel tells us that God can be Himself while living earthly life. It is not unnatural for God to be involved in the physical world. He made it and declared it to be very good. When we come to the birth of Jesus, if we have been following the actions of the Angel of the LORD through the Old Testament we are not surprised by the fact that the LORD becomes a full-blown member of the human race. The Incarnation is not at all out of character for the Angel of the LORD. It is exactly what was always prophesied and a natural extension of His Mediatorial work since creation itself. 
  The OT is not 'before Christ'. It is not a progress to Christ, but the progress of Christ as He strides towards His own incarnation, life, death, resurrection and ascension. 
  Because Abraham has a Messianically focussed Trinitarian faith, because he has complete confidence in the gospel of Christ the Promised Seed, he isn't freaked out by this visible visit from the LORD – Abraham just enjoys it and makes the most of it that he can.
  The story moves on to a proclamation of the gospel from verse 9. Abraham has already received the promise of Isaac in chapter 17, but now the Lord wishes to make sure that Sarah believes the gospel as well. The Eternal Christ knew that Sarah was listening in, and asks one of those key questions, "Where is your wife, Sarah?" This kind of question never seems to be asked lightly by Christ in the book of Genesis. It seems to be shining a spotlight onto a person's life, pinpointing the real issue that they must face up to. 
  To Adam the question was simply 'where are you?' To Cain it was, 'where is your brother?' To Hagar the question had been 'where are you going?' Now the question is asked indirectly, 'Abraham, where is Sarah your wife?' 
  Sarah was the one who initiated the Hagar incident in the first place. Where did she stand in her trust in Christ now? How had she repented and moved on since that time? Perhaps Abraham is being rebuked for failing to help Sarah – the question is directed at him. Some have argued that the whole purpose of Christ's visit is the restoration of Sarah's life of faith in Him.
  Perhaps the question is asking, 'why isn't Sarah here enjoying the fellowship? Is she still unbelieving?' 
  Christ tells Abraham - verse 10 - that Sarah will have a son in the following spring. Verse 11 shows us that both of them were long past the point of producing children – Abraham was presumably completely impotent, and Sarah was no longer menstruating. In Romans 4:19 Paul, very bluntly, says that Abraham was as good as dead as far as producing children was concerned. 
  From a human point of view, this is why Sarah laughs to herself - verse 12. She says that she has decayed away and cannot enjoy the pleasure of procreation any more. Christ knows that she has laughed and what she has said to herself, and tells Abraham about it - verse 13. But, the LORD shows up what is so wrong with Sarah's laughter - "Is anything impossible for the LORD? Is there anything that the LORD cannot do?" Now we see the unbelief of Sarah. She has a doctrine of God that is determined in advance. 
  This isn't just any son that they is being promised, but the son that would be the ancestor of Jesus. Sarah thinks that because this cannot be done with human effort, therefore it can't be done at all. Sarah is shown up as one who still has her trust in the ability of human beings to save themselves. So, the LORD repeats His promise. 
  [NOTE: so that we do not get a too negative view of Sarah, we must remember that in Genesis 21 she is presented as the defender of justification by faith and not works, according to the apostle Paul… and Luther]. 
  Then we get this slightly comic conclusion where Sarah tries to deny that she laughed and Christ actually bothers to enter into the discussion and says - "No, Sarah, you did laugh." 
  Then, verse 16, the three guests get up to go. The time for judgement upon Sodom has arrived. An example of judgement day must be set out for history to learn from. Abraham walks alongside them as they depart. Then, from verses 17-19 Moses gives us an amazing insight into the meditations of the Appearing LORD as they were all walking along. Should He tell Abraham what He was about to do or not? Of course He should because Abraham is His friend.
  If Abraham is to correctly guide his children and descendants he must be told all about Christ's plans and purposes – how else could Abraham be the model of Christian faith for the whole world down the ages? 
  So, verse 20, Christ explains that He is on His way to get a first-hand view of Sodom and Gomorrah so that His judgement against them will be entirely accurate. He will not rely on second hand accounts and mere hear-say – just what Isaiah 11:3 tells us. This is the Christ who will judge the whole world, and His care for true judgement gives us strong confidence. 
  The two angels go on their way to Sodom, and 19:1 arrive there in the evening. But, 18:22, Abraham remains with the Appearing LORD. Abraham's first concern is for the justice of the coming judgement. Would the righteous be properly rescued from the destruction that fell upon the wicked? Would the judge of all the world do what is right? 
  Abraham's questions from verse 23-32 teach us that the patient, long-suffering love of God is quite beyond our grasp. How could the LORD restrain His fierce anger against the unbelief of Sodom, especially when His two angels were being threatened with rape? Yet, he would restrain his judgement and wait longer if Lot and his family had done any evangelism. If there had been converts, then Christ would hold back his judgement against Sodom. 
  Yet, when we get into Genesis 19 we quickly see that things are worse than we feared. Lot has become a respected leader within the city – verse 1. [Compare Proverbs 31:23].
  He had lived in a tent outside the city at first, but now he has been absorbed within its life. In fact, verse 3, he has bought a house right in Sodom. Compared to Abraham Lot has completely lost his New Creation perspective. He is a very compromised saint. He has done no gospel work. There is no gathering of believers in Sodom. Abraham's household had grown large -- Lot hadn't brought anybody into the covenant family. 
  Nevertheless, verse 2 Lot does offer hospitality to the two angels. The meal he offers them has attracted a great deal of attention over the years. Verse 3, "He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate." Bread without yeast has great theological significance within the Bible. When the Hebrews are leaving Egypt the worst possible thing was to attempt to bake bread made with yeast. Bread with yeast takes time to rise, and at a time when the judgement/redemption of Christ is arriving, the only righteous food to eat is fast food, bread made without yeast. The fact that Lot makes this bread, the bread that speaks of judgement and redemption, has encouraged many commentators in Christian history to speak of Lot's remaining [albeit small] gospel faith. 
  However, whatever the exact state of Lot's spiritual understanding, the men of Sodom have none whatsoever. They all come, both young and old, to have sex with the angels. In Jude 7 this sexual immorality is called 'a going after strange flesh', 'different flesh'. Perhaps the men of Sodom are excited at the prospect of a genuinely different sexual experience.
  They surround Lot's house to rape the angels. Any outward respect that Lot may have gained in Sodom is quickly forgotten – verse 9. Notice how the men of Sodom will not even accept this very compromised resistance to their immorality. They are outraged that Lot dare to stand in judgement upon them. Who does he think he is imposing his own religious ideas on society!? 
  Lot feels that he must protect these angels, yet he is so compromised in his lifestyle that he thinks it is acceptable to offer his two young daughters to the mob – verse 8. Lot's behaviour stands as a solemn warning. He probably thought that it was just the lesser of two evils, and the only option in a difficult situation. However, to the faithful saint it would never be an option at all. 
  Of course, the angels need no assistance from Lot. In fact, verse 10, they have to save Lot from the mob. Verse 11 – they are able to make the spiritual blindness of the Sodomites show itself in their physical eyes. However, and there is a horror to this, even though the men have been struck blind, yet they still want to find the door to Lot's house to rape the angels. Their lust is all-consuming. 
  In verse 12 Lot is asked the question that his own Christian conscience must have asked him many times – "are there no more believers in Sodom even after all this time?"
  Perhaps Lot had convinced himself that simply keeping himself and his family relatively untouched by the sin of Sodom was enough. He had managed to make sure his daughters didn't sleep with their fiancés before marriage – cf. Verse 14b and 8. But, his silent witness had made no impact on the people of Sodom. There was not a single convert, not a single person had been blessed through Lot's presence. When the day of judgement arrived the reality of Lot's life became clear. Nothing mattered on that day other than being one of those who trusted in Christ. BUT, there were no others. Even the husbands [fiancés] of his daughters thought it was all an amusing piece of entertainment, just a joke. 'What a laugh, Lot! All this religious stuff, it cracks me up…this is your funniest yet…" 
  Perhaps we can imagine Lot going on about his daughters not sleeping with their boyfriends – but the boyfriends weren't believers and they had no faith whatsoever in Christ. It was nothing to them – just a joke. Lot had replaced gospel ministry with moralism and individualism. How empty it all looked when the angels spoke those fateful words in verse 15. 
  Even then, even when the judgement is just about to fall, verse 16, Lot hesitated. Even then he was compromised, even then his heart was divided. Even then he found it hard to leave Sodom behind. In the end the angels have to physically throw him out of the city.
  After speaking with Abraham, the Eternal Christ had made His way down to Sodom and Gomorrah. The angels eject Lot and his family out of the city. Then, in verse 17, the NIV slightly confuses things. It is the LORD who is waiting outside the city, not one of the angels. He tells Lot to flee and never look back.
  Sadly, Lot's wife is still a citizen of Sodom rather than the city of God. Lot had not even shared the gospel with his own wife. Later we see how the apparent morality of his daughters is in fact a thin disguise for a seething whirlpool of immorality – verses 30-38. 
  As Lot makes his escape, verse 24 – the LORD on the earth rained down the sulphur from the LORD in the heavens. "Then the LORD rained down burning sulphur on Sodom and Gomorrah--from the LORD out of the heavens."
  The critical unbeliever always has the tendency to read the text with minimalist glasses. We notice this when we are trying to show the Jehovah's Witness or Muslim how Jesus of Nazareth is clearly presented as the Living God. We show how He forgives sin… but they say that could be read as nothing more than Jesus forgiven authority on behalf of God. We show how He walked on water, a unique divine prerogative… but they say that could be read as nothing more than the power of the God at work in a human, because Peter also walked on water. We show how Jesus describes Himself as one with the Father… but they say that could be read as nothing more than the unity with God that is also described of all believers. To us who believe all these texts shout utterly unambiguously and clearly that Jesus is God the Son… but to the sceptical unbeliever they can always be read in a different way, deconstructed along different lines. True, we can point out how the sceptical reading doesn't do justice to the full range of material… but we are in a messy engagement as every text is sliced into a reductionist, minimalist reading. A minimalist reading is insisting on the absolute least that can be possibly derived from a text, and treating that as the intention of the author. 
  Now, the same kind of conversation that we all have with the Jehovah's Witness in the gospels, seems to go on in a much more common and less contested way in the Old Testament. All the verses like Genesis 19:24 [or nearly any of the others we have looked in Genesis 15-19] are treated minimalistically, as if the goal were to discover some way of reading it that doesn't lead to the natural Trinitarian meaning. 
  For example, on Genesis 19:24 all of the following have been put forward as reasons for taking the verse in a unitarian rather than trinitarian way:- the two LORDS are a mere accident of the text left over by a redactor; a semantic ploy to emphasise that it really was the LORD; the angels on the earth are being represented as the LORD who acts from heaven. So we could go on. However, why would we want to? Why would we want to pursue this kind of a minimalist reading of the Old Testament? We have seen where such minimalist readings of the New Testament lead -- straight into heresy and cults or unbelief. The same happens in the Old Testament also.
  [We don't want a maximalist reading either that finds Christ, the gospel and the church when it isn't there to be found. That kind of allegorising is encouraged and flourishes when the minimalist reading is promoted -- 'we all know the OT is all about Christ, and if we are not allowed Him in the plain sense then we must 'discover' Him through allegory'. This is not any real improvement on the mess of minimalism!] 
  BUT, the question may be asked how can we know what is the correct level of expectation to have when we approach these texts? Minimal, maximal or medium? Well, we don't have to work it out for ourselves. Jesus and His apostles give us many examples of Old Testament exegesis. The writer to the Hebrews, in chapters 1 and 2, regards it as obvious, not requiring any proof or explanation, that the Old Testament is full of conversations between the Father and the Son, and speeches by Christ. There is nothing odd about any of that once we have learnt to read the Old Testament in faith. 
  Genesis 19:24
  Yahweh on earth and Yahweh in the heavens. It is a great verse to challenge the Jehovah's Witness with: to which Jehovah are they witnessing? The Jehovah on the earth or the Jehovah in the heavens? 
  This is the great truth we must meditate upon on this final day together. 
  As we read the actual text of these passages of Genesis we cannot hide the doctrine of God presented here. It is a Trinitarian theology focussed in the pre-incarnate Christ. We are not troubled by that because of our Biblical priorities. Nevertheless, there have been many theologians in the Western tradition who find any mention of the Trinity in the OT a deeply troubling matter. 
  Colin Gunton places the blame for the prevalence of this within Western Christian theology at the feet of philosophical theology. 
  …there is a tendency for the distinctive forms of action attributed to the Son and the Spirit to be redistributed to intermediate agencies, in the context of a strongly unitary conception of divine action. Because Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit tend to be displaced by angels, the character of divine action in history is understood too unitarily... [The Promise of Trinitarian Theology page 172] 
  These schemes whereby the action of God in the OT is understood in a unitary way developed at the end of the 4th century AD. All the actions of God in the OT were described as the work of angels -- because how could God have any direct contact with the world before the incarnation?
  As we have already indicated the deep problem was with the mediation of the Son. Whereas the apostles and the Christians of the first 250 years of Biblical study taking the lead of passages like Proverbs 8, Genesis 1, John 1 and Colossians 1 had seen that Christ had been the Mediating member of the Trinity from the very beginning, the philosophical doctrine of God opposed this.
  The basic definition of God in the philosophical approach is a divine substance that underlies the Three Persons. All the questions about God under such an approach concern the relation of that divine substance to the creation, not the relation of the Three Persons to the creation. 
  It is no wonder that the exegesis of the OT became so problematic beginning in the early medieval period and reaching right through to the Reformation. 
  The earlier Christians had enjoyed an exegetical liberty and integrity lost to the medieval western tradition. 
  For example, Gregory Nazianzen [325-389] has a fantastic Bible overview in which he explains the relationship of the Father and the Son through the OT: 
  ...when Moses was ordered to go down into Egypt and lead out the people of the Israelites who were there, and while he was tending the flocks of his maternal uncle in the land of Arabia, our Christ conversed with him under the appearance of fire from a bush, and said, 'Put off your shoes, and draw near and hear'... and he received mighty power from Christ, who spoke to him in the appearance of fire, and went down and led out the people, having done great and marvelous things... 
  Gregory condemns unbelieving Judaism as betraying the faith of Moses. Moses knew Christ very well as the Visible form of the Invisible God – but many of the Jews of Jesus day had no such theological faith and understanding. 
  Now the Word of God is His Son, as we have before said. And He is called Angel and Apostle; for He declares whatever we ought to know, and is sent forth to declare whatever is revealed; as our Lord Himself says, 'He that hears Me, hears Him that sent Me.' From the writings of Moses also this will be manifest; for thus it is written in them, 'And the Angel of God spoke to Moses… and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the God of thy fathers; go down into Egypt, and bring forth My people.'...
  Gregory says that the real offence of unbelieving Judaism is in thinking that it was the Father who spoke to Moses in the burning bush -–because in doing that they have denied the reality of the Christ, the Son of God. They could only speak of the Father in this way if they were completely ignorant of the real God of the OT. Thus he says, "Whence also the Spirit of prophecy rebukes them, and says, 'Israel does not know Me, my people have not understood Me.'"
  Jesus' harsh indictment of his so-called followers in John 8 is almost exactly what Gregory says. These unbelieving Jews did not know the God of Abraham at all because they do not know Christ, God the Son. Their failure to know and love Him simply shows that they do not know the God of the OT at all. The OT saints knew God in Christ, His Sent One. 
  Once we follow the apostolic pattern of OT exegesis, we begin to see the staggering wealth and sophistication of the Trinitarian theology of the OT. It's important that we pay attention to the text – and when we explain these verses to others to keep their attention on what it actually says rather than what they think it says. 
  When we study, for example, the work of the Three Persons in the book of Exodus -- especially in chapters 19, 33-35 we find such a clear presentation of the Biblical doctrine of God. These chapters are so striking because we see both the Three Persons at work, AND the distinctive roles of each. There is the Father who remains the Unseen LORD, the LORD in the heavens, who sends His Angel to accomplish His purposes in creation, judgement and redemption. There is the Seen LORD, who perfectly presents the word and will of the Father to the world. There is the Spirit of the LORD, who equips both the Seen LORD and His people to perform the will of the Father. 
  If this OT doctrine of God is not securely in place when we get to the New Testament we will struggle to understand what is happening. The New Testament assumes the theology of the OT. There is no NT doctrine of God – just a continuation of the OT doctrine of God. John comes the closest to articulating a doctrine of God, but he simply refers us back to the OT, over and over again throughout his gospel. 
  Conclusion 
  The Old Testament is not 'Before Christ'. It is the progress of Christ as He strides through history towards His own incarnation. Those that walked with Him in that progress had their whole faith and hope fixed on Him, whether they directly saw Him or not. He was the object of justifying faith since the beginning of the world and He will be to the end of the world. God has never acted in any other way than from the Father [the LORD in the heavens], through the Son [the Angel of the LORD], in the power of the Spirit of the LORD. Not only has He always acted in this way, but His people have always found that a basic aspect of their faith and understanding. At no point within the Bible is the Trinitarian nature of God raised as some kind of puzzle or conundrum to be resolved. It is simply the basic foundation upon which all knowledge of God is built. 
   
  Rev Paul Blackham is Associate Minister, Curate Theologian at All Soul's Church Langham Place 
 
              
  Return to index of papers 
Contact us
Home