Biblical Doctrine of the Family

Abraham and Sarah – A Normative Marriage

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Systematic Theology

Lesson: Government

Genre: Speech

Track: 10

Dictation Name: 10 Abraham and Sarah – A Normative Marriage

Year: 1960’s – 1970’s

In this session, our subject is Abraham and Sarah, a Normative Marriage. In 1 Peter 3:1-7, we are told that Sarah is a model for all women. Moreover, we are told that hers was godly subjection. Now, when you read in Genesis how Sarah behaved, you know that more than once, she told Abraham, “You do this. Period,” and tolerated no dissent, because she knew that, in the eyes of God, she was in the right. On the other hand, in a very critical case, we have Sarah’s submission. In Genesis 12:10 following, we have a critical case where Abraham usually takes quite a beating from commentators.

Genesis 12: 10. “And there was a famine in the land: and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there; for the famine was grievous in the land. And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon: therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say, This is his wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive. Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee.

And it came to pass, that, when Abram was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair. The princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and commended her before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house. And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels. And the Lord plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife.

And Pharaoh called Abram and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife? Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife: now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way. And Pharaoh commanded his men concerning him: and they sent him away, and his wife, and all that he had.”

Now we have a commentary on this passage in scripture, and we have it in Psalm 105, where we read, just to confine ourselves to verses 13-15, which we are told deal with Abraham and Isaac. “When they went from one nation to another, from one kingdom to another people; he suffered no man to do them wrong: yea, he reproved kings for their sakes; saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm.” So, we have God’s commentary on this passage. Before we analyze it, let’s take a look at Sarah and the meaning of her name, and then we’ll go on to consider why Sarah said nothing, why she agreed when she was a strong-minded woman who didn’t hesitate on other occasions to lay down the law, in effect, to Abraham.

According to an archeologist, J. Garrow Duncan, “The head of a department in Egypt was known as the Sar{?}. Potiphar is here described as Sar{?}, which literally means the chief of the butchers. The chief butcher and baker are both described by the title Sar{?}, Genesis 40:2. So we find are the overseers in charge of Pharaoh’s cattle. Genesis 47:6, and the taskmasters, chief of the compulsory labor department. In Genesis 12:15, the princes of Pharaoh who saw Sarah are also the Sarai Pharo, Pharaoh’s chief officials. Phicol, in 21-22 is described as the czar of Abimelech’s army,” and so on and on, but the point he makes is that it means chief, or prince, or sometimes princes, that the title Sar-sarim is used of God. So that the name Sarah has a particular significance. Let us analyze with that in mind that we have someone who got her name from God, the name that meant she was a person of authority, and let us analyze the Egyptian sojourn seriously.

First of all, was Abraham wrong in what he did? Genesis 12:12 tells us they would kill him to get Sarah. Second, the Bible gives us no ground for believing in special miracles, in rescue in every situation whenever we are in trouble. Abraham had no such assurance. Moreover, we learn from the New Testament that it is a sin to so believe. In fact, Satan, in the temptation, told our Lord, “After all, if you’re the son of God, isn’t he going to rescue you every time you’re in trouble? Throw yourself down from the top of the temple and the angels will rescue you before you touch ground.” Then third, is the fact that, in those days, from all that we know, adultery was feared and men were afraid to commit it because it was equated with death. It was a most serious offense because it was an offense against family, the basic institution, but murder was lightly considered, and as Abraham made clear, “they will kill me to get you.” Whereas, adultery would have been fearful, killing a man and then marrying his wife was done every day. It was a fact of life.

Thus, we can say fourth, Abraham had two choices: to lie or to tell the truth and die. Now, this is the realistic situation as Abraham and the Bible present it. Then next, let us consider that in the instant of Rahab in Joshua, God blesses her for lying to the ungodly men who came to seize the two spies. The Bible says we are to tell the truth, but it never says that we owe the truth to men who are out to do evil, or out to commit a crime. Then we abet a crime. If Abraham would have told the truth, he would have died and Sarah still would have been taken, and there would have been no rescue.

Now, Abram was aware of his calling and his dignity, of the messianic promises that through him the Messiah was to come, and he felt that he could not sacrifice himself foolishly. As a matter of fact, this chapter carries again, the messianic promise through him.

Moreover, God punished Pharaoh and greatly blessed Abraham, so that he left Egypt very wealthy. Now, this is hard for the modern mind to take, especially in this century. The interesting thing is, as late as 1914, school textbooks had a very different account of this and like episodes. As a matter of fact, in 1914, there was a story about a heroine from the time of the War of Independence, which is no longer told and her name has disappeared from the history books. Does anyone here know who Elizabeth Zane was? Not a one. That tells you how a woman who was once in all history books is now gone. Just as if things continue as they are now, the next generation will not know Patrick Henry. He’s no longer in the textbooks. Who was Elizabeth Zane?

Well, in the critical battle of Fort Henry, and I believe it was there and in terms of that, that the Star Spangled Banner was Written, the American defenders were trapped in a blockhouse, and all the ammunition was in another building some distance away. They were running out of ammunition. The number of surviving men were limited, and here was young Elizabeth Zane, and the commanding officer, when she volunteered, said, “You will go. I cannot spare any of the men, but you are not a rifleman, you’re not a marksman. You go and get the ammunition for us.” Well, it was virtually a suicide mission, and amazingly she made it and came back with the ammunition. Very significant, as late as 1914, a textbook that I have calls attention to it and asks, Was the commanding officer right in sending her instead of a man? What is the premise here involved? What moral foundation was there for his action? Do you see the moral revolution that has taken place?

In terms of the thinking today about Abraham, the commanding officer should have made the suicide trip, not Elizabeth Zane. In effect, that’s what Sarah did. They were in a situation where it was sure death if he said, “She is my wife,” because it was routine for the Egyptians to look over any of the incoming peoples and seize a woman after killing the man. Men cannot deny their importance without denying the importance of womanhood. There is an order in life and women today suffer because men are not men. They are afraid to make difficult decisions. Our actions must be governed by our relationship to God and his kingdom, not humanistic ideas about chivalry.

Back in the late fifties, early sixties, there was a movie named Blue Angel, perhaps mercifully forgotten by all. It was very heavily advertised. I never saw the film, but every time you opened a newspaper for a week or two, there were big ads for the Blue Angel, and it showed the Blue Angel, I forget the name of the actress who played her, very scantily clad, and in bold letters, “Could a man have a better reason for throwing his life away?” Now, that’s exactly the spirit in which men approach the Bible and the story of Abraham and Sarah, and it’s wrong. In the law, we have the declaration, in Deuteronomy 23:1, in Leviticus 22:23, and elsewhere, that any emasculated man is barred from the congregation of the Lord and from the Lord’s service. In other words, he cannot be a member, and membership as a man meant rulership, potential eldership, the power to govern, and because he had been “unmanned,” he could not function as a man. Now, this is case law. Case law means that you have something that sets forth a premise, and that premise governs a variety of cases. “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox which treddeth out the corn.” Both our Lord and Paul make it clear that this means the laborer is worthy of his hire, and they that labor worthily in the ministry of the word are worthy of double honor and the word honor “temae” is pay.

Now, the law that forbids emasculation applies not only to physical emasculation, but psychological emasculation, and this is what men do to themselves, first when they abandon God. That’s the beginning of their psychic castration. When they are not responsible in their families, they are castrates. They are not men. When they refuse to make the difficult decisions in family life and to be responsible, to be able to govern themselves, they are not men. They have violated this law. If they leave responsibility to the women and the children, so many men leave religion to the wife to handle. They leave the teaching and guiding of the children to the wife to handle. They’ve abdicated. They have emasculated themselves. In 101 ways, they are to serve their family, as Christ served the church. This means sometimes, difficult decisions, very painful ones, and we can be sure that Abraham’s decision was a very painful one, but it was the only way that he could live and possibly save her. Responsibility is a difficult thing, because it carries fearful burdens with it. It is never easy, but it is required of us, and before God gave Isaac to Abraham and Sarah, and before he enabled them to see something of all that was planned for them, and was to come in and through them, he put them both through hell. He disciplined them. He put them through situations where they faced very difficult decisions, for Abraham had to make a decision, and where Abraham had to listen to Sarah when she said, “This is what you have to do,” and spoke her mind in no uncertain terms, and God told Abraham, “You listen to her.”

This is why Abraham and Sarah are given to us by Peter as a normative marriage, because through their lives, God teaches us the problems that come in life and how we are to assume them. Remember, the Garden of Eden was not perfect. That is, mature, to use the word perfect in the biblical sense. It was good, very good. It was sinless, but it was an immature place that called for a lot of work, hard work, tool making. This of how many things Adam had to invent to be able to till the garden and to keep it, and marriage is not a perfect relationship in the sense of scripture, not a mature one, but it’s a good one.

Let us bow our heard in prayer.

O Lord our God, thy word is truth, and thy way is righteousness and life altogether. Give us grace to follow thee with all our heart, mind, and being, and to rejoice in what thou dost require of us. Bless us now and give us traveling mercies as we journey home, a blessed night’s rest, and joy in our labors on the morrow. In Christ’s name. Amen.

End of tape