The purpose of this appendix is to discuss the principle of interpreting scriptures based on scriptural evidence. This sounds like such common sense that no bible believing and bible reading believer should need to be reminded of. While this might be the case, we often approach scriptures with our preconceived ideas such that our interpretation is nothing more than making statements about our thinking rather than unpacking the meaning of scriptures. Let's focus our attention on a particular situation where we can apply the principle of interpreting scriptures based on scriptural evidence instead of passing judgment based on our own preconceived ideas. The two situations where Abraham and Sarah denied their marital relationship, both in Egypt and in Gerar, would be appropriate for the purpose. Here is the issue that we need to examine under the microscope: Did Abraham systematically lie about his relationship with Sarah in order to save himself? And if so, what had God done about it in order to discipline him?

We can approach our investigation from different perspectives. Let's do it first from the perspective of Abraham and Sarah and see how they responded to their denying their relationship with one another. Both Abraham and Sarah loved one another as a couple with a level of intensity that is not seen anywhere else in the bible. Abraham's greatest desire was, without a doubt, having a son. But when it came to his relationship with Sarah, everything else would have to take a backseat. That was why he did not take another woman to be his wife just for the sake of having a son. That was why he let Sarah deal with Hagar however she wanted even though Hagar was pregnant at that time. That was why Abraham felt greatly distressed when Sarah told him to get rid of Hagar and Ishmael, instead of flatly telling her 'No'. It was the same for Sarah when it came to her relationship with Abraham. Sarah consistently obeyed Abraham at all cost to the point of sacrificing herself. That was the extent they had loved one another.

With all that said, this couple's relationship with one another did not seem to deteriorate or go down the drain with Abraham's allegedly lying about their relationship. Instead it seemed to have grown even stronger and healthier such that it could survive the trouble and heartache of not seeing God's promise fulfilled for a long time. So we could see from Sarah's perspective that Abraham had not lied to save himself, rather, to save the entire household at her expense. Otherwise their marital relationship would have gone down the drain a long time before. Isn't that obvious? Why would we think that Sarah would have taken such insult from Abraham so well that there was no damage at all to their relationship, if Abraham had lied to save himself at Sarah's expense? Sarah was a magnificent woman of God but not a robot that could not help but say 'Yes, Master'. She loved much with good reason and hated much with good reason. In fact she was an intelligent strong-will woman who lived her life with the full force of her being. We should not totally disregard how Sarah had felt about the whole matter, which we have when we think that Sarah had put up with Abraham for his systematic lying. We are simply making a statement about ourselves the way we have regarded Sarah. If you are a man and have regarded Sarah that way, you should change your attitude toward women. And if you are a woman and have regarded Sarah that way, you need to have an inner transformation about yourself as a woman. Besides, don't we often use the following line when we answer non-believers' doubt about the resurrection of Jesus: If Jesus' resurrection were a lie, no disciples would have been willing to die for a lie. Therefore we should treat Sarah as a human being with normal emotions just like Jesus' disciples instead of treating her like a robot. This is very convicting concerning the churches of our days - many people walk away from churches never to return because of the inhumane way they have been treated by people who, guess what, have a distorted view of scriptures, and hence of people.

We can also examine the matter from God's perspective. If God had considered Abraham's 'systematic lying' an offense, God would have disciplined Abraham instead of blessing him every time he had 'lied'. Chapter 13 verses 1-2 say, "So Abram went up from Egypt to the Negev, with his wife and everything he had, and Lot went with him. Abram had become very wealthy in livestock and in silver and gold." The household of Abraham and Sarah had just survived a severe famine (chapter 12 verse 10 says it was a severe famine) and should have been destitute. Yet they had come out of Egypt with great wealth. If Egypt was supposed to have been a moral failure on the part of Abraham, how could God have blessed him the way he had? It was even more confounding traditional thinking for their trip to Gerar. Again Abraham was blessed with sheep and cattle and male and female slaves. He was given a gift of silver for the offense against Sarah. He was offered a safe haven to stay for a long time to come. Above all God honored Abraham as a prophet who exercised control over the welfare of a king and whose prayer carried weight. If Gerar was supposed to have been a moral failure on the part of Abraham, how could God have blessed him the way he had? We are making a statement about our notion about God the way we have regarded Abraham and the way God had handled the situation - God is permissive and readily puts up with our sins. If that is the way you have regarded God, you need to tear down your idol and come to know the God depicted in scriptures.

On the other hand we tend to harbor the notion that we have better ethics and better morality than God when we condemn Abraham for his 'systematic lying' while in reality God did not. This kind of thinking is actually very prevalent. When we read of incidents of genocide commanded by God in the Old Testament, we consider them morally wrong. In so doing we are chastising God that he does not even measure up to our human level of morality and ethics. The reality is that according to God's absolute justice we should all be annihilated the moment we sin, not just the people in Canaan thousands of years ago. We still have life and breath and the free will to condemn God because God is patient and merciful with us, not because he has lower morality and ethics. We should be thanking and praising God for his patience and mercy instead of condemning him for his justice. It is our erroneous understanding of scriptures that results in an erroneous understanding of God's nature and an erroneous understanding of God's purpose in what he does. In the case of Abraham God had no discipline for Abraham in what we think to be his 'systematic lying'. God's discipline for Abraham was something very different and something very obvious - it was about purging Abraham of all his relationship and Abraham's submission in the process. When we get hung up on our own interpretation of what was 'wrong' with Abraham, we totally missed God's discipline for Abraham and hence the lesson we are to learn. If you do so purposefully in order to avoid learning the hard lesson, that is another story.

We get hung up on our own interpretation of scriptures because we approach scriptures with preconceived ideas that are not conveyed in scriptures. Instead of letting scriptures speak to us, we assign meaning to scriptures based on our preconceived notion that is not intended by scripture writers. It is tantamount to being on a jury and coming up with a verdict based solely on the opinion you have from reading the newspaper rather than solely on evidence that is presented. We therefore need to understand scriptures from the perspective of scripture writers. Chapter 18 verses 12-15 say, "So Sarah laughed to herself as she thought, 'After I am worn out and my master is old, will I now have this pleasure?' Then the LORD said to Abraham, 'Why did Sarah laugh and say, `Will I really have a child, now that I am old?` Is anything too hard for the LORD? I will return to you at the appointed time next year and Sarah will have a son.' Sarah was afraid, so she lied and said, 'I did not laugh.' But he said, 'Yes, you did laugh.'" Here the scripture writer of Genesis plainly pointed out that Sarah was lying when she said that she did not laugh. Chapter 26, verses 6-7 say, "So Isaac stayed in Gerar. When the men of that place asked him about his wife, he said, 'She is my sister,' because he was afraid to say, 'She is my wife.'" Again the scripture writer of Genesis plainly pointed out that Isaac was lying when he said that Rebecca was his sister. But when it came to Abraham, the scripture writer of Genesis was careful not to convey the idea that Abraham was lying when he said that Sarah was his wife. Abraham, Sarah and Isaac were all members of the same family and it was the same scripture writer who depicted them in these different situations. The scripture writer was not giving Abraham preferential treatment; he was simply depicting reality the way it was.

We know that the scripture writer of Genesis was Moses. Moses had a certain writing style concerning the family of Abraham and Sarah. Chapter 21 verses 9-11 say, "But Sarah saw that the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking, and she said to Abraham, 'Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.' The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son." Here Sarah was denying the fact that Ishmael was Abraham's son. But Moses' comment pointed out that Ishmael was Abraham's son regardless of Sarah's denial. So Moses was quick to point out fallacy in the remarks Sarah was making. Or look at chapter 16, verses 3 and 6. Verse 3 says, "So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife." Verse 6 says, "'Your servant is in your hands,' Abram said. 'Do with her whatever you think best.'" Here Abraham was denying his relationship with Hagar and called her Sarah's servant. But Moses had made it clear that Hagar was given by Sarah to him as his wife. So again Moses was quick to point out fallacy in the remarks Abraham was making. Moses was not shy in telling scripture readers what he thought to be the fact regardless of what people he was describing were saying. So Moses was objective and precise in writing scriptures. When he was careful not to convey the idea that Abraham was lying about his relationship with Sarah, Moses was simply doing his job.

What has been said is not about disregarding our sense of right and wrong when we interpret scriptures. Our sense of right and wrong has its place in the interpretation of scriptures, but not in deciding what scriptures really mean. We need to look at scriptures from the perspective of characters being examined, which gives us the motives for what they do and say. We need to look at scriptures from the perspective of scripture writer, which gives us the objective and factual evaluation of why biblical characters behaved the way they did. We need to look at scriptures from the perspective of God, which gives us a consistent pattern of interpretation of all scriptures. When necessary, we need to put aside what we think and what we want to hear and simply accept what scripture says, especially when there is a preponderance of scriptural evidence against what we would like to be facts. God is so wise that scriptures are like a mirror - how we interpret it says nothing about scripture itself, but our own core values. That is to say, what we think and say about truth neither adds anything to nor subtracts anything from it. It only shows that we are all sinners and we need a savior in Jesus.

All the arguments presented above are not for the purpose of convincing anyone about any particular point in scripture. It is for the purpose of promoting the good practice of interpreting scriptures based on scriptural evidence. The myth about Abraham is just one example. There are certainly other myths in scriptures such as those about Daniel, which result from not following the principle that has been presented. It is only when we have dispelled those myths that we can begin to see God's purpose and discipline in the lives of these biblical characters. But how do we dispel those myths? By none other than interpreting scriptures based on scriptural evidence.