Christians are saved, not perfected. In the lives of every professing Christian, no matter how strong, you will find sin. Some sins linger long after salvation has worked a transforming miracle in the life of the recipient. Some sins just never seem to go away. Such is the testimony of Abraham in Genesis 20.

"Abraham journeyed from there to the Negev region and settled between Kadesh and Shur. While he lived as a temporary resident in Gerar, Abraham said about his wife Sarah, "She is my sister." So Abimelech, king of Gerar, sent for Sarah and took her.

But God appeared to Abimelech in a dream at night and said to him, "You are as good as dead because of the woman you have taken, for she is someone else’s wife."

Now Abimelech had not gone near her. He said, "Lord, would you really slaughter an innocent nation? Did Abraham not say to me, ‘She is my sister’? And she herself said, ‘He is my brother.’ I have done this with a clear conscience and with innocent hands!"

Then in the dream God replied to him, "Yes, I know that you have done this with a clear conscience. That is why I have kept you from sinning against me and why I did not allow you to touch her. But now give back the man’s wife. Indeed he is a prophet and he will pray for you; thus you will live. But if you don’t give her back, know that you will surely die along with all who belong to you." Genesis 20:1-6

For reasons unrecorded, Abraham left Mamre and wandered near Kadesh and then northwest to Gerar, not far from the Mediterranean Sea in the land of the Philistines. At Gerar, Abraham repeated a sin committed very early in his life as a follower of God (see Genesis 12). Once again, he passed off his wife Sarah as his sister, which resulted in her being taken into the harem of Abimelech, king of Gerar.

Liberal critics argue that Chapters 12, 20, and 26 are three different accounts of the same event, but while the similarities are striking, the differences are significant. Textual critics say that there is no reason not to accept these as three events with similar details, but decided differences. The similarities remind us that even mature saints are plagued with the sins of younger days and that the sins of the fathers are visited on the sons.

The situation in Chapter 20 is far more critical than in Chapter 12. God had clearly revealed to Abraham and Sarah that together they would bear a son through whom the covenant promises would be realized and that the child would be born within a year. Human reasoning would have considered the dangers in chapter 20 to be minimal since Sarah was long past the childbearing age, but as a man of faith, Abraham should have seen the matter in a more faithful light.

Abimelech was restrained by God with a strong warning (verse 3), but then his entire household was afflicted by some sort of veneral disease (verses 6-7, 17-18). Abimilech had not violated Sarah (verses 4-5); his actions appear to be based upon purity of motive and belief of Abraham and Sarah's lies. God acknowledged the innocence of the king but made it clear that apart from divine intervention he would have committed a grave offense. The way Abimelech handled this matter now would determine his destiny. To delay or disobey meant certain death.

Strangely, Abimelech stood head and shoulders above Abraham in this passage. Truthfully, there is no sin into which Christians cannot fall in times of disobedience and unbelief and at those times, unbelievers may put the Christian to shame by their integrity and morality (1Corinthians 5:1). I find Abraham's regression perfectly believable, but am continually amazed by God's faithfulness toward him during times of failure. Had I been God, I think I would have disowned him at this point, but God must always act according to His character and that demands He remain faithful to His promises. God disclosed that Abraham was a believer, a prophet and God's representative and intermediary, through whom Abimelech must be healed.

Imagine the paradox in Abimelech's mind. God's representative was a liar?! He might have considered punitive action if Abraham were not the source of his healing. How awkward that must have been for both of them!

"Abimelech summoned Abraham and said to him, "What have you done to us? What sin did I commit against you that would cause you to bring such great guilt on me and my kingdom? You have done things to me that should not be done!" Genesis 20:9

Wasting no time, Abimelech made matters right before God. Abimelech did sternly rebuke Abraham for his deceit which had caused this malady. Abimelech had been wronged by Abraham, who was meant to be a source of blessing. He was like the annoying houseguest who will not go away. Sadly, 25 years before this, Abraham had committed a nearly identical sin. Pharaoh got Abraham as far from his presence as possible as quickly as possible. Abimelech did not ask Abraham to leave, perhaps out of fear of what God might do for such lack of hospitality.

"Abraham replied, "Because I thought, ‘Surely no one fears God in this place. They will kill me because of my wife.’ What’s more, she is indeed my sister, my father’s daughter, but not my mother’s daughter. She became my wife. When God made me wander from my father’s house, I told her, ‘This is what you can do to show your loyalty to me: Every place we go, say about me, "He is my brother."’" Genesis 20:11-13

None of Abraham's weak excuses satisfactorily explain his actions in Gerar. First, Abraham acted out of fear that Sarah’s beauty would get him killed and she would be taken as a wife by violence. This fear was based upon a faulty theological premise: God is only able to act when men are willing to obey. God could save Abraham only in a place where He was known and feared by men. The inference is that where ungodly men are, God’s hand is shortened and unable to save. Such theology was due more to unbelief than to ignorance, because this was the same fear Abraham had experienced 25 years before. According to Abraham’s theology, God could not save him from the hand of Pharaoh either, but He did! Abraham failed because of unbelief, not because he was uninformed. Abraham's conduct in this situation differed little from that of Lot in Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot, by inviting the two strangers under his roof, assured them protection. Rather than break this commitment, he was willing to sacrifice the purity of his two virgin daughters and give them over to the men outside his door. Abraham, fearing for his own safety, was willing to give over his wife to the king (or any other citizen of Gerar) to protect himself from harm.

The second reason for Abraham’s deception is even less satisfactory because his statement, though a lie, was technically factual. Sarah was really his half-sister, the daughter of his father, but not his mother (verse 12). Facts can be and often are used in such a way as to convey falsehood. Statistics are sometimes employed in this way. Abraham tried to defend himself by technicalities rather truthfulness.

There is absolutely no indication that Abraham accepted responsibility for his sin; he showed no sorrow or repentence. Abimelech was not impressed with his excuses and readers even today are not satisfied by them, but they did seem to satisfy Abraham. Like a child caught with his hand in the cookie jar, Abraham sought to excuse his behavior rather than repent it. This explains the repetition of this sin by Abraham and, later, by his son Isaac. In both cases Abraham escaped with his wife’s purity and with a sizeable profit to boot. It seems Abraham never saw his deceptiveness as a sin. Consequently, it kept cropping up in later generations.

Abimelech was unimpressed with Abraham’s explanation; nevertheless, God had severely cautioned him, and he knew that Abraham was the only one who could intercede for him to remove the plague which had rendered his entire household sterile. Because of this, Abimelech made restitution, giving back Sarah along with sheep, oxen and servents, and extending an invitation ot settle in the land wherever Abraham chose. He also gave Abraham a thousand pieces of silver as payment for "borrowing" Sarah. In other words, Abimelech had found her valuable, just way too expensive to own.

What a humbling experience it must have been for Abraham to intercede on behalf of Abimelech! A deep sense of unworthiness should have come over him. It was surely not his righteousness which was the basis for divine healing. Prophets (and preachers) are not necessarily more pious, and the greatest danger for those in positions of prominence or power is that they begin to believe that their usefulness is based upon their faithfulness and deeper spirituality. Any time that anyone is used of God, it is solely because of the grace of God. It has nothing to do with us!

While this was a tragic time in the life of God’s chosen, it was necessary, for it prepared the way for the following chapter in which the promised child is given. God’s promise to Abraham was kept because God is faithful, not because Abraham was faithful. When Abraham prayed, the wombs of Abimelech’s household were opened so that they once again bore children. So Sarah’s womb was to be opened as well. The promised son was soon to be born.

Abraham’s failure occurred in a culture and time that is foreign to modern Christians, yet his problems were no different than ours (James 5:17), and the principles found in Genesis 20 are as true today as they were centuries ago. God has not changed, and sadly neither have men. The old man, while positionally dead, is very much alive and well for the time being. While we should be living out the victorious life of Romans 8, most of us find ourselves continually in Romans 7. Such was true of Abraham, the friend of God.

Privileged position does not preclude failure. Abraham was God’s elect, but he still floundered and failed. Abraham was God’s prophet, but that did not make him more pious than others. Abraham prospered both in Egypt and Gerar, but not because he attained a higher level of spirituality. The most dangerous doctrine for Christians would suggest that Christians can be above temptation and failure in their Christian lives, especially after years of service or in a privileged position. That sets us up for a fall.

Our disobedience is often camoflaged by excused that are transparent to everyone except us. Abraham's excuses were a sham, but we all use variations of them fairly often.

The first is situational ethics, which is a system of ethics based upon the denial of either the existence of God or His ability to act in man’s behalf. Situationalism always posits a dilemma in which there is no alternative other than a sinful act. In such cases we are forced to decide on the basis of the lesser of two evils. 1Corinthians 10:13 asserts that the premise of situationalism is wrong. It teaches that God never places the Christian in a circumstance where he or she must sin. The outcome which we dread is always a figment of our fearful imagination, not of reality. Abraham feared that someone would kill him to take away his wife. It never happened, nor was there any reported situation where this was even a remote possibility. Faith in a God Who is sovereign in every situation keeps us from flirting with sinful acts which allegedly will deliver us from emergency situations—ones in which godliness must be put on the shelf.

The second is dealing in technicalities rather than truth. The information Abraham gave to Abimelech was totally factual. Sarah was his half-sister, but she was also his wife -- which Abraham failed to report. How often do we allow people to draw the wrong conclusions or impressions by withholding evidence? We want to give the impression we are spiritual when we are not. We try to appear happy when our heart is breaking. We try to look sophisticated when we are desperate and despondent. Faith faces reality and deals openly with others, even when the truth may appear to jeopardize us or make us vulnerable.

The third, and very common, excuse is that of tradition. "We’ve always done it that way" was Abraham’s excuse. Tradition is an appeal to the persistence of sin. Tradition is not wrong, but won't make a wrong practice right.

Happily, our failures will not keep a person from coming to faith in Christ. Abraham may not have been eagar to discuss his faith with Abimelech, but God was not reluctant to own Abraham as a person and a prophet. He had no fear that Abraham's poor testimony would drive Abimelech away from God. Abraham’s failure provided Abimelech with the best reason in the world to be a believer in his God: the God of Abraham was a God of grace, not of works. Abraham’s God not only saved him apart from works (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4), but kept him apart from works. Abraham’s faith was in a God Whose gifts and blessings are not based upon our faithfulness but His. Men and women are not looking for a fair-weather religion but one that assures them of salvation regardless of their current spiritual condition. The kind of faith Abraham had is the kind which men desire, one that works even when we don't.

Christians are eternally secure regardless of failures in faith. Backsliding is never encouraged, winked at, and without painful consequences according to Scripture. Nevertheless, backsliding will never cost the Christian his salvation. The salvation which God offers to men is eternal. If anyone should have lost his salvation, it was Abraham, but he remained a child of God.

We would have expected Isaac to have been conceived at a high point in Abraham and Sarah’s lives, but it was not so. We would at least have expected Abraham’s unbelief to have been exposed and finally conquered in chapter 20, but it did not happen. In fact, Abraham never even acknowledged the sinfulness of his actions. God blessed Abraham, giving him wealth and the son He had promised. He also gave him a privileged position (Genesis 20:7,17-18). All those blessings were gifts of God’s grace, not rewards for Abraham’s good works.

So that night they made their father drunk with wine, and the older daughter came and had sexual relations with her father. But he was not aware that she had sexual relations with him and then got up. So in the morning the older daughter said to the younger, "Since I had sexual relations with my father last night, let’s make him drunk again tonight. Then you go and have sexual relations with him so we can preserve our family line through our father." So they made their father drunk that night as well, and the younger one came and had sexual relations with him. But he was not aware that she had sexual relations with him and then got up."

In this way both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. The older daughter gave birth to a son and named him Moab. He is the ancestor of the Moabites of today. The younger daughter also gave birth to a son and named him Ben-Ammi. He is the ancestor of the Ammonites of today." Genesis 19:30-38

While Lot pled with the angels to spare Zoar, he soon left that city in fear. Of what? I think the people of Zoar didn't much trust the one man who had escaped the other cities, but he may also have feared future judgment upon Zoar for wickedness. Possibly, Lot reflected on the judgment of Sodom and realized that his decision to settle there had caused all his troubles. God had commanded him to flee to the mountains, so finally, he sought safety in a cafe rather than a city.

I really wonder why Lot didn't go to live with Abraham. Prosperity was no longer a problem. Lot was a refugee. Abraham lived in the mountains far from the city. Lot was free to choose where he settled, provided he did not stay in one of the condemned cities when judgment came. Why not go to Abraham? Maybe he was too embarrassed to face his uncle and admit his folly. This was continuing folly! With Abraham there could have been fellowship, encouragement, and perhaps the possibility of some God-fearing husbands for his daughters from among Abraham’s entourage, but the remaining verses of the chapter depict the final state of Lot, the carnal Christian.

Having experienced the wickness of the city, Lot was finally ready to deal with worldliness. He did so by departing from the world. Unfortunately, Lot had left Sodom, but he'd brought some of it with him. Seclusion is no substitute for sanctification. The world without has far less corrupting influence over us than the world within (Romans 7).

Lot's daughters quickly realized that the cave was their permanent home and they concluded that Lot was trying to prevent them from marrying. He would lose no more daughters to wicked men, so he would perish without an heir unless the girls did something about it themselves (Genesis 19:31).

This bleak picture was exaggerated, of course, but very similar to the way that Sarai and Abram had assumed that God could not provide an heir without their help, the girls deduced they would have to resort to unusual means to preserve their father's line. They plotted incest, provided their father with wine, then seduced him. Lot appears to have been only partially aware of what had taken place until it was too late.

Two nations were born of this incestuous relationship, Moab and Ammon. While God dealt kindly with these nations because of their relationship to Abraham (Deuteronomy 2:19), they were a continual hindrance to the godly conduct of the Israelites. Eventually, they would suffer the judgment of God as did Sodom and Gomorrah (Zephaniah 2:9).

The similarities between Sodom and our society today are distressing. Immorality was rampant and perversion had become the norm. Homosexuality is always considered sin in the Bible (Romans 1:24), but in Genesis 19 it was a symptom of a society so sick with sin that it must be judged, cut out like a raging cancer before it spread further. I wonder if we have not actually taken homosexuality beyond where Sodom had gone. Afterall, cable TV brings the sin into our livingrooms, something Sodom hadn't experienced. Sodom stands in Scripture as a symbol of evil and depravity and as a warning of future judgment (Deuteronomy 29:23; 32:32; Isaiah 1:9-10; 3:9: Jeremiah 49:18). Great as the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was, it will not compare to the destruction of those who have had greater light through the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ (Matthew 10:15).

The similarity of our society to Sodom warns us that judgment is near. The eternal wrath of God has already been meted out on the cross of Christ on Calvary. Jesus Christ became sin for us; He bore our punishment on the cross (Isaiah 53:4-6; 2Corinthians 5:21). By faith in Christ’s death in our place, we will not face the wrath of God (1Thessalonians 5:9-10), but those who refuse the free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ must bear the penalty of their sins, eternal separation from God (2Thessalonians 1:8-9).

More concerning is the similarity between Lot and many professing Christians. At best, Lot was a half-hearted Christian. In New Testament terminology he may have been a believer, but not a disciple (Luke 9:57-62). Lot tried unsuccessfully to keep one foot in the world and the other in the company of the faithful. Caught up in materialism, concerned more with his own self-interest, he chose the best land for himself and left the rest to Abraham. He chose the settled life of the city, while Abraham chose the life of a nomad. Lot, worldly, lukewarm and weak, jeopardized his family for the chance of financial gain. When he finally wised up, he took his revulsion of worldliness to an extreme and forced his children into a dangerous and immoral path.

Is there really any difference between Lot and most of us? I confess that there seems to be more Lot in my life than Abraham. What is the answer to that dilemma? How can we effectively deal with our own complacency? The solution must be found in the differences between Lot and Abraham. While Abraham experienced growing intimacy with God and care for others, Lot cared mostly for himself, even to the point of sacrificing his daughters. Abraham made many mistakes (sins), but he learned from them. Lot lived only for the present, while Abraham was a stranger and a pilgrim on the earth, who chose to do without many earthly pleasures for the joys of greater and more lasting blessings from God.

Let's be clear -- Lot was a saved man (2Peter 2:7-8). Even in the midst of his failures, God spared him from judgment, albeit kicking and screaming all the way. What a picture of the security of the saint, even the most carnal of saints! The reason for Lot’s security, like ours, is not that he was faithful. He wasn't! Lot’s salvation was clearly in spite of himself, not because of his works. Lot was saved, not for his own sake, but for Abraham’s. It was not Lot’s faithfulness, but Abraham’s which delivered him from destruction (Genesis 19:29).

The same principle holds true for Christians today. We are saved, not on account of our faithfulness, but because of the One Who intercedes for us, Jesus Christ, our great high priest (Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25). What a wonderful assurance! We will be saved, not because of our worthiness, but His, Who not only died to save us, but Who continually intercedes for us before the Father (1John 2:1).

The later chapter in Lot's life happened in a cave. Lot seems to have tried to deal with the world by seclusion. Monasticism has always been a tempting alternative to mingling with sinners. Lot did not fail in the city as badly as he did in that cave where, numbed by drunkedness, he was lured into incest with his daughters. Lot’s failure in that cave was far more of his own making than most of us would like to admit. It was not just that his daughters had learned so much sin in Sodom (they seem very worldly for virgins), but that they seemed to have carried out what they had learned from their own father as they stood inside the door and heard him offer them to the men of Sodom (Genesis 19:8). In that singular moment, they learned that morality must sometimes be sacrificed to practicality, set aside in emergencies. Once they saw their father’s plight (and their own) as an emergency, incest was no longer a moral problem, for morality must yield to practicality in emergencies.

Many parents, myself included, are greatly concerned about the world in which our children live because temptation is everywhere! In our concern for what is happening in our society, we should recognize that we cannot save our children by restricting them to a cave. In the cave, they will still be influenced by us. Let us remember the tragedy of Lot and recognize that our children learn sin as much from us as from the world.

The Christian doctrine of separation must strike a delicate balance between two equally dangerous extremes. We cannot overstress identification with the world to the point where we no longer declare the gospel, but we must not seek security in seclusion from the world. This is not the Christian’s solution to sin (1Corinthians 5:9-11). For Lot, the proper balance between the city of Sodom and the cave was the tent of Abraham. Christians are to live in the world, but without becoming attached to it or conformed to it.

"The house of the wicked will be destroyed, but the tent of the upright will flourish" (Proverbs 14:11).