“Is Any Thing Too Hard for the Lord?”

Genesis 18–23

There is a lot in this week’s Come Follow Me: the promise/miracle of a son to Sarah and Abraham, the subsequent birth of Isaac. In between the promise and the birth of Isaac is the ‘kidnapping’ of Sarah by Abimelech and the destruction of Sodom. The reading concludes mainly with the events of the ‘sacrifice’ of Isaac. There are many lessons to learn from these events and Come Follow Me focuses on what I would consider to be the ‘most obvious.’ It also skirts over, if not outrightly ignores, some of the aspects of the stories that lead to questions in my mind. Sometimes I am reminded that while I do not watch 18 movies, if the stories of the Old Testament were made into movies today, they would similarly be 18s😊 So, in my notes this week I will explore the ‘Sunday School’ bits and also the bits that raise questions for me. This is not a criticism, as the Come Follow Me manual is written to cater for all ages and backgrounds- it’s just that it doesn’t explore some of the bits that I would like to engage with.

The promise and birth of a son

The miracle of the birth of a son to Abraham and Sarah is shown in their respective reactions to the words of the angels that Sarah would have a child:

Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women. Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also? (Genesis 18:11-12).

This echoed Abraham’s reaction:

Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear? (Genesis 17:17).

Both Abraham and Sarah’s response is to laugh, it is no surprise then that ‘Isaac’ as a name means laughter. Though the Joseph Smith translation changes ‘laughs’ to ‘rejoices.’ It reminds those who read the story that it was a miracle and seemingly impossible. The Come Follow Me manual highlights:

Abraham and Sarah trusted God, and He trusted them (see Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3). In Genesis 18–23, we find stories from the lives of Abraham, Sarah, and others that can prompt us to think about our own willingness to believe God’s promises, to flee wickedness and never look back, and to trust God regardless of the sacrifice. In proving us, God also improves us.

The reminder is that the Lord fulfils his promises in His own time, and that we need to trust His knowledge of the end from the beginning.    

Genesis is very clear that the child of the covenant is Isaac:

And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year (17:19-21).

You might wonder why I emphasise this when it seems self-evident and is something that is taken for granted. When exploring similarities and differences in religion I often use the story of Abraham with my students. The discussion surrounds ‘who is the firstborn?’ and the implications of such for inheritance. Jews and Christians, based on the above passage, identify Isaac as the inheritor of the covenant (and by extension its promises such as the blessings of the world, the right to the priesthood and the land of Canaan). Within Islam, neither is favoured as such, though Ishmael is often seen to be. Muhammad is believed to be a descendant of Ishmael, and as such Muslims are inheritors of the covenant too. While Ishmael is important, in the Jewish-Christian tradition it is Isaac that is the child of the covenant.

This favour is shown in the events following the birth of Isaac. Sarah sees Ishmael mocking Isaac, and at her behest Hagar and Ishmael are cast out from the household. It is clear, however, that Ishmael and Hagar are not forgotten of the Lord. We read:

And the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs. And she went, and sat her down over against him a good way off, as it were a bowshot: for she said, Let me not see the death of the child. And she sat over against him, and lift up her voice, and wept. And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is.  Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation. And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink. And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer (Genesis 20:15-20).

Oftentimes in my study I have skipped over the story of Ishmael as he is not the ‘main character’! But there is a lot in the story and helps us understand God’s love for all of his children. This story is also important in Islam. On Hajj Muslims will run between two hills near Makkah to replicate Hagar’s search for water. It was here that she miraculously discovered the spring of water (Zamzam) that lies at the centre of the founding of the city of Makkah. I digress! 

Sarah as Abraham’s Sister?

In between the promise of Sarah becoming pregnant and the birth of Isaac is a strange interlude. In Chapter 20 we read of the ‘kidnapping’ or at least the taking of Sarah into his home by Abimelech. This story follows much the same structure and narrative as the earlier example of the Pharaoh in Chapter 12, where Abraham identifies Sarah as his sister. The exact same ‘ruse’ happens here. Abraham justifies this in chapter 20:

And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife. And it came to pass, when God caused me to wander from my father’s house, that I said unto her, This is thy kindness which thou shalt shew unto me; at every place whither we shall come, say of me, He is my brother (12-13).

Abraham doesn’t have seen the issues that it caused last time, and his justification is that this is what the Lord has asked him to do, and in reality he is not lying because, if his description is as laid out in English, Sarah appears to be his half-sister. We might balk at this, but we live in a different time with different sensibilities.

It may also seem a bit coarse to suggest, but this story also raises questions. In chapter 19 we have read that Abaraham and Sarah both laugh when they hear she is going to have a child. She is old- about the age of 90, and she questions the idea of ‘pleasure’- one assumes of sex. This being the case, one might ask the question about Abimelech desiring her. There are suggestions as to how this might be explained. Rabbi Zev Farber suggests:

Nahum Sarna, in his JPS commentary (ad loc.) suggests that Abimelech may have had a different motivation in taking Sarah.

“In light of the subsequent relations between Abraham and Abimelech (21:22–32), it is quite possible that the king’s goal was an alliance with the patriarch for purposes of prestige and economic advantage.”

This interpretation is counter-intuitive, running against the implicit theme of “kidnapping the woman” stories. It only makes any sense based on a later story; reading this story in its own context, there is no reason to imagine that the powerful king Abimelech needs to go out of his way to make an alliance with the petrified sojourner, Abraham. Finally, whatever the reason he took Sarah, it is clear that he is interested in lying with her, since God explicitly stops him from doing so (20:6).

There are other suggestions that we find in the rabbinic literature:

Rav Chisda said: “After the flesh became weak (נתבלה) and filled with wrinkles it became young again (נתעדן) and the wrinkles were erased, and her beauty returned to what it was.”

A miracle occurred when Sarah received her promise of Isaac, she began to de-age. Commenting on this, Maimonides suggests:

It is shocking that Sarah could be so beautiful after being shrivelled up, such that kings would take her away. For when she was taken to Pharaoh, even though she was 65 years old, it is possible that she still maintained her figure. However, after she became shrivelled and menopausal – this is a wonder! Perhaps she returned to her youthful looks as the angel announced to her, following the interpretation of the Rabbis (i.e. Rav Chisda).

 I’m not sure about either of these explanations, and in the end, it does not matter, it is an interesting event, and we recognise the repentance of Abimelech. There is another possible explanation, and this explores the various sources that were used in the compilation of the Book of Genesis. While we would suggest that Moses wrote Genesis, we do not know how all of the material was put together. Looking at the writings scholars have suggested different sources were brought together. Importantly for this discussion to are known as J and E. These texts use Yahweh/Jehovah (J) when speaking of God, and Elohim (E). Why is this important?

Chapter 12 and the story of Sarah in the Pharoah’s household comes from the J source, and chapter 20 from the E. Rabbi Farber highlights indicators of E in chapter 20:

The use of E-lohim for God’s name.

God speaking in a dream (dreams are a standard feature of E).

God speaking to Abimelech, a “gentile” (E also contains the Balaam story).

The use of the concept “fear of God”, which generally appears in E or D texts.

The suggestion might be that the two stories are a narration of the same events (with slightly different settings). As such, the compilers put the story of Abimelech in at a later point than it actually happened. It therefore becomes an error of transcription and compilation than anything else. Again, it doesn’t really matter- as I read it, it just seemed a little odd.     

What is the sin of Sodom?

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is also part of the E source interlude, but has no parallel anywhere else in Genesis. We are often told that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality. There has been a swing in recent years to suggest the sin was actually pride. Sources that suggest each include:

Sexual Sin	Pride
“have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness: they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah” (Jeremiah 23:14).	“This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me…” (Ezekiel 16:49-50).
“And in this month the Lord executed his judgments on Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Zeboim, and all the region of the Jordan, and He burned them with fire and brimstone, and destroyed them until this day, even as [lo] I have declared unto thee all their works, that they are wicked and sinners exceedingly, and that they defile themselves and commit fornication in their flesh, and work uncleanness on the earth. And, in like manner, God will execute judgment on the places where they have done according to the uncleanness of the Sodomites, like unto the judgment of Sodom” (Jubilees 16:5-6).“And he told them of the judgment of the giants, and the judgment of the Sodomites, how they had been judged on account of their wickedness, and had died on account of their fornication, and uncleanness, and mutual corruption through fornication”(Jubilees 20:5).	“He did not spare the neighbors of Lot, whom he loathed on account of their insolence” (Sirach 16:8).
“And out of covetousness ye shall teach the commandments of the Lord, wedded women shall ye pollute, and the virgins of Jerusalem shall ye defile: and with harlots and adulteresses shall ye be joined, and the daughters of the Gentiles shall ye take to wife, purifying them with an unlawful purification; and your union shall be like unto Sodom and Gomorrah” (Testament of Levi 14:6).	“the people of Sodom who acted arrogantly, who were notorious for their vices” (3 Maccabees 2:5).
“But ye shall not be so, my children, recognizing in the firmament, in the earth, and in the sea, and in all created things, the Lord who made all things, that ye become not as Sodom, which changed the order of nature” (Testament of Naphtali 3:4).	“For the Sodomites did not receive those, whom they knew not when they came: but these brought friends into bondage, that had well deserved of them.” (Wisdom of Solomon 19:14).
“Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (Jude 1:7).	“And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.” (Matthew 10:14-15).

Recapping the story very briefly. Abraham entertains two men (one assumes angels) and he provides them a feast. The two men go to Sodom where they, along with Abraham, are greeted by his nephew Lot. He, too, offers them a feast in his home, with his two betrothed daughters. The men of Sodom surround his house and demand the three men are handed over so that they ‘may know them’ (Genesis 19:5)- a not so subtle euphemism to suggest that they will rape the men. The biblical record suggests that Lot refuses, offering his daughters instead, which the men refuse. The Joseph Smith Translation clarifies these events in a way that makes them less problematic in my reading:

And they said unto him, Stand back. And they were angry with him. And they said among themselves, This one man came in to sojourn among us, and he will needs now make himself to be a judge; now we will deal worse with him than with them. Wherefore they said unto the man, We will have the men, and thy daughters also; and we will do with them as seemeth us good. Now this was after the wickedness of Sodom. And Lot said, Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, plead with my brethren that I may not bring them out unto you; and ye shall not do unto them as seemeth good in your eyes; For God will not justify his servant in this thing; wherefore, let me plead with my brethren, this once only, that unto these men ye do nothing, that they may have peace in my house; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. And they were angry with Lot and came near to break the door, but the angels of God, which were holy men, put forth their hand and pulled Lot into the house unto them, and shut the door (JST Genesis 19:9-15).

In this context the sin of Sodom seems to be expanded to widespread sexual immorality, rather than it focusing on same-sex relationships.

The suggestion is actually that it isn’t one or the other, but that they are all combined in the sin of inhospitality. What do I mean by this? Ben Spackman notes this at different points in the narrative:

First is Lot (a lesser extension of Abraham), waiting in the town gate. There’s no hint he’s the only one at the gate; indeed, Lot was highly unlikely to be alone. The gate was the bustling center of town, in some ways. (See the Tidbits below.) But Lot is the only one there to extend hospitality to the visitors. Having to spend the night in the town square, as they intend to do, apparently to test the people of the city, would indicate that no one in the city had invited them home. That is, no one in the city followed the hospitality duties, which would be exceedingly shameful and worthy of condemnation.

I’m going to quote Ben at length as he helps clarify how the response of the men of Sodom is less to do with sex and a lot to do with inhospitality:

We know from other ancient Near Eastern records that homosexual rape was sometimes a tool used to dehumanize and demasculinize other men by essentially putting them in what was thought of as the female sexual role. There are records of the soldiers of a losing army being so treated, for example. Such things were something one did, acts one committed, not an identity or orientation per se…

Sexually assaulting the men would be an unthinkably heinous violation of the hospitality protocols. Lot calls the men “brothers” and emphatically tells them that they must “do nothing to these men because they have come under the shelter of my roof.” (Gen 19:8)  Lot is explicitly reminding the men of the city of the laws of both kinship and hospitality; the strangers are in his care, and thus to do *anything* to them (sexual or not) violates those “laws” and duties of hospitality.

What is the motive of the men of Sodom here? It is probably not lust, given the above. Rather, their intent may be the deliberate violation of the hospitality laws! But why? “A rabbinic interpretation [found several places] suggests that the affluent people of Sodom selfishly adopted a deliberate policy of maltreating strangers in order to discourage visitors to the city and thus not to have to share their prosperity with others.” The JPS Torah Commentary.

If you want people to avoid your town, flagrantly violating the hospitality laws but leaving visitors alive to spread the tale is a sure-fire way to do it. If this is the case (and it seems probable to me), then the one subsumes the other; since today we are blind to the hospitality “laws” or their importance, we naturally focus on the sexual aspects of the story of Sodom as the sole reason for their destruction. In other words, I don’t think a hospitality-based motive for destruction is incompatible with a sexual-based motive for destruction.

What of Lot’s offer of his daughters to the men of Sodom? It’s possible that the surface reading is correct, based on the parallel in Judges 19:24ff, where a similar thing happens. But the differences between Lot and the Judges parallel are not insignificant (and I’m not going to spell them out here.) His two daughters are legally married, but the marriages have not been consummated. (Engagement was equivalent to being legally married, but you didn’t live together and weren’t alone together, if later traditions and customs hold for Genesis 18-19.) If the Sodomites motive is not lust but the infliction of harm on non-residents contrary to the hospitality laws, then there is little at stake in him making this suggestion.

In other words, it’s possible that Lot’s “offer” is a rhetorical move. Note again that in Genesis 19:8 where the daughters are offered to the men, Lot emphatically points out that the messengers are under Lot’s protection and hospitality. I read Lot as potentially saying with some sarcasm “Look, I won’t let you violate the hospitality laws with my visitors, but if you want to rape my virgin married daughters, go ahead.” He’s trying to call their attention to the moral significance of their actions by substituting something that he knows they won’t do. While meriting the death penalty, rape of his married daughters wouldn’t violate the hospitality/protection laws the same way that it would with the angels. I had that idea (i.e. Lot making a rhetorical move) independently, I’ve since found at least one commentary that also looks at it that way. But this is only a possibility.

Thus, inhospitality is expressed in sexual violence and in pride. This is an extreme example of inhospitality and is perhaps used as such to highlight the slippery slope of selfishness and pride. It is stark to see the juxtaposition and similarity of this with the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats:

For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me’ (Matthew 25).

The Saviour raises the bar in contrast to the men of Sodom. It is not enough to not actively be inhospitable, passive inhospitality is just as bad. This is congruent with His teachings in the Sermon on the Mount where the Saviour raises the expectations of those who would be His disciples- not just don’t commit adultery, but don’t lust; not just do not kill, but don’t get angry. 

Don’t look back

The sin of Sodom is so great that Lot’s family are commanded to leave:

And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place: For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the Lord; and the Lord hath sent us to destroy it (Genesis 19:12-13).

The Lord commands them to flee wickedness and not look back:

Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed (Genesis 19:17).

The Come Follow Me manual helps us apply this to our lives:

What lessons do you learn about fleeing wickedness as you read about Lot and his family? For example, what impresses you about what the angels said and did to help Lot and his family escape destruction? (see Genesis 19:12–17). How does the Lord help you and your family flee or find protection from evil influences in the world? Think about situations where you may be tempted to “[look] back” (verse 26) when you ought to be looking forward with faith in the Saviour. What does Luke 9:62 add to your understanding of this concept?

This story has dramatic consequences as Lot’s wife does not do as she was commanded.

What did Lot’s wife do wrong?

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland taught:

Apparently, what was wrong with Lot’s wife was that she wasn’t just looking back; in her heart she wanted to go back. It would appear that even before she was past the city limits, she was already missing what Sodom and Gomorrah had offered her… It is possible that Lot’s wife looked back with resentment toward the Lord for what He was asking her to leave behind. … So it isn’t just that she looked back; she looked back longingly. In short, her attachment to the past outweighed her confidence in the future. That, apparently, was at least part of her sin… I plead with you not to dwell on days now gone nor to yearn vainly for yesterdays, however good those yesterdays may have been. The past is to be learned from but not lived in. We look back to claim the embers from glowing experiences but not the ashes. And when we have learned what we need to learn and have brought with us the best that we have experienced, then we look ahead and remember that faith is always pointed toward the future… Dwelling on past lives, including past mistakes, is just not right! It is not the gospel of Jesus Christ. … To all [people] of every generation, I call out, ‘Remember Lot’s wife’ [Luke 17:32]. Faith is for the future. Faith builds on the past but never longs to stay there. Faith trusts that God has great things in store for each of us and that Christ truly is the ‘high priest of good things to come’ (Hebrews 9:11)” (“The Best Is Yet to Be,” Ensign, Jan. 2010, 24, 26–27).

There’s not much more I can add to that.  But it does bring about some ‘interesting’ consequences for Lot and his daughters.

Oh my goodness!

And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters. And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.  And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day. And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Ben-ammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day (Genesis 19:30-38).

They had just seen Sodom and the surrounding areas destroyed with fire and brimstone. Their betrothed husbands had died in Sodom having refused Lot’s entreaty to leave, and their mother had been turned to a pillar of salt. They looked to the future and saw an end of the human race as they knew it. Rabbinic literature echoes this argument:

“The elder said to the younger: Our father is old, [and there is no man on the earth]…” – because they believed that the entire world had come to an end, as in the generation of the Flood.

This cannot justify or excuse what was done, but it goes some way to explain it. Abby Eisenberg explores this from a Jewish perspective:

Rashi (France, d. 1105), following Genesis Rabbah (classical midrash on Genesis, c. 500 CE), explains that the daughters undertook this course of action to ensure the perpetuation of the human race. Indeed, “they thought that the whole world had been destroyed” (19:31). He suggests that following the destruction of Sodom and Gemorrah, the daughters were isolated in the cave and did not realize that there was human life outside it. The daughters were using the seed of their father to achieve this larger goal. Perhaps the older daughter’s motivation arose out of deep anger at her father’s behavior in Sodom. Indeed, some commentators have also discussed the daughters’ behavior as an act of vengeance against their father. Lot initiated a possible assault on his daughters; now the daughters are portrayed as assaulting their father.

The Sacrifice of Isaac

The command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac brings together a lot of the background that has been explored in Abraham’s back story. The attempted sacrifice of him by the priest of Elkenah- he knows the petrified feelings from being the chosen victim of such. Also, the long wait for the birth of Isaac, the child of the covenant. Now, the Lord is asking him to go against all human sensibility and sacrifice his son. How could this be asked of him? The Come Follow Me suggests:

Although we don’t know all the reasons God commanded Abraham to offer Isaac as a sacrifice, we do know it was a test of his faith in God. We also know it was “a similitude of God and his Only Begotten Son” (Jacob 4:5).

It then shows the similarities between the two events:

Abraham and Isaac	Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ
Isaac was the only begotten son of Abraham and Sarah (Genesis 22:2; see also Hebrews 11:17)	Jesus is the Only Begotten of the Father (John 3:16)
Isaac was to be offered in place of a lamb (Genesis 22:7–9)	Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God (John 1:29)

Other similarities suggested include:

Miraculous Births: Both Isaac and Jesus were born to mothers under impossible circumstances (Sarah in old age, Mary as a virgin).

The Burden: Isaac carried the wood for the sacrifice, just as Christ carried his own cross.

Three-Day Journey: Abraham traveled for three days to Mount Moriah, paralleling the three days Christ spent in the tomb.

Location: The event took place near Mount Moriah/Golgotha.

Willing Submission: Isaac, as a young man, was a willing participant, similar to Christ’s voluntary sacrifice.

The Father’s Action: Abraham did not withhold his son, representing God the Father’s willingness to sacrifice His Son for mankind

There is, however, the significant difference that Heavenly Father actually had to follow through with the sacrifice of His Son. 

The willingness to sacrifice should be found in each of our lives, though we will not be asked to evidence it in the same way as Abraham and Isaac. Joseph Smith taught:

The sacrifice required of Abraham in the offering up of Isaac, shows that if a man would attain to the keys of the kingdom of an endless life; he must sacrifice all things.

…you will have all kinds of trials to pass through. And it is quite as necessary for you to be tried as it was for Abraham and other men of God, and . . . God will feel after you, and He will take hold of you and wrench your very heart strings, and if you cannot stand it you will not be fit for an inheritance in the Celestial Kingdom of God.

Let us here observe, that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation; for, from the first existence of man, the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things. It was through this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life; and it is through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly things that men do actually know that they are doing the things that are well pleasing in the sight of God. When a man has offered in sacrifice all that he has for truth’s sake, not even withholding his life, and believing before God that he has been called to make this sacrifice because he seeks to do his will, he does know, most assuredly, that God does and will accept his sacrifice and offering, and that he has not, nor will not seek his face in vain. Under these circumstances, then, he can obtain the faith necessary for him to lay hold on eternal life.

Neal A. Maxwell has taught us what that sacrifice will be:

So it is that real, personal sacrifice never was placing an animal on the altar. Instead, it is a willingness to put the animal in us upon the altar and letting it be consumed! Such is the ‘sacrifice unto the Lord . . . of a broken heart and a contrite spirit,’ (D&C 59:8) . . . for the denial of self precedes the full acceptance of Him.

Echoed by Elder Bruce C. Hafen:

To lay claim to the Savior’s sacrifice, we, like Adam and Eve, must also obey and sacrifice. We must bring an offering that in some way approximates his own suffering—the sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit. . . . Elder James E. Talmage believed that the physiological cause of Christ’s death was, literally, a broken heart. This element in our Lord’s sacrifice suggests two differences between animal sacrifices and the sacrifice of a broken heart. First is the difference between offering one of our possessions, such as an animal, and offering our own hearts. Second, one who offers an unblemished animal, the firstling of a flock, acts in similitude of the Father’s sacrifice of his unblemished, firstborn Son. By contrast, one who offers his own broken heart acts in similitude of the Son’s terribly personal sacrifice of himself. Thus, the figurative breaking of our own hearts, represented by our repentance and our faithful endurance of the mortal crucible—our own taste of a bitter cup—is a self-sacrifice that mirrors the Saviour’s own self-sacrifice.

I love the idea taught by Elder Hafen that our sacrifices are similarly in similitude of the Son. We do not focus on the self but on letting God prevail in our lives. This juxtaposition of this obedience with the looking back of Lot’s wife is telling. We sacrifice our old selves to become new creatures as we turn our hearts to Him.