"Stand in the place where you live, now face north. Think about direction, wonder why you haven't before." -R.E.M.
The Testing of Abraham
Josh Crain
The redemption of all of mankind came through the death of God’s one and only son. When the narrative of Jesus is read before an audience of Christians it is always looked upon approvingly, often with a great emotional attachment. However, when a similar story is read from Genesis 22 it brings about questions of God’s character and eternal plan. Perhaps very few passages of scripture are more disturbing in the minds of some Christians and non-Christians alike than the ones found in this chapter. Indeed, a narrative that Norman Whybray has said “is told brilliantly in a way that creates the maximum amount of suspense” (1995, 56) and Basil Atkinson proclaims as the “climax of the story of Abraham’s life” (1957, 197) merits further study. This essay will attempt to answer some of the questions that this chapter poses from a biblical and scholarly standpoint.
The Purpose of the Test
In Genesis 22 we see God coming to Abraham to test him. We know that Abraham’s challenge is a test from God because the biblical text explicitly tells us so. Verse 2 of chapter 22 states, “Then God said, ‘Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about.” What shocks the reader is the passage’s portrayal of YHWH testing Abraham with a request for child sacrifice. Walter Kaiser, Jr. sympathizes with those who object to this passage, but chooses to try and understand why God would do this.
“In the abstract,” Kaiser says, “human sacrifice cannot be condemned on principle. The truth is that God owns all life and has a right to take it as he wills. To reject on all grounds God’s legitimate right to ask for life under any conditions would be to remove his sovereignty and question his justice in providing his own sacrifice as the central work of redemption” (1996, 126).
However, God has chosen not to use human sacrifice or to approve of it. This is what is so puzzling about the Abraham-Isaac narrative: though God has a right to the life He created, He has chosen to prohibit human sacrifice (Kaiser 1996, 126). And yet here He seems to be working in the tension of those two truths.
To solve the question of why God would ask so much of Abraham is to solve the question of what God’s purpose in testing Abraham was. Scholars are in much disagreement about the answer to that question, and some do not claim to have the answer at all.
In Bill Moyer’s written recording of a discussion among biblical scholars, writers, and teachers from several different religions on the issue of Genesis, Francisco Garcia-Treto, a professor and chair of the department of religion at Trinity University in San Antonio, TX, states that he simply does not understand the need for this major test (1996, 224). “At the heart of my faith is the conviction that God would never put me in this situation,” Garcia-Treto says. “If this were my test, I’d flunk it. Besides, why does God need to test Abraham? In effect, Abraham’s life is close to the end, and the promise has been set in motion with the birth of Isaac.”
E. A. Speiser seems to sympathize with Garcia-Treto in not fully understanding the reason for God’s testing of Abraham after he has already passed so many tests. “What is the meaning of this shattered ordeal?” Speiser asks. “In this infinitely sensitive account the author has left so much unsaid that there is now the danger of one’s reading into it too much—or too little” (Speiser 1964, 165).
H. D. M. Spence is quick to admit he is not sure of the reason for God’s testing either. “After all that has preceded,” he states, “it might have been anticipated that not only were the patriarch’s trials over, but that the need for such discipline in his case no longer existed” (Spence 1946, 285).
Some scholars, however, feel the answer lies in the love Abraham had for his son. Dr. Phyllis Trible, a professor at Union Theological Seminary, asks, “Once God has given the gift of Isaac to Abraham, does Abraham focus on Isaac and forget the Giver?” (Moyers 1996, 227)
This is a fair question, but is there enough biblical evidence to support it? Though Dr. Trible whole-heartedly believes this story is about Abraham’s idolizing of his son, she has few colleagues who share her view.
H. C. Leupold does not agree with Dr. Trible that Abraham had already placed too much of his heart’s affection on his son rather than God, but he does believe that Abraham would have come by slow degrees to love Isaac more than he loved the Lord, and that is why God had to test Abraham (Leupold 1942, 616). Leupold is unique, however, in describing why God would choose to use human sacrifice as the means for the test:
Few scholars agree with Leupold that God’s request for human sacrifice was a misunderstanding on the part of Abraham. Kaiser believes the test was for the personal benefit of Abraham himself. The test would have been to strengthen Abraham in his faith and to build him up (Kaiser 1996, 125). For Kaiser, the key to understanding why God would put Abraham through such a strenuous test lies in the special relationship that God and Abraham shared together. He believes the father-son relationship Abraham shared with Isaac was also shared by Abraham and God. Therefore this test would be as much or more for Abraham’s benefit as for God’s. After all, “God never tests the heathen; he tests his own people exclusively” (Kaiser 1996, 125).
There is another spin on this story, however; a spin which both Kaiser and Arthur Pink feel is both biblical and logical. It is the noticeable typology present in this passage. Pink is most notably impressed with the uniqueness of this particular Old Testament type in contrast to the rest of the Bible. “This is one of the very few Old Testament types that brings before us not only God the Son but also God the Father,” Pink notes. “Here, as nowhere else, are we shown the Father’s heart. Here it is that we get such a wonderful foreshadowment of the Divine side of Calvary” (Pink 1922, 20).
Kaiser agrees with Pink’s observation that the Abraham-Isaac narrative is a type, and even takes it one step further. He believes God’s request may have been given to Abraham so that he might catch a glimpse of how it was that God would bless all the people of the earth by his seed. “He was given a prefiguration, or a type, of the sacrifice that the last in the line of the seed, even Christ, would accomplish” (Kaiser 1996, 126)
What Does the Narrative Say About Abraham and Isaac?
Much has been concluded just from the reading of the Abraham-Isaac narrative about the character of these two figures and the thoughts and emotions that must have tormented them during this trial. We must be careful, as previously stated by Speiser, not to read too much or too little into the narrative (1964, 165). This is a difficult balance to strike, and one that many scholars probably do not succeed in. If we look earnestly at this Genesis passage, though, what can we tell about the two men involved?
Because the narrative does not tell us much about the thoughts of Abraham, it is difficult to pin down what he was thinking. We can easily insert what we would be thinking, but we are not Abraham, and a search must begin in the text of the Bible (Fee 1981, 19). This text has led some to believe that Abraham was not as attached to Isaac as many people have believed.
Dr. Norman J. Cohen, professor of midrash at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in New York City, does not believe there is as much biblical evidence or text supporting Abraham’s love for Isaac as there is supporting his love for Ishmael, his son through Hagar. “For example,” Cohen begins, “when Abraham banishes Ishmael and Hagar, the text states, ‘This was terrible in Abraham’s eyes because of his son.’ The rabbis stress that this was the most difficult moment in Abraham’s life” (Moyers 1996, 227). Cohen would disagree with the view that Abraham had to rid himself of his idolatrous tendencies toward his son, but would propose Abraham instead had to rid himself of the enormous ego that had come upon him with the promise of future greatness. “It’s the ego of Abraham that has to be sacrificed on that mountain so that Abraham can come back to the reality of who he is in relationship to God” (Moyers 1996, 227).
This thesis does not portray Abraham in a positive light. Moyers points out that Abraham argued with God about Sodom and Gomorrah, but was silent when God approached him about killing his own son (1996, 229). Indeed, Genesis 18:22-33 shows Abraham not only speaking to God about Sodom and Gomorrah, but begging that He spare the city if only fifty righteous people are found. As if that were not enough, Abraham then begins to bargain with God until finally we see in verse 32, “Then he said, ‘May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?’
“He answered, ‘For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.’”
And yet, though he begged for Sodom and Gomorrah, two wicked cities in the eyes of God, he would not beg for the life of his son (Moyers 1996, 229).
However, some scholars have taken the same information and pointed towards a different conclusion. Robert Davidson is quick to point to the enormous amount of faith Abraham would have to have to risk his promise from God like he did:
Dr. Phyllis Trible is practically echoing Davidson’s statement when she says, “When God calls Abraham at the beginning of the story, God says, ‘Break with your past,’ which is something you don’t ask of people in ancient cultures. Now, in this story, God says, ‘Break with your future.’ Break with your future by sacrificing Isaac, who is the future” (Moyers 1996, 227).
Herbert Wolf is quick to point to Hebrews 11:17-19 to understand what could have motivated Abraham to actually go through with the sacrifice of his own son (Wolf 1991, 118). Hebrews 11:19 says:
If Abraham had faith God would fulfill His promise, then Abraham would have believed that nothing, not even death, could stop Him from doing so. It took great faith on the part of Abraham to believe such a thing, but the faith seems to be evident (Wolf 1991, 118). Wolf even asks the question, “Was this faith behind Abraham’s statement to his servants that ‘we will worship and then come back to you?’”
Dr. Phyllis Trible sees this faith in Abraham and believes it is radical. “What’s radical here is the willingness to give up even the promises of God—which is a testing of God” (Moyers 1996, 234).
How does the character of Isaac fit into the narrative? Certainly we are not given as much information about his thoughts as we are Abraham’s, but Arthur Pink believes we can draw conclusions from what we have. Pink doesn’t believe Isaac is as young as most people believe he is at the time of this sacrifice (Pink 1922, 21). A boy would not have been able to carry the wood for the sacrifice that far, and the carrying of this wood is important to Pink because he believes it foreshadows Christ carrying the cross.
If Isaac were a grown man or a teenage boy, it shows that he willfully submitted to his father and to God. B. H. Carroll mentions this when he says, “The son, never saying a word, submitted. He (Abraham) stretched him over that alter, and drew his knife over the boy, and already in Abraham’s mind Isaac was dead” (Carroll 1942, 349).
If Isaac did willfully submit to God and Abraham, is there a chance that this could have spoiled him for life on the things of God? Dr. Norman J. Cohen explains a rabbinic tradition that states “that at the climax of the story, as Abraham raises the knife and is about to take his son’s life, tears drip from his eyes into Isaac’s eyes, and Isaac’s vision is impaired for the rest of his life.” From the Jacob and Esau story we know that Isaac has poor eyesight in his older age, and this tradition shows the impact of the near-sacrifice on Isaac is so devastating that the way he sees the world changes at that moment in time (Moyers 1996, 223). Although this is only a rabbinic tradition, it illustrates the possibility of change this event could have brought to the life of Isaac. Moyers runs with this theme and points out some scriptural evidence in Genesis 31:42 and Genesis 31:53 when the Bible makes reference to the “God of Abraham and the Fear of Isaac” (Moyers 1996, 223).
Dr. Cohen then goes on to ask an excellent question: “When Isaac and Ishmael bury their father, how do they feel about each other? They’ve shared a common experience of being outcast, banished, and nearly killed by their father” (Moyers 1996, 244).
What Does the Narrative Say About God?
The other question this narrative asks is what this test and method of testing, as well as other elements of the narrative, say about the character of God. At first glance, the narrative seems to contradict the character of God as portrayed in the rest of the Scriptures with the ordering of a child sacrifice. It seems cruel and unusual to subject a father to such a horror as the sacrifice of his own son.
And yet Dr. Phyllis Trible points out that “The cruelty of God is something from which the Bible does not flinch, whether it’s Genesis or Job or Jeremiah—”
“—or Jesus,” Bill Moyers cuts in. “Where God actually put His son on the cross to bleed in agony for other people. This is a God who would save us by doing that to a human being?” (Moyers 1996, 236)
The easy answer would appear to be that God always tests his people or that God needed to build Abraham up or even that God wanted to provide a type for Christ. However, a relatively recent development in theological circles maintains that God tested Abraham because He needed to know for Himself whether or not Abraham had the amount of faith required of the patriarch of God's chosen race. This view is one part of a systematic understanding of God’s sovereignty entitled “open theism” (Campbell 2001).
Open theism is the belief that:
If God’s plans are open to revision, then He must not know everything that humans will do beforehand or there would be no room or need for revision. It is the passage found in Genesis 22:12 that is a key verse in the theology of open theism. When the angel says on behalf of the Lord “now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son,” it appears as though God did not know before this moment in time. Clark Pinnock, when speaking about such passages in his book The Openness of God states, “total foreknowledge would jeopardize the genuineness of the divine-human relationship” (1994, 122).
Many modern-day evangelicals disagree with this theory and strong cases can be made for both sides (Campbell 2001). Arriving absolutely at an understanding of the sovereignty and character of God is beyond our human comprehension in many ways. There is always a great deal of mystery in the Christian faith; a thick fog that cloaks our understanding.
Dr. Phyllis Trible says, “Faith is not a possession to have but a mode of being in the world that is the realization that God provides. The story itself has an unresolved tension between the God who tests and the God who provides. We want it this way or that way, but the story doesn’t allow that” (Moyers 1996, 245).
Conclusion
The narrative of Abraham and Isaac asks more questions than it gives answers. However, if we always dwell on the questions that it poses, we may end up missing the point. Abraham is commended in the biblical books of Hebrews and James because of his faith, and it is surely this quality that God was seeking to either solidify or test. Could this test have caused a lifelong and unhealthy fear of God in Isaac? Possibly. Could Abraham have been too eager to go and sacrifice his son? Possibly. Could God have tested Abraham for the purpose of knowing for Himself where Abraham’s faith lay? Possibly. The text, however, does not speak directly to any of those questions, despite our need as human beings to speculate about what we cannot know for certain. Regardless of these unanswered questions, the Abraham-Isaac narrative was certainly a pivotal event in the life of a man, a nation, a Savior, and the world.REFERENCE LIST
Atkinson, Basil F. C. 1957. The pocket commentary of the Bible: the book of Genesis.
Chicago, IL: Moody Press.
Carroll, B. H. 1942. An interpretation of the English Bible: the book of Genesis.
Nashville: Broadman Press
Campbell, Iain D. “Open Theism.”
http://www.backfreechurch.co.uk/Studies/open_theism.htm. 2001
Davidson, Robert. 1979. Genesis 12-50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fee, Gordon D. and Douglas Stuart. 1981. How to read the Bible for all its worth.
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.
Goldman, Solomon. 1949. In the beginning. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Kaiser, Walter C., Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce, and Manfred T. Brauch. 1996. Hard
sayings of the Bible. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Leupold, H. C. 1942. Exposition of Genesis. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.
Moyers, Bill. 1996. Genesis: a living conversation. New York: Doubleday.
Pink, Arthur. 1922. Gleanings in Genesis. Chicago, IL: Moody Press.
Pinnock, Clark, Richard Rice, John Sanders, and William Hasker. 1994. The openness
of God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Speiser, E. A. 1964. The anchor Bible: Genesis. New York: Doubleday.
Spence, H. D. M., ed. 1946. The pulpit commentary: Genesis. New York: J. J. Little &
Ives Company.
Whybray, R. Norman. 1995. Introduction to the Pentateuch. Grand Rapids, MI:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Wolf, Herbert. 1991. An introduction to the old testament Pentateuch. Chicago, IL:
Moody Press.
Josh Crain
The redemption of all of mankind came through the death of God’s one and only son. When the narrative of Jesus is read before an audience of Christians it is always looked upon approvingly, often with a great emotional attachment. However, when a similar story is read from Genesis 22 it brings about questions of God’s character and eternal plan. Perhaps very few passages of scripture are more disturbing in the minds of some Christians and non-Christians alike than the ones found in this chapter. Indeed, a narrative that Norman Whybray has said “is told brilliantly in a way that creates the maximum amount of suspense” (1995, 56) and Basil Atkinson proclaims as the “climax of the story of Abraham’s life” (1957, 197) merits further study. This essay will attempt to answer some of the questions that this chapter poses from a biblical and scholarly standpoint.
The Purpose of the Test
In Genesis 22 we see God coming to Abraham to test him. We know that Abraham’s challenge is a test from God because the biblical text explicitly tells us so. Verse 2 of chapter 22 states, “Then God said, ‘Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about.” What shocks the reader is the passage’s portrayal of YHWH testing Abraham with a request for child sacrifice. Walter Kaiser, Jr. sympathizes with those who object to this passage, but chooses to try and understand why God would do this.
“In the abstract,” Kaiser says, “human sacrifice cannot be condemned on principle. The truth is that God owns all life and has a right to take it as he wills. To reject on all grounds God’s legitimate right to ask for life under any conditions would be to remove his sovereignty and question his justice in providing his own sacrifice as the central work of redemption” (1996, 126).
However, God has chosen not to use human sacrifice or to approve of it. This is what is so puzzling about the Abraham-Isaac narrative: though God has a right to the life He created, He has chosen to prohibit human sacrifice (Kaiser 1996, 126). And yet here He seems to be working in the tension of those two truths.
To solve the question of why God would ask so much of Abraham is to solve the question of what God’s purpose in testing Abraham was. Scholars are in much disagreement about the answer to that question, and some do not claim to have the answer at all.
In Bill Moyer’s written recording of a discussion among biblical scholars, writers, and teachers from several different religions on the issue of Genesis, Francisco Garcia-Treto, a professor and chair of the department of religion at Trinity University in San Antonio, TX, states that he simply does not understand the need for this major test (1996, 224). “At the heart of my faith is the conviction that God would never put me in this situation,” Garcia-Treto says. “If this were my test, I’d flunk it. Besides, why does God need to test Abraham? In effect, Abraham’s life is close to the end, and the promise has been set in motion with the birth of Isaac.”
E. A. Speiser seems to sympathize with Garcia-Treto in not fully understanding the reason for God’s testing of Abraham after he has already passed so many tests. “What is the meaning of this shattered ordeal?” Speiser asks. “In this infinitely sensitive account the author has left so much unsaid that there is now the danger of one’s reading into it too much—or too little” (Speiser 1964, 165).
H. D. M. Spence is quick to admit he is not sure of the reason for God’s testing either. “After all that has preceded,” he states, “it might have been anticipated that not only were the patriarch’s trials over, but that the need for such discipline in his case no longer existed” (Spence 1946, 285).
Some scholars, however, feel the answer lies in the love Abraham had for his son. Dr. Phyllis Trible, a professor at Union Theological Seminary, asks, “Once God has given the gift of Isaac to Abraham, does Abraham focus on Isaac and forget the Giver?” (Moyers 1996, 227)
This is a fair question, but is there enough biblical evidence to support it? Though Dr. Trible whole-heartedly believes this story is about Abraham’s idolizing of his son, she has few colleagues who share her view.
H. C. Leupold does not agree with Dr. Trible that Abraham had already placed too much of his heart’s affection on his son rather than God, but he does believe that Abraham would have come by slow degrees to love Isaac more than he loved the Lord, and that is why God had to test Abraham (Leupold 1942, 616). Leupold is unique, however, in describing why God would choose to use human sacrifice as the means for the test:
What God actually wanted Abraham to give was the spiritual sacrifice of his son…But then the problem arises, Why did God ask for the spiritual sacrifice in the form of a material sacrifice? Apparently, this question voices a common protest but is itself partly the outgrowth of a misunderstanding so worded as to mislead. God asked for one thing only: the spiritual surrender, the giving back to Him of this great gift which He had granted to Abraham. The terms employed by the Lord are taken from material sacrifices and, apparently, at this stage of the religious development of the race were the only terms available. God foresaw that a partial misunderstanding would result on Abraham’s part. This misunderstanding was unavoidable, would not impair the trial that was being made, and could finally be corrected when it was about to lead to very grievous harm (Leupold 1942, 617).
Few scholars agree with Leupold that God’s request for human sacrifice was a misunderstanding on the part of Abraham. Kaiser believes the test was for the personal benefit of Abraham himself. The test would have been to strengthen Abraham in his faith and to build him up (Kaiser 1996, 125). For Kaiser, the key to understanding why God would put Abraham through such a strenuous test lies in the special relationship that God and Abraham shared together. He believes the father-son relationship Abraham shared with Isaac was also shared by Abraham and God. Therefore this test would be as much or more for Abraham’s benefit as for God’s. After all, “God never tests the heathen; he tests his own people exclusively” (Kaiser 1996, 125).
There is another spin on this story, however; a spin which both Kaiser and Arthur Pink feel is both biblical and logical. It is the noticeable typology present in this passage. Pink is most notably impressed with the uniqueness of this particular Old Testament type in contrast to the rest of the Bible. “This is one of the very few Old Testament types that brings before us not only God the Son but also God the Father,” Pink notes. “Here, as nowhere else, are we shown the Father’s heart. Here it is that we get such a wonderful foreshadowment of the Divine side of Calvary” (Pink 1922, 20).
Kaiser agrees with Pink’s observation that the Abraham-Isaac narrative is a type, and even takes it one step further. He believes God’s request may have been given to Abraham so that he might catch a glimpse of how it was that God would bless all the people of the earth by his seed. “He was given a prefiguration, or a type, of the sacrifice that the last in the line of the seed, even Christ, would accomplish” (Kaiser 1996, 126)
What Does the Narrative Say About Abraham and Isaac?
Much has been concluded just from the reading of the Abraham-Isaac narrative about the character of these two figures and the thoughts and emotions that must have tormented them during this trial. We must be careful, as previously stated by Speiser, not to read too much or too little into the narrative (1964, 165). This is a difficult balance to strike, and one that many scholars probably do not succeed in. If we look earnestly at this Genesis passage, though, what can we tell about the two men involved?
Because the narrative does not tell us much about the thoughts of Abraham, it is difficult to pin down what he was thinking. We can easily insert what we would be thinking, but we are not Abraham, and a search must begin in the text of the Bible (Fee 1981, 19). This text has led some to believe that Abraham was not as attached to Isaac as many people have believed.
Dr. Norman J. Cohen, professor of midrash at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in New York City, does not believe there is as much biblical evidence or text supporting Abraham’s love for Isaac as there is supporting his love for Ishmael, his son through Hagar. “For example,” Cohen begins, “when Abraham banishes Ishmael and Hagar, the text states, ‘This was terrible in Abraham’s eyes because of his son.’ The rabbis stress that this was the most difficult moment in Abraham’s life” (Moyers 1996, 227). Cohen would disagree with the view that Abraham had to rid himself of his idolatrous tendencies toward his son, but would propose Abraham instead had to rid himself of the enormous ego that had come upon him with the promise of future greatness. “It’s the ego of Abraham that has to be sacrificed on that mountain so that Abraham can come back to the reality of who he is in relationship to God” (Moyers 1996, 227).
This thesis does not portray Abraham in a positive light. Moyers points out that Abraham argued with God about Sodom and Gomorrah, but was silent when God approached him about killing his own son (1996, 229). Indeed, Genesis 18:22-33 shows Abraham not only speaking to God about Sodom and Gomorrah, but begging that He spare the city if only fifty righteous people are found. As if that were not enough, Abraham then begins to bargain with God until finally we see in verse 32, “Then he said, ‘May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?’
“He answered, ‘For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.’”
And yet, though he begged for Sodom and Gomorrah, two wicked cities in the eyes of God, he would not beg for the life of his son (Moyers 1996, 229).
However, some scholars have taken the same information and pointed towards a different conclusion. Robert Davidson is quick to point to the enormous amount of faith Abraham would have to have to risk his promise from God like he did:
When he set out from Harran, Abraham had to leave his own country and kinsmen and thus break his ties with the past; now he is asked to renounce his son and thus break his ties with the future. This is the moment when that faith which Abraham put in the Lord faces its supreme challenge. To hold on to God’s dearest gift or to obey God’s command, this is the dilemma he faces. Only in the moment of obedience, does Abraham discover that what he was prepared to renounce is given back to him.
Dr. Phyllis Trible is practically echoing Davidson’s statement when she says, “When God calls Abraham at the beginning of the story, God says, ‘Break with your past,’ which is something you don’t ask of people in ancient cultures. Now, in this story, God says, ‘Break with your future.’ Break with your future by sacrificing Isaac, who is the future” (Moyers 1996, 227).
Herbert Wolf is quick to point to Hebrews 11:17-19 to understand what could have motivated Abraham to actually go through with the sacrifice of his own son (Wolf 1991, 118). Hebrews 11:19 says:
By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from the dead.
If Abraham had faith God would fulfill His promise, then Abraham would have believed that nothing, not even death, could stop Him from doing so. It took great faith on the part of Abraham to believe such a thing, but the faith seems to be evident (Wolf 1991, 118). Wolf even asks the question, “Was this faith behind Abraham’s statement to his servants that ‘we will worship and then come back to you?’”
Dr. Phyllis Trible sees this faith in Abraham and believes it is radical. “What’s radical here is the willingness to give up even the promises of God—which is a testing of God” (Moyers 1996, 234).
How does the character of Isaac fit into the narrative? Certainly we are not given as much information about his thoughts as we are Abraham’s, but Arthur Pink believes we can draw conclusions from what we have. Pink doesn’t believe Isaac is as young as most people believe he is at the time of this sacrifice (Pink 1922, 21). A boy would not have been able to carry the wood for the sacrifice that far, and the carrying of this wood is important to Pink because he believes it foreshadows Christ carrying the cross.
If Isaac were a grown man or a teenage boy, it shows that he willfully submitted to his father and to God. B. H. Carroll mentions this when he says, “The son, never saying a word, submitted. He (Abraham) stretched him over that alter, and drew his knife over the boy, and already in Abraham’s mind Isaac was dead” (Carroll 1942, 349).
If Isaac did willfully submit to God and Abraham, is there a chance that this could have spoiled him for life on the things of God? Dr. Norman J. Cohen explains a rabbinic tradition that states “that at the climax of the story, as Abraham raises the knife and is about to take his son’s life, tears drip from his eyes into Isaac’s eyes, and Isaac’s vision is impaired for the rest of his life.” From the Jacob and Esau story we know that Isaac has poor eyesight in his older age, and this tradition shows the impact of the near-sacrifice on Isaac is so devastating that the way he sees the world changes at that moment in time (Moyers 1996, 223). Although this is only a rabbinic tradition, it illustrates the possibility of change this event could have brought to the life of Isaac. Moyers runs with this theme and points out some scriptural evidence in Genesis 31:42 and Genesis 31:53 when the Bible makes reference to the “God of Abraham and the Fear of Isaac” (Moyers 1996, 223).
Dr. Cohen then goes on to ask an excellent question: “When Isaac and Ishmael bury their father, how do they feel about each other? They’ve shared a common experience of being outcast, banished, and nearly killed by their father” (Moyers 1996, 244).
What Does the Narrative Say About God?
The other question this narrative asks is what this test and method of testing, as well as other elements of the narrative, say about the character of God. At first glance, the narrative seems to contradict the character of God as portrayed in the rest of the Scriptures with the ordering of a child sacrifice. It seems cruel and unusual to subject a father to such a horror as the sacrifice of his own son.
And yet Dr. Phyllis Trible points out that “The cruelty of God is something from which the Bible does not flinch, whether it’s Genesis or Job or Jeremiah—”
“—or Jesus,” Bill Moyers cuts in. “Where God actually put His son on the cross to bleed in agony for other people. This is a God who would save us by doing that to a human being?” (Moyers 1996, 236)
The easy answer would appear to be that God always tests his people or that God needed to build Abraham up or even that God wanted to provide a type for Christ. However, a relatively recent development in theological circles maintains that God tested Abraham because He needed to know for Himself whether or not Abraham had the amount of faith required of the patriarch of God's chosen race. This view is one part of a systematic understanding of God’s sovereignty entitled “open theism” (Campbell 2001).
Open theism is the belief that:
God’s intentions are not absolute and invariant; he does not unilaterally and irrevocably decide what to do. When God deliberates, he evidently takes a variety of things into account, including human attitudes and responses. Once he formulates his plans, they are still open to revision (Pinnock 1994, 29-30).
If God’s plans are open to revision, then He must not know everything that humans will do beforehand or there would be no room or need for revision. It is the passage found in Genesis 22:12 that is a key verse in the theology of open theism. When the angel says on behalf of the Lord “now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son,” it appears as though God did not know before this moment in time. Clark Pinnock, when speaking about such passages in his book The Openness of God states, “total foreknowledge would jeopardize the genuineness of the divine-human relationship” (1994, 122).
Many modern-day evangelicals disagree with this theory and strong cases can be made for both sides (Campbell 2001). Arriving absolutely at an understanding of the sovereignty and character of God is beyond our human comprehension in many ways. There is always a great deal of mystery in the Christian faith; a thick fog that cloaks our understanding.
Dr. Phyllis Trible says, “Faith is not a possession to have but a mode of being in the world that is the realization that God provides. The story itself has an unresolved tension between the God who tests and the God who provides. We want it this way or that way, but the story doesn’t allow that” (Moyers 1996, 245).
Conclusion
The narrative of Abraham and Isaac asks more questions than it gives answers. However, if we always dwell on the questions that it poses, we may end up missing the point. Abraham is commended in the biblical books of Hebrews and James because of his faith, and it is surely this quality that God was seeking to either solidify or test. Could this test have caused a lifelong and unhealthy fear of God in Isaac? Possibly. Could Abraham have been too eager to go and sacrifice his son? Possibly. Could God have tested Abraham for the purpose of knowing for Himself where Abraham’s faith lay? Possibly. The text, however, does not speak directly to any of those questions, despite our need as human beings to speculate about what we cannot know for certain. Regardless of these unanswered questions, the Abraham-Isaac narrative was certainly a pivotal event in the life of a man, a nation, a Savior, and the world.REFERENCE LIST
Atkinson, Basil F. C. 1957. The pocket commentary of the Bible: the book of Genesis.
Chicago, IL: Moody Press.
Carroll, B. H. 1942. An interpretation of the English Bible: the book of Genesis.
Nashville: Broadman Press
Campbell, Iain D. “Open Theism.”
http://www.backfreechurch.co.uk/Studies/open_theism.htm. 2001
Davidson, Robert. 1979. Genesis 12-50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fee, Gordon D. and Douglas Stuart. 1981. How to read the Bible for all its worth.
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.
Goldman, Solomon. 1949. In the beginning. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Kaiser, Walter C., Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce, and Manfred T. Brauch. 1996. Hard
sayings of the Bible. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Leupold, H. C. 1942. Exposition of Genesis. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.
Moyers, Bill. 1996. Genesis: a living conversation. New York: Doubleday.
Pink, Arthur. 1922. Gleanings in Genesis. Chicago, IL: Moody Press.
Pinnock, Clark, Richard Rice, John Sanders, and William Hasker. 1994. The openness
of God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Speiser, E. A. 1964. The anchor Bible: Genesis. New York: Doubleday.
Spence, H. D. M., ed. 1946. The pulpit commentary: Genesis. New York: J. J. Little &
Ives Company.
Whybray, R. Norman. 1995. Introduction to the Pentateuch. Grand Rapids, MI:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Wolf, Herbert. 1991. An introduction to the old testament Pentateuch. Chicago, IL:
Moody Press.