"I take the Bible far too seriously to take it literally," (sic.) Karl Barth
Texts:
Texts:
Today we read of the command to kill Isaac. The most chilling part of the text for me is v.16b-18: "By myself I have sworn, says the LORD: Because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will indeed bless you, and I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of their enemies, and by your offspring shall all the nations of the earth gain blessing for themselves, because you have obeyed my voice."
There is a sense of contingency in this promise: "Because you have..." which is not present in either of the iterations of the promise in chapters 15 and 17. Having sent away one of his sons, he is commanded to sacrifice the other, we must wonder what God is up to. Here, we must wonder whether the covenant and promises were, in fact, all contingent upon Abraham’s faithfulness or whether this promise is different from the others. Glancing throughout the narrative, we find no evidence that the promises previously offered to Abraham, even the covenant, are contingent upon Abraham’s faithfulness. If these promises stated previously were freely given, why does the promise stated in Genesis 22:16 suggest contingency? Is God now reneging on his promise that Abraham will be the father of many nations? If God is going to make promises and then rescind them, can we depend on God as being faithful?
God's command that Abraham sacrifice Isaac seems much more in keeping with the other gods in the region who demanded child sacrifice. We do not hear Abraham's protest. We do not have the luxury of knowing what he was thinking as he walked with his (likely) teenaged-son to the mountain, having to answer his son's innocent questions, "Dad, where is the animal we are going to sacrifice?" We do not read if Isaac struggled against his father as Abraham tied him up. It is easy for us to become distracted in all of these questions, the unknowables, the words and questions that seep into the narrative from the margins of the text.
I think that it is from an angle that the truth begins to emerge. What if this passage isn't really about child sacrifice, not really about God reneging on God's promises, not really about any of our questions? What if this passage is actually about relationship?
Thus far in the narrative, God has indicated God's faithfulness to Abraham with scarcely an indication of any behavior on Abraham's part. Of course, we see circumcision as a sign of the covenant in Genesis 17, but the bulk of the action in the story has come from God: God comes to Abraham, God promises, God makes a covenant, God comes again, reiterates the covenant, gives the sign of the covenant... but it is not until Genesis 22 that God receives an indication from Abraham that Abraham is truly trusting God. Having given Lot the land the LORD promised to him, having passed off Sarah as his sister not once but twice, having had a son by Hagar (at Sarah's behest), Abraham's faith and trust do not become readily apparent until Genesis 22.
As Abraham raises the knife, the angel of the LORD comes, "Abraham, what in the world do you think you are doing?" as though Abraham's action would somehow fulfill the promise that has already been fulfilled. "Are you crazy?"
The promise is not contingent upon Abrahams - or our - behavior. Whereas the near-sacrifice of Isaac shows Abraham's faith (for the first time, really, in the narrative, even though it was imputed to him before), it shows God's faithfulness. When all things seem to indicate the contrary, God's promises ring true - thundering through the noise of our notions of righteousness and deservingness - bringing a twist to the stories that make us cringe and shudder in order that we might know God's faithfulness.
No comments:
Post a Comment