Genesis 22 outlines the story of Abraham taking his only son Isaac to a place that God shows him. This is where Abraham has to give Isaac as a sacrifice. Just as Abraham is about to kill Isaac, angel’s speak out and say; you have obeyed my command and your family shall be prosperous and rule over the land. This passage tests the human family as to whether it has learnt that everything it has is a gift. We can draw a comparison here with the Garden of Eden because it relates to the pre-lapsarian state where humans were at one with God and obeyed what God had to say. We also have to question what is going through Abraham’s mind as he takes his only son onto the mountain. The motive is clear, obeying God, however, sacrificing your own son may be perceived as barbaric. Biblical study is the investigation of a biblical text or narrative which relates back to people’s prior conceptions, for example coming from a Christian viewpoint or secular or Jewish. The book of Genesis on the whole challenges the naturalistic world view and provides new insight into the way of understanding the world and humanity’s relationship with God. This theme can be seen in this passage.
According to Plaut no part of the Torah has received as much attention as this precise passage. The binding of Isaac is known as the Akedah and it is ‘worthier of study and investigation than any other section.’ Due to this emphasis I am going to start with Jewish study of this text. In this article von Rad tells us that there ‘are many levels of meaning.’ We have to be very aware when we approach this article due to the changing problems as the passage develops. There are of course other interpretations because as is evident in the heading of Moberly’s article is Abraham a ‘man or a monster.’ We are told by Plaut on page 149 that the beginning of the test was issued by Elohim, which is the ‘generic term for God or gods’ which contrasts to the God who stopped Abraham, Adonai, who is Abraham’s God. This is almost implying that there may be a conflict between ‘God’s’ because as Plaut says Elohim may have asked him to proceed however Adonai steps in and puts an end to this ritual. This conflict may further enrich the claim that there is ambiguity when it comes to looking at the reasons behind Abraham being told to stop. The classical Christian biblical perspective is much more one of monotheism where God tested Abraham and it was the ‘angel of the Lord’ who stopped Abraham.
When we learn that Abraham is being put to the test, we have to question the meaning of this because at first it seems ambiguous. As Plaut says is he testing Abraham’s faith or faithfulness. Faith may be seen as a possession because faith is something that you have where as faithfulness is ‘how someone acts in light of that revealed truth.’ Abraham has always been seen as obedient however one may argue this is taking it to the next level. Franz Rosenzweig argued that God has to mislead us and deceive us at certain points in order give us more freedom. We therefore have the ability to disobey God which makes our faith stronger. In response to this we have to question how can we have a faith in a God that misleads us. ‘Many will find it difficult to believe in a ‘misleading God.’’
The use of the word ‘fear’ in verse 12 links back to this idea of respect and discipline because we could either argue that Abraham genuinely fears God or he just showing eternal faith and obedience. There would be a certain level of fear however I would argue that the reason Abraham committed to making the sacrifice was not out of fear rather it was about either faith or faithfulness. Plaut argues that it could be both because he is showing respect for God’s command and listening to what is asked of him. However, when we look at Moberly’s article we see that faith in the New Testament is the equivalent of Old Testament fear of God. So therefore it could be perceived that fear and faith are very much related. It doesn’t need to be a question of fear or faith rather faith and fear.
The Hebrew word ‘emunah’ means ‘obedience with complete trust.’ This could be attributed to God however it can also be attributed to Abraham. God having faith may be seen as an odd concept however he is remaining faithful to the laws that he has set out. I would argue that in this instance he has gone back on his word. He has told Abraham to sacrifice his son and then at the last minute he is telling him otherwise. God at the end of this passage promises Abraham that all of their offspring will have blessings on earth. This idea of going back on his word could be seen as a challenge but could also relate to the point about God misleading us.
The two articles of von Rad and Gunn and Fewell have differing approaches when it comes to the reading of this text. Von Rad discusses the narration at some length where as Gunn and Fewell do not really directly discuss this. However, the interesting aspect of this is the fact that they draw different conclusions. Although the conclusions may be different they do both address how the ‘tempo’ reflects the events of the story. Von Rad comments on how it slows down from the moment Abraham and Isaac leave the two servants and head up to the place of sacrifice. ‘The representation seems to drag and is circumstantial, letting the reader sense something of the agonies of this pathway.’ This change in pace allows us to follow the story and we can begin to understand some of the emotion that is going on for Abraham. Von Rad comments on how the narrator is purposefully vague and complex. The narrator is not aiming to explicitly state the meaning of the story. This links in with Moberly’s article because he talks about the influence of Origen. According to Moberly Origen was ‘one of the greatest biblical scholars of the Patristic age.’Origen argues that we should engage closely with the ‘literal meaning’ however then goes on to say that the ram represents Christ so requires some form of reader response. This may appear as a contradiction however he is trying to achieve a balance between literal meanings and interpretations. Von Rad puts all the emphasis upon interpretation because he argues that ‘a story like this is basically open to interpretation and to whatever thoughts the reader is inspired.’
For a Christian study we have to read a text in relation to the whole Bible. This is also applicable for Jews, however of course for a secular reading this is not relevant. When we read an Old Testament passage we must read this in light of the information we learn in the New Testament. Paul refers to God delivering Jesus for us all. This comes from Romans and therefore Paul’s reference to Genesis 22 gives us a ‘classic Christian moral’ of the story. This relates back to the previous point because when we study a passage, we can often infer a wider message and therefore we need to closely analyse passages. In Moberly’s article, about whether Abraham is a monster or a man, it relates to a specific interpretation. Abraham could be considered a monster because he is sacrificing a human life because the voice of God has told him to. On the contrary he could be perceived as a man because of the boldness and reverence for God. This interpretation says that Genesis 22 shows the rejection of human sacrifices and how we should replace these with animal sacrifices. However, this dodges the main theme of the text, that being God’s test and Abraham’s obedience.
Therefore, when we read a text such as Genesis 22 we have to account for the a priori conceptions that people maintain. For example, the differing readings from a Jewish or a Christian perspective. Biblical study allows us to flesh out a text and often find hidden meanings to allow us to further develop the reading of texts to another level. A secular perspective would take a more literal reading of the text because they are less interested in the underlying message and the hidden meaning of the text. This is obviously very different to a Jewish and Christian interpretation because as has been shown in this essay the number of interpretations leads to a great deal of conflict and discussion over a passage such as the one of Abraham and Isaac.
Bibliography
R. W. L. Moberly, Genesis 22: Abraham – Model or Monster? in his The Theology of the Book of Genesis (Cambridge Cambridge UP: 2009), 179-199.
R. W. L. Moberly, An Invitation to the Imagination in his Genesis 12-50 (Sheffield Academic Press: 1992), 91-101.
Gerhard von Rad, Epilogue [to Gen. 22:1-19] in his Genesis (3rd ed., SCM: 1972), 243-45.
W. G. Plaut, The Torah: A Modern Commentary (Union of American Hebrew Congregations: 1981), 145-151.
David Gunn & Danna Nolan Fewell, Abraham and Sarah: Genesis 11-22 in their Narrative in the Hebrew Bible (Oxford Oxford UP: 1993).
Faith and Faithfulness are not the same thing (June 17 2011), https://involutedgenealogies.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/faith-and-faithfulness-are-not-the-same-thing/