Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Patrick Henry Reardon: Why Did God Test Abraham?

This piece appeared in Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity, and at Orthodoxy Today.

Abraham and God's Power:  Why Did God Test Abraham?

Patrick Henry Reardon

Readers of Genesis 22—from Sirach to Kierkegaard—have pondered long what thoughts may have intruded themselves into the struggling mind of Abraham when the Lord required him to offer his son Isaac in sacrifice.

Perhaps the most insuperable problem was one of logic: How did Abraham reconcile in his thought the imminent loss of his son with the Lord’s earlier promise that this same son would be the father of many people? Just how could he resolve the contradiction between God’s promise, which he completely believed, and God’s command, which he was completely resolved to obey?

In fact, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in the earliest Christian commentary on this story, explicitly cited God’s earlier promise—“in Isaac your seed shall be called”—in the context of the command that Isaac was to be sacrificed (Heb. 11:18). How was it possible to reconcile God’s promise with God’s command? Abraham had three days to think about it.

The author of Hebrews reflected that Abraham, in order to resolve that contradiction, must have introduced into his reasoning process one further consideration—to wit, God’s power: “He reasoned that God . . . is able”—logisamenos hoti . . . dynatos ho Theos.

The wording of this argument is quite precise. In speaking of God, the author of Hebrews uses the adjective dynatos instead of the verb dynatai (“is able” instead of “can”). He thereby indicated he was thinking of an abiding quality of God—his power.

Abraham had already experienced God’s power in the conception of Isaac, when he and Sarah, for all practical purposes, were as good as dead: “And not being weak in faith, he did not consider his own body, already dead (since he was about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah’s womb” (Rom. 4:19).
In other words, Abraham reasoned that God’s power had already overcome the forces of death in the very circumstances of Isaac’s conception. And if God had overcome death once, he was always able to do so. Thus, says Hebrews, Abraham “considered that God is able [dynatos] to raise from the dead.” (Contrary to most English translations, there is no direct object to the verb “raise” in this verse. The text does not mean simply that God can raise Isaac; it means he can raise anybody.)

When the Sadducees challenged Jesus about the resurrection from the dead, he likewise appealed to the power of God. “Are you not therefore mistaken,” he asked, “because you do not know the Scriptures nor the power [dynamis] of God?” (Mark 12:24). And it is passing curious that Jesus spoke of both Abraham and Isaac in that context of the resurrection: “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” By way of explaining the reference, Jesus concluded, “He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living” (12:26–27).

For the author of Hebrews, the mind of ancient Abraham raced ahead in prophecy to the doctrine of the resurrection—it was an experienced inference from what he already knew of God. From the very temptation he endured, Abraham arrived at a new understanding of the living God—namely, that he is powerful to raise the dead to life. This was a true prophetic revelation granted to the struggling mind of his servant.
St. Augustine was much impressed by this story. “The pious father,” he wrote, “faithfully clinging to this promise—because it had to be fulfilled by the one whom God commanded him to kill—did not doubt that this son, whom he had had no hope of being given to him, could be restored to him after his immolation [sibi reddi poterat immolatus].”

For the author of Hebrews, the restoration of Isaac was enacted “in parable” (en parabole—Heb. 11:19). St. Augustine, translating “parable” as similitudo, correctly understood it to refer to the Resurrection of Christ, when God’s Son was restored to him after his immolation on the Cross. There was a “likeness”—similitudo—between God and Abraham, revealed in the mystery of the Resurrection (The City of God 16.32).

Why did God test Abraham? In order to reveal an essential aspect of himself: his power over death. Abraham smelted this truth in the furnace of his mind, as he struggled to reconcile God’s promise with his command. God’s power over death was not an abstract truth of theology, available to abstract thought; it was learned on the pounding pulse of an ancient Mesopotamian, as he assumed a personal likeness to the very God who put him to the trial.

Patrick Henry Reardon is pastor of All Saints Antiochian Orthodox Church in Chicago, Illinois. His newest book is The Jesus We Missed: The Surprising Truth About the Humanity of Christ Father Reardon is a senior editor of Touchstone.  Read more of his work on Genesis here.

To read another view on the Binding of Issac, go here and here.


DDeden said...

Is there any indication that Abraham did not give this 'sacrificial test' to all of his sons at a certain age?

Might that have been a sort of 'now you are a man' ritual, (parallel: circumcision), that later became the bar mitzva in judaism?

Alice Linsley said...

There is no evidence that this was the practice for sons entering manhood in either the Bible or in anthropological studies. Skill at using the bow(seti, hunting, boating and marriage appear to have marked the threshold of manhood among Abraham's Nilotic ancestors.

The story of Isaac's binding is called a test of Abraham's faith or trust in God. But what does this singular event mean? If we accept that Abraham's people lived in expectation of the Divine Son, we have a clue. Horus was depicted as a lamb at his rising in the East and as a ram at his setting in the West. As they went up the mountain, Isaac asked his father, "Where is the lamb" for the sacrifice, and Abraham answered that God would provide the lamb, only God provided a ram. The event appears to signal that the Divine Seed was not Isaac, as Abraham may have thought, but a provision to come in the future. Tribal peoples associate the West with the future.

DDeden said...

I was also thinking that it might have been specific to the first-born son (or possibly daughter? female infanticide not rare amongst desert tribes) of each particular mother, so each multiple-wife of one husband would "sacrifice" (realistically or ritually (banishment)) their first-born. This would be a carry-over of ancient matriarchal-bond hunting/gathering society (an alternative approach to a twin killing a twin to maximise genetic diversity within a clan), that was later replaced by sedentary agriculture-based rituals which focused on future (and stored) provisions as opposed to nomadic day to day opportunistic foraging.

Alice Linsley said...

Abraham's ancestors were not desert tribes and, as far as we know, they did not practice infanticide. That is a later development and pertained mostly to the Greco-Roman civilization. Later the Quran forbid the practice among Islamized Arabs and Africans.

Daughters were valued among Abraham's Nilotic ancestors. The Horites expected a daughter of their royal-priestly lines to bring forth the "Seed" that would crush the serpent's head and retore Paradise (Gen. 3:15). Some of the Horite daughters were rulers also.