My sermon for this Sunday is on Genesis 22, the story of God's command to Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac. In his Interpretation commentary on Genesis, Walter Brueggemann writes the following:Verse 1 sets the test, suggesting God wants to know something. (Notice the intent of God to "know" in 18:21, which also leads to a crisis.) It is not a game with God. God genuinely does not know. And that is settled in verse 12, "Now I know." There is real development in the plot. The flow of the narrative accomplishes something in the awareness of God. He did not know. Now he knows. The narrative will not be understood if it is taken as a flat event of "testing." It can only be seen as a genuine movement in history between Yahweh and Abraham.
I think Brueggemann is right. If we discount a genuine not knowing on the part of God in this story, we lose the significance of the narrative. God wants to know that Abraham will trust him to keep his promise to make of him a great nation even though the one through whom the promise will come (Isaac) is taken away. Abraham must trust God, but God must trust Abraham as well. Throughout the Abraham and Sarah narrative, the first Matriarch and Patriarch continually attempt to take control of the promise themselves (e.g. Hagar and Ishmael). God genuinely is not sure he can trust Abraham to leave it to God to fulfill the promise.
What makes this reading so difficult is when the text confronts our preconceived notions of omniscience and sovereignty. We try to squeeze the text to fit our doctrine of God. When we do that, we fail to let the text speak on its own terms and we perform hermeneutical gymnastics in our reading of Scripture. In addition, it makes God's relationship and interaction with his people appear to be nothing more than "smoke and mirrors" where God calls and leads and speaks even though he already knows the outcome. Is it possible to imagine God going through this entire scenario with Abraham and Issac, putting Abraham through this test with the rationale that God wanted to see if he could trust Abraham, even though God already knew that he could?
None of this explains what God knows about the future, whether he limits his knowledge of the future in order to be in genuine relationship with his creation, and what exactly God limits and what he truly knows of what is to come in our time and space which God is beyond. But in order to maintain the integrity of this biblical text from Genesis, we must take it at face value, and the text says that God does not know the outcome of his command to Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac.
Who am I to say otherwise?
23 comments:
One can only hold to your view if one accepts "by faith" all the text demands. But, God does not test men, as God is not present in reality. Men test men, and can use this to subvert justice.
We are not called to "put our brains" in hybernation and "jump in the dark" to prove some devotion to a 'god". This is what ancient cultures all believed about God. He was to be the ultimate value.
This is a highly speculative way to understand life, as it is not based in "real reality", but transcendental reality. I'm afraid too much has transpired under the name of God and his Kingdom that is presumptuous and unreasonable. And usually, these break laws of some kind in doing so.
There are a number of images of God in the Old Testament that don't fit with 'orthodox' theories about God.
Personally speaking, I like the idea of allowing the narratives to speak for themselves. We do, of course, need to remember that the narratives are not infallible!
Pam:
Yes, of course we have to ask what is meant by "orthodox." Different theological groups within the church have their own "orthodoxy," for some it's inerrancy, for others it is inclusion. I would prefer to speak of orthodoxy in reference to the ecumenical consensus of the church, though that too is not without its problems.
What I think is going on in reference to this post is that Greek conceptions of perfection and divinity have become "orthodox" for some people even though those conceptions may not necessarily by biblical.
As far as the question of the inerrant/errant and infallible/ fallible matters, those conceptions as well can lead to a skewing of the biblical text. On the inerrant/infallible side, those individuals can tend to import their own understandings into the text and tout them as the infallible standard. On the errant/fallible side, individuals tend to write off text they don't like.
Rather than employ that terminology, I think we are better off struggling through the notion of biblical authority-- what it is and how is it employed. For me it means I must wrestle with every text of Scripture because it has a claim on my life, but as I wrestle with it I do not read it in a "flat" way as if I can simply transport its meaning into my context as if the world has not changed in twenty centuries.
Thanks for your comments.
The story that really tests this type of reading - if you read it in the way you suggest we should read the sacrifice story - is the account of God's reconnaissance of Sodom in Genesis 18:20-21. Can we honestly believe that God didn't know what was happening in Sodom and needed to go there physically to confirm that the complaints he'd heard about it were true? I can't. Otherwise we might take a chance every time we sin that he isn't in our city to see it!
I think sometimes God anthropomorphized when speaking of himself in order for His audience to comprehend him. He "assumed" human idioms such as "I will go down and see" to describe processes to an audience that would not fully understand omnipresence and omniscience, let alone space-time considerations. It also gave them a handle on God's fairness, i.e., they knew He had "checked it out" first. While I don't fully discount the possibility of God's ignorance of the limits of Abraham's faith in the sacrifice story and I'm not making light of the moral arguments against the grand-chess-game theology, I'm not sure the same type of "helpful" language doesn't apply to the "Now I know" spoken in it.
At any rate, I love your blog and these types of discussions. Peace!
What I think is going on in reference to this post is that Greek conceptions of perfection and divinity have become "orthodox" for some people even though those conceptions may not necessarily by biblical.
Yes, I agree with you. It leaves us with a whole lot of cognitive dissonance in the face of Old Testament stories such as this one. Or stories of God changing his mind and being bargained with.
On the inerrant/infallible side, those individuals can tend to import their own understandings into the text and tout them as the infallible standard. On the errant/fallible side, individuals tend to write off text they don't like.
Yep, both of these processes approach the bible with their own preconceptions. Now, I guess my question is whether those who seek to look only to the narrative can set aside their preconceptions? ;-)
Rather than employ that terminology, I think we are better off struggling through the notion of biblical authority-- what it is and how is it employed.
I personally find the concept of 'biblical authority' unhelpful. Mainly because I automatically assume that it's simply code-speak for verbal inspiration and the whole package that comes with that. Am I out of date in North-American Christian-speak?
but as I wrestle with it I do not read it in a "flat" way as if I can simply transport its meaning into my context as if the world has not changed in twenty centuries.
I'm in complete agreement.
Pam:
Great thoughts! Thanks!
Have you read N.T. Wright's, "The Last Word?" I think he is really helpful in presenting his account of biblical authority.
Sharp:
Thanks for your comments and your kind words.
Allan, no I've not read 'The Last Word', but I'm a big fan fan of Tom Wright's.
Pam and Allan,
I appreciate your conversation on this. I've long felt the Bible - particularly the Hebrew Scriptures - knock many of the blocks out from under the Platonic concepts that forced their way into our conception of God.
Isaiah 46:9-10 For I am God, and there is not other; I am God and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done saying, My counsel shall stand and I will accomplish my purpose.
Anon:
I assume your quotation of Isaiah is your prooftext to refute my reading of Genesis 22; but you offered no commentary on exactly what Isaiah 46:9-10 might mean in its context, nor did you suggest an alternative reading to the passage in question-- the story of the binding Isaac.
If you wish to comment further, please use your real name.
Annonymous,
Do you think that God taking Issac was justified?
If so, do you defend God's "right" to take Issac because he is God and can do anything He wants?
So, God can be unjust in his requests, evne though he demands "His people" to be just?
On the other hand, "the right of God", versus the 'rights of man' is at odds because God needs to make sure that He is God by man's acknowledgment? Or he proves a man's worth or value because he has acted "in faith"? Otherwise, this man who fails the test is unworthy because he has not made God his "all"? Ludicrous.
Does God by definition mean submission and nothing else? Does God have favorites?
I think "God" is convienient for us. That is not to deny that he could exist.
Allan,
Great post!
Yes, I'm inclined to agree. I've entertained the idea that God knows the future in so far as he knows what he will bring to pass. But there may be aspects of the future that are unknown simply because they do not yet exist.
This could be quite faulty thinking, but I at least find this interpretation far more edifying and helpful than the one which really says God in this account knew ahead of time, and his words here are simply somehow just an accomodation.
Ted:
The issue for me is taking Scripture seriously in what it reveals about God. The question I wonder about is does God willfully limit his knowledge of certain aspects of the future in order to be in legitimate and honest relationship with us?
The issue for me is taking Scripture seriously in what it reveals about God.
Ah, this is where I reveal that I'm a 'nasty liberal'. The issue for me is taking the text seriously as text.
The reason I'd take scripture 'seriously' about what it has to reveal about God is because Scripture is canonical and endorsed by Christian tradition and experience. It is only in that sense that I believe it's views of God are to be taken 'seriously'.
I don't see scripture as 'infallible God reveals the nature of God' but rather as 'fallible humans struggle to put into words that which cannot be put into words.'
But please don't tell me that the text says something it doesn't. Or that it doesn't say something that it does.
"But please don't tell me that the text says something it doesn't. Or that it doesn't say something that it does."
OK.... I am not, but what precisely do you mean?
OK.... I am not, but what precisely do you mean?
Sorry, this was a rhetorical statement, not directed at you.
Here's an example (and I don't really want to debate the topic right now): I'm in favour of 'gay marriage' (or whatever term you want to use). But I'm not impressed by arguments like: 'The bible doesn't really prohibit homosexual relationships'. Well, clearly, that's not what the text says.
My argument is let's first read the text and read exactly what it says. Next we can decide our process of interpretation, our hermeneutic. But saying 'The bible doesn't prohibit homosexual relationships' is actually mixing the reading and the interpreting; and it seems to me that a lot of people either deny that they are mixing these two activities or they are totally oblivious to it.
Pam,
Why do you study the text so intricately?
Because you believe there is some real inspiration to the text (above and apart from other texts)?
Because you believe that the Bible is a mix of myth and history and to discern the difference?
Because the text is a text for "social control"?
or What? And Why?
Pam:
Your point is excellent and I completely agree, and I will say that people all along the theological spectrum engage in that activity.
Yes, let's look at the text honestly and seriously and then go from there.
Why do you study the text so intricately?
I don't know that I study the text 'intricately'. To me, it's about looking at what is actually said in the text. Sorry, but I can't answer that question any better. I believe in honesty.
Because you believe there is some real inspiration to the text (above and apart from other texts)?
The text is canonical and therefore an 'official' part of our tradition. It is our 'official' narrative.
Because you believe that the Bible is a mix of myth and history and to discern the difference?
The words 'myth' and 'history' are both very loaded words. If you are using 'myth' to mean 'not factual' and 'history' to mean 'factual' then we have a whole load of unpacking of vocabulary to do.
Because the text is a text for "social control"?
Goodness, no. I don't believe that the original oral stories nor the original written texts were meant to be texts of 'social control' at all.
I have this feeling we are both coming at this conversation with very different presuppositions; to be honest, though, I'm not sure what yours are. Your questions are a bit nonsensical to me in the paradigm I thought I was using - in my head, anyway! :-)
Pam,
Some of my presuppositions are "open". But, I do not believe that there is any supernatural revelation, in scripture. And I think it is dangerous to believe so, because it is applying what should not be applied. It is inappropriate and presumptuous to assume that anyone's situation is the same as the text of scripture.
Of course, we are human, and humans need social contexts, which the Church gives people, but is the Church any more than a social/political organization? I used to think so. But, that is what naivete' believes. Children believe in fairy tales and when they wake up on Christmas morning, "Santa Claus" has come and brought gifts...does this make Santa "real". Yes, in the historical sense, because he was a saint, but what has happened to him is far different than the real saint...the same is the case for Christian faith and such things as the resurrection, etc.
I think that setting people up for disappointment, because the real world is not about fairy tales is damaging. And it is what always happens in growing up, as children have to learn that Santa is not real, teenagers have to learn that "their prince will not rescue them"; and young adult have to learn that life is what you make it and the dreams they have will costs them time, money, and commitment.
These are the realities of life. And life is not about "being delivered", being saved, or being "special". Life is about growing in knowledge, understanding and coming to terms with one's values and committing to them.
Angie: Maybe I'm too linear, but I don't really see what any of these comments have to do with what either Allan or I have said.
I hear that you don't have a lot of time for Christianity or for the bible and that you think that Christianity is a load of fairy tales that set people up for disappointment. I can only assume that 'disappointment' has been your experience and that makes me feel regretful.
I'm not really the sort of person who is going to try to convince you to become a Christian or to see scripture the way I do, so I'm not sure where our conversation goes from here. If emailing me would be helpful, do feel free. Just be aware that I'm in the process of doing a transatlantic move and we're leaving the UK on Saturday for Ohio, so it might take me days rather than hours to respond.
Post a Comment