For the longest time, my general response to the "God-testing-Abraham-by-telling-him-to-kill-his-son" story was that it must have been excruciating for Abraham to go through something like this, and must have been an unspeakable relief for him when God stopped him and said "don't worry about that, here's a sheep instead."
Many people will point to this episode as proof of God's cruelty, insensitivity and arbitrary authoritarianism, but I've never believed that. I just don't see a way that this story could possibly have ended with Isaac dying.
There really were only two outcomes when God asked Abraham to do this thing. Either he would, or he wouldn't. We know that even if Abraham would (because he did) that Isaac lives to see another day. If he wouldn't, and didn't, then Isaac clearly wouldn't end up as a burnt offering either, so I can't see a way that this story is about God really wanting child sacrifice.
I can, however, see this story as a counterpoint to other local ancient near-east cultures, some of whom would have engaged in human sacrifice.
So there's that. For a long time I've held the belief that God at no point actually wanted a child to be sacrificed, and that the narrative supports my theory. I still, however, was reading it with the notion that Abraham was willing to do that, which at the time I thought would have taken an enormous amount of self-control, faith, obedience, etc.
Now that I have kids, that interpretation no longer works for me. Not with the narrative as written.
If there's one thing the Bible doesn't shy away from, it's showing the emotions of its characters. If someone is in agony, you know it, they know it, the author knows it, and – based on the actions of the agonized character – everyone around them knows it too. There's rending of clothes, gnashing of teeth, wailing and weeping, beating of chests and fits of any and all kinds.
Here, after Abraham is asked to personally murder the son, "your only son, the one that you love, Isaac," (God knows exactly what He'd be asking Abraham to give up, obviously) through which God's entire promise and covenant with him was to be realized, we get none of that. Not so much as a hiccup of hesitation, a suggestion of negotiation or a modicum of sorrow. Nothing.
It can't be because Abraham is afraid of bartering with God – he did just that when he was told of the imminent destruction of Sodom and Gommorrah. It can't be that he doesn't see injustice in the killing of an innocent, since that's exactly what that bartering session was all about – and those were innocent, hypothetical strangers that he was speaking up for.
I think Abraham knew all along that God didn't really intend for Isaac to die. I think from the very beginning, he knew that it was a test of his faith and that there would be an ending that involved he and his son descending that mountain together.
And no, I don't think this weakens Abraham's display of faith, in much the same way that knowing someone's there to catch you doesn't make falling backwards with your eyes closed any less an act of faith. If the exercise was God wanting Abraham's faith, not the life of his child, as I've said I think it was, then the point was for Abraham to trust him, which he did, obviously. I think if Abraham really thought that God would let him kill his son, the story would have played out much differently. If Abraham had had less faith in God, he would never have gone up that mountain to kill Isaac, or at least he wouldn't have gone quietly.
--
I love when the Bible teaches stuff that has nothing to do with Christianity. Chapter 23, and passages like it, are good reminders that when we read the Bible, we're reading not only a religious text, but a cultural one as well.
I just really like the way the transaction of Abraham purchasing a grave for Sarah works out.
Abraham: My wife died, and I'm a stranger here. Can I buy some land?
Dudes: You're awesome, just name what you want and any of us will give it to you.
Abraham: How about that one?
Dude (owner): sure, take it. It's yours!
Abraham: How much?
Dude: Don't worry about it. You're awesome. It's yours!
Abraham: No, seriously. How much?
Dude: Man, $400 is nothing between guys like us. Don't worry about it. It's yours!
Abraham: Here's your $400.
Dude: Thanks! Here's your land.
That's awesome.
Abraham's sending of his servant to find a wife for Isaac is another cool thing, both for the cultural implications and revelations of it (selecting from family relations, Abraham's insistence on Isaac not going back to their homeland to live, etc), but also because of the interaction between the servant and God when he gets to the well to wait for a woman for Isaac.
A lot of people would (do?) arrive at a place where they would like some heavenly help, and sit back and say "okay, God. Now what? Sign me!" Abraham's servant does something similar but, I think, interestingly different.
His is more like "here's my plan: if that's cool, could You make it happen?"
He also doesn't pick a sign that's particularly outlandish. Theoretically, he wants Isaac to marry a good person. Well, what good person wouldn't offer to give a thirsty traveller a lousy drink of water? So the proposed interaction "I'll ask her for a drink, and if she gives one to me, and offers some to my camels, she's the one!" is one that's well within the realm of possibility.
I just like that there's reliance on God, but not to an irritating/unreasonable degree. There's a level of "help me help you" to it. That's pretty cool.
I'm not really explaining why I like this properly, but there's a very pragmatic faith about it. This thing's gotta get done, so let's try it this way. If it's God's will, this'll work. If it's not, it obviously won't... Just seems more elegant than just flopping around until God does all the hard work for you.
No comments:
Post a Comment