Abraham – Paragon of Faithfulness?
 |
| Sacrifice of Isaac by Michaelangelo Caravaggio |
One of
the most challenging stories in the Bible is found in Genesis 22. It’s the
story of God’s test of Abraham’s faith. Is he willing to sacrifice Isaac, the promised
child, through whom the promise of blessing is to descend? According to
Genesis, Abraham complies. The chapter is rather stark. There are few details.
We don’t hear much conversation between God and Abraham, who simply gets us the
next morning, takes Isaac and two young men with him, on a journey that will
lead to what appears to be an unmentioned place of sacrifice. So, will he or
won’t he go through with it?
The
Bible Study group I lead each Wednesday is studying the story of Abraham as
told in chapters 12 through 25 of Genesis. We spent our time this week in
Genesis 22, a chapter that raised just a “few” questions and concerns. It was a
good conversation, but I’m not sure anyone is ready to follow Abraham’s example
when it comes to the life of faith. This might be a bit too far! In Jewish
tradition, this is known as the Akedah, and it is an important text that is
designated for reading on Rosh Hashanah. But as Jewish theologian Aaron
Koller writes: “If it does not immediately provoke revulsion, the terror of the
story increases the more one dwells on it.” (Unbinding Isaac, p. xxi).
In any case, the passage does raise
questions about the nature of faith and whether there are limits to how far we’re
willing to go with the path of faith. Do you have room for doubt? In Hebrews
11, which begins with the premise that “faith is the assurance of things hoped
for, the conviction of things not seen. Indeed, by faith our ancestors received
approval” (Heb. 11:1-2) Among those ancestors is Abraham, who by faith set out on a journey not
knowing where he was going, all because God called him. In the course of the
discussion of Abraham’s faith, the writer of Hebrews writes:
17 By faith Abraham, when put to the test, offered up Isaac. He who had received the promises was ready to offer up his only son, 18 of whom he had been told, “It is through Isaac that descendants shall be named for you.” 19 He considered the fact that God is able even to raise someone from the dead—and figuratively speaking, he did receive him back. (Hebrews 11:17-19)
One of the questions raised by the
passage, which is so spare is whether Abraham believed, in the end, he would
have to sacrifice his son, through whom the covenant promise was to be
expressed, or would a substitute be provided at some point. That possibility is
hinted at when Abraham answers Isaac’s question as to the missing lamb. Abraham
simply said God will provide. But how certain was he? Of course, the writer of
Hebrews suggests that in the end, if God can raise the dead, then even if
Abraham went through with the sacrifice God could restore him. And, in fact,
according to Hebrews Abraham did receive him back.
One of the best-known interpretations
of this passage comes from the nineteenth-century Danish philosopher Søren
Kierkegaard. In his book, Fear and Trembling Kierkegaard portrayed
Abraham as the “knight of faith” who acted in faith without any doubt
expressed. Kierkegaard suggests that if Abraham had any doubts as to whether
this was the right course, he would have gone up the mountain and told God that
while not the best gift, he hoped that God would receive the offering of his
own death. Instead, Abraham “believed the ridiculous.” [Fear and Trembling, p.
21]. But is Kierkegaard correct in his reading? Or is this one of the “texts of
terror,” that challenges us in our faith?
I find it interesting that in verse
19, after God provides the ram that substitutes for Isaac, it’s said that
Abraham returned to the young men and then headed home. No mention is made of
Isaac. What happened to him? Why has he been erased from the story? I wonder if
this suggests that even though Isaac spared, the relationship between father
and son was broken. The text doesn’t say, but I wonder.
One last thing here. Kierkegaard
asserted that the ethical, which is the universal, was suspended in this test.
If the universal is stand then shouldn’t Abraham be charged with attempted
murder, rather than being honored for his faith? Kierkegaard writes that faith
is paradoxical. That’s because the individual stands above the universal. He
writes: “If that is not faith, then Abraham is done for and faith has never
existed in the world, just because it has always existed. For if the ethical life
is the highest and nothing incommensurable is left over in man, except in the
sense of what is evil, i.e. the single individual who is to be expressed in the
universal, then one needs no other categories than those of the Greek
philosophers, or whatever can be logically deduced from them” [Fear and Trembling, p. 63].
I understand Kierkegaard’s
commitment to the idea that faith transcends boundaries, but does that suspend
the ethical? Aaron Koller, a Jewish theologian, answers Kierkegaard in his powerful
study of this story, writing: “The ethical cannot be purposefully suspended by
God because God aspires to the ethical. The very notion that Abraham would be
forced to choose between faith and ethics, then, is not anachronistic, but
clashes with fundamental Jewish ideas of revelation and morality.” [Unbinding Isaac, p. 111]. I believe
that Koller is correct, and Kierkegaard is not. Faith, if it is to be true, can’t
supersede the ethical. Thus, perhaps, the writer of Hebrews is mistaken. It’s
also possible that Abraham misheard God. Or, perhaps, as Immanuel Kant
wondered, how could Abraham know that this was truly God speaking?
So, what is the nature of faith? What does it mean to say "Here I Am?" And are there limits to how far we will go? That is, if what we hear doesn’t
comport well with what we believe about God? That is the conundrum posed by the
story of the Akedah, the intended sacrifice of Isaac by his father. Thus the
question that always stands before us: what is faith?
Comments