Main
point: God’s so-called “tests of faith” are not for the purpose of
revealing a person’s heart to God, and they are not ill intended. They reveal to oneself (or to a narrative
audience) the status of one’s heart so that one can be encouraged in a faithful
walk.
The
“Test” of Abraham
The key story in Genesis 22, often called “The Sacrifice of Isaac”
or “The Binding of Isaac” (Hebrew “Akedah Yitzhak”), is perhaps the most
misread story in the Old Testament. Many
people decry the presentation of God there as a “moral monster.” (This modern
ethical reading has particularly been influenced by Kant.) The interpretive problems fall away when one:
1) reads it within the narrative cycles of Abraham, 2) is aware of a cultural
motif of superiors testing their faithful servants for fealty, 3) understands
the perspective of the intended Israelite audience, 4) reads it properly as
narrative, and 5) avoids questioning the psychology of the story characters.
Following the narrative cycles
What did Abraham think about God’s command to sacrifice Isaac?
If the audience is familiar with the stories of Abraham that being in Genesis
12, the audience knows that by the time God “tests” Abraham by asking him to
sacrifice Isaac, Abraham has grown in his knowledge and trust of God. As a result, Abraham does not believe that
Isaac will perish. He explicitly tells
his servant lads – and the narrative audience! – that both he and Isaac would
return after worshiping (v. 5). And,
when Isaac asks about the missing animal for the offering, Abraham replies,
“God will see to it” (= “God will provide”, but picks up on a repeated motif
about “seeing” the things of God).
Tasks of fealty*
Would Abraham have taken the command literally?
Yes and no. A cultural feature of the
ancient world was that rulers would sometimes command faithful servants to do
an extreme task as a test of fealty. The
servant would respond by loyally pledging to do so. If the ruler really had no ill will toward
the servant, the servant would be relieved of the task. (Note to the contrary how Saul, wanting David
to die, requires 100 Philistine foreskins as a bride price in 1Sam 18:25). Abraham, trusting that God was not malicious,
walks in the path of loyalty confident that Isaac would somehow return with him.
Intended Israelite audience
Would the Israelite audience have believed that child sacrifice or
abuse was acceptable?
No. The intended audience knew better. Scholars date both the origin of Torah (the
Law) and the date of the canonical (final) form of Genesis 22 with quite varied
conclusions. However, none of whom I am
aware date the final form of Genesis 22 before the origin of Torah. That means the intended audience of Genesis
22 would have known that child-sacrifice was forbidden (see Lev 18:21; 20:3;
Deut 12:30–31). Also, depending on the
date of the intended audience, they might have also known the prophetic voices
that condemned such practices. God did
not want or accept such a practice.
Reading narrative properly
Could the Israelite audience have believed this story defended child
sacrifice of abuse?
No. One aspect of reading a
narrative properly is that the audience is invited to enter the narrative world
and its perspective in order to understand it.
An Israelite audience, then, would have been expected to imagine Abraham
living in a pre-Torah setting in which child-sacrifice had not yet been
forbidden. AT the same time, the Israelite
audience, as would any audience, would have been expected to evaluate the story
from their own setting. They would have known
from their later setting of Torah commands (and possibly prophetic voices) that
such abuse was forbidden and could not be a legitimate interpretation of the
story. That is to say, they would have
interpreted the story canonically.
Excessive psychoanalyzing
Still, one might ask, “How did Isaac feel?”
This may be a reasonable modern question to bring to the text, but
it presents a sidetrack to the narrative’s focus. Biblical narrators can report what a
character is thinking when it is important to the point of focus (see Gen 18:10-15).
However, here, Isaac and his feelings simply
are not the focus in this story. In this
story, his character is one-dimensional.
The narrator wanted the audience to focus on Abraham’s confidence in God
and God’s faithfulness to provide. (In
fact, they were also expected to know how this story led to the place name
“Yahweh will Provide,” as the narrator indicates in verse 14.)
Testing
Some commentators wrongly claim that God needed to know if Abraham
would be faithful; that is, that God wanted to know Abraham’s heart. Again, reading the story in its canonical
context and narrative cycles, reveals that God knows the hearts and thoughts of
people. God does not lack this knowledge
about Abraham. Rather, the “test” experientially
reveals Abraham’s loyalty.
As an “outside” audience to this story, contemporary readers need
to understand the concept of God’s testing in the Old Testament. A better translation for the Hebrew word nissah,
often translated in 22:1 as “test” would be “prove.” The term is sometimes used in overlapping
contexts with other terms that are used in metallurgy for “proving” the purity or
genuineness of metal. (In English idiom one
might say, “The comedian X is also a proven dramatic actor.”)
When God tested the Israelites in the wilderness, it was a form of
educational discipline, revealing their often-unfaithful hearts while showing
that God would faithfully take care of them (Deut 8:2-5). An illustration from classroom teaching fits
well. Before I give a test to a student,
I might already know a given student’s learning status even better than that
student. The test, however, brings the
level of learning out to be recognized so that the student and I can address it. In Genesis 22, God’s testing/proving of
Abraham revealed his faithful heart and God’s provision, even memorializing the
event in a place name “Yahweh Will Provide” (v. 14).
Note: The Angel of the Lord’s pronouncement, “Now I know that you revere
God,” might seem contradictory to the claim that God already knew Abraham’s
heart. However, the term for “to know” here
most often refers not to internal “head
knowledge” but to experiential, publicly available knowledge. This language fits the theme of “proving” of
Abraham’s character openly.
Instructional purpose
The main instructional function of this story for its intended
Israelite audience was to present the Israelites’ founding patriarch as one who
had grown to trust God completely. He
was to be their role model of faith. He
serves as a model to the community of faith still.
Applications
The first application of this “devotional” is a practical one about
biblical interpretation: we need to learn to focus on what the text was meant
to communicate to the original audience and not read into it our own
perspectives and questions.
The spiritual lesson for me, though, is that I need to know that
God’s testing is never negative. It is
to bring to the surface either something that is positive or something that
needs to be addressed further in my life by the Holy Spirit. In an earlier devotional, I shared my
understanding that Jesus also “tested” people in the same way (11/17/23).
Jesus already knew their hearts (see Mark 2:8; John 2:24-25), but the
test brought into the open the condition of their hearts. So, God, in God’s faithfulness to us,
tests/proves us.
Lord, help me to see clearly the state of my heart, to see my state
of faithfulness to you and where I am lacking.
As you “test” me, help me to apprehend where I need to be more
surrendered to you. Amen.
------------
*See the key work an ancient tasks of fealty: Morschauser, Scott N. “‘Seeing You Have Not Withheld Your
Son’: An Overlooked Motif in Genesis 22?” JSOT 45, no. 3 (2021):388–406.
