Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Defining Moments


One of the most defining moments in Scripture is when the Angel of the LORD tells Abraham not to lay a hand on Isaac. The story is familiar to most: God tells Abraham to go to Mount Moriah and offer his only son Isaac as a sacrifice. Abraham obeys to the point of having a knife dangling over Issac's body, only for the Angel to intervene.

Many burning questions arise from this passage in Genesis 22, but they all boil down to one - Why did God bring this episode about? After all, without God's initial command, none of this would have happened. Abraham didn't just decide to offer his precious son Isaac to God one day. He heard a call from God to do so. The question is, why this call? What were God's motives?

The Bible gives us clear answers on one level, and yet these answers are far from clear as they inevitably leaves us scrambling for "deeper truths". The clearest answer of all is that God did this to test (or prove) Abraham. That is what verse 1 affirms matter-of-factly. The blessing promised to the world hinged on God's dealings with Abraham, and so this man from Ur of the Chaldeans needed to be put through a climactic trial and to come out the other end trusting in God. After all, tests are assigned so that the taker of the test's capabilities at a given topic are made known. The topic in this instance was Faith in God. Had Abraham failed the test, what would have happened? I think it's reasonable to say that God is a God of repeat exams. He is also a God who is faithful even when we are faithless, so had Abraham failed to carry through with God's almost impossible command, I don't think the promises God made to him would have come to nothing. After all, the promises God made to Abraham depended on God Himself, which is actually a part of what this test was all about.

A second clear answer to why this scenario came about is given when the Angel interrupts Abraham's obedience. He says to his test subject,

Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.

First of all, note that the Angel and God are mentioned almost interchangeably. Earlier, God told Abraham to sacrifice his son. Here, the Angel of the LORD says that Abraham didn't withhold his son "from me". But more to the point, another plain reason for this event is stated in the above verse - the need for knowledge. The Angel says that in light of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac, it is now known that Abraham is one who fears God. Known to whom? Well, taking Scripture at face value, it is the Angel of the LORD who now knows that Abraham is a God-fearer.

Coupled with the "test" motive, this makes sense. When a teacher sets a test, she does so in order to find out where her students stand in relation to the subject being taught. Do they know their Geography or do they not? A test will find that out. Here, God is testing Abraham's faith, and He finds out that Abraham is indeed one who fears God. Therefore, God says to Abraham,

because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice.

This is all rather straightforward, until we examine just who is setting the test. Human test setters need to find out information, but does God? After all, we affirm that God knows everything, and so before any of this took place God knew whether or not Abraham had genuine faith. Why then does the Angel of the LORD say that "now I know you fear God"? He knew that already, right? Doesn't God's omniscience make this test rather pointless, and thus only add to the seeming cruelty of the initial command?

The explanation often given is that what is really going on here is that God is testing Abraham so that Abraham knows where he stands. However, I'm not so sure I can sign up to this, chiefly for the simple reason that the Angel doesn't say "now you know that you fear God." If that is what is really meant, then why didn't he really say it?

Perhaps the key lies in the word "know". We think of coming to "know" something almost purely in informational terms. I don't know what the capital of Mali is, I search Wikipedia, and now I know. (It's Bamako, in case you're wondering.) The Old Testament, however, appears to attach deeper significance to this little word. For example, Genesis talks about Adam "knowing" his wife, which is a euphemism for sexual intercourse. Of course that's not to imply that every time we read the word "know" in the Bible we take it to mean "have sex". But it does mean that we shouldn't just think of it as "acquiring information".

Look also at the New Testament and what Paul says to those troubled folk in Galatia. He talks about them coming to be known by God (chapter 4). Were they not already known by their Almighty Creator who knows everything? In one way they were, but in a deeper, relational way they were not. I don't think I'm pushing the boat out to far in saying that there is is a knowledge of us that God doesn't have, but which He gains in some deep, intimate way. Paul also says in 1 Corinthians that,

If anyone loves God, he is known by God.

This language is extremely relational. It is knowledge between two persons, not knowledge between a person and a piece of information. Relating this back to Abraham, can we say that this ex idol-worshiper became known by God in some deeper way as a result of this character trial? Rather than simply saying that God already knows everything, I think we can posit some kind of increase in God's knowledge with regards Abraham, but not knowledge as we know it. Something more profound. And something which caused God to re-affirm His promises of blessing to Abraham, so thrilled He must have been with His chosen one.

Any thoughts on the matter?

No comments:

Post a Comment