Abraham's Temptation: a matter of Faith, Hope and Love

Thursday, January 22, 2009, 11:12 AM

The Sacrifice of Isaac, Caravaggio, 1598

God's Covenant with Abram (Genesis 15) is a real proper Covenant, that is bilateral (NOT unilateral), with the added specification that it is asymmetric.
.
It is a sign of great confusion to resort to the philosophical lucubrations of a secular philosopher, however great, like Immanuel Kant ...

"If God should really speak to man, man could still never know that it was God speaking. It is quite impossible for man to apprehend the infinite by his senses, distinguish it from sensible beings, and recognize it as such. But in some cases man can be sure the voice he hears is not God’s. For if the voice commands him to do something contrary to moral law, then no matter how majestic the apparition may be, and no matter how it may seem to surpass the whole of nature, he must consider it an illusion." --Immanuel Kant, in The Conflict of the Faculties, p. 115

... and to oppose them to the totally unambiguous and crystal clear text of the Bible (Gen 22:1-2; 15-18)
.
Abraham's Trial is a true trial (test, temptation) of Abraham by God, to test his faithfulness to the Covenant and his obedience to the LORD (see previous post Abraham's Temptation: only a matter of Faith, or also of Hope?)

"There is definitely an implied requirement that Abraham have faith in God, and that is all that is required to have a mutual agreement, a covenant"

Genesis 22:2, as well as Genesis 22:16-18 are to be read at face value, viz. as a command that the Lord actually gave to Abraham, and as God's approval of Abraham for "passing the test" as even simply prudent ex-exesis would dictate.
.
The Covenant that God established with Abram/Abraham (once again, bilateral, with the added specification that it is asymmetric) assumes the form of the ancient rite of “covenant between the pieces” (see Genesis 15). God's commitment is unconditional on His part: the LORD is the only one who "walks between the pieces" and who, paradoxically, pledges Himself symbolically to be "cut in half" if He does not keep his promise.
.
While God's commitment to the Covenant is unconditional, this does not imply that there are not obligations for Abraham. They are summed up as faithfulness to the covenant and obedience to an explicit command of God, which is a true an proper "stipulation for Abram: “I am God Almighty; [Hbr: El Shaddai] walk before me [“serve me faithfully”] and be blameless ...” (Genesis 17:1) and is expressed symbolically by the circumcision 
.
Abraham's feeling of 'obligation' when he is "put to the test", that is, his motivation for being ready to sacrifice his own son has nothing whatsoever to do with a presumed "predisposition ... originated in his own mind from his culture" and "inclinations based on his cultural background". In particular Abraham was not mislead by a supposed "ill-inspired initiative to please the LORD", adopting the idolatrous and deviated sacrificial practices in existence in the land where he came from ("Ur of the Chaldeans"), transited through (Haran, Egypt) and eventually settled in (Canaan) where human sacrifice, and in particular the sacrifice of children was practiced.
.
The LORD had gradually established in and with Abram/Abraham, by the time of His Temptation, enough trust to expect that Abraham would respond in the only possible way, however anguishing, that is with obedience. Abraham proved by his behaviour that he had enough Love (that is obedience) for God and, at the same time for his son Isaac (the "son of the promise", whom he owed entirely to God's miraculous intervention) to respond to God's request with Faith and Hope. (see previous post Abraham's Temptation: only a matter of Faith, or also of Hope?)
.
God did NOT lie to Abraham about his request of sacrifice: he ONLY affirmed His own right to test, in His Omnipotence, even Abraham's readiness to offer his own child Isaac (who, again, was entirely the fruit that Abraham owed to God's miraculous intervention): it was a a true trial (test, temptation), and God could rightfully assume that Abraham had, by then, acquired enough Faith and Hope in Him to "take the risk" of Obeying unconditionally.
.
Genesis 15 and Jeremiah 34:18,19 are the most relevant (and specular) examples of bilateral Covenant in the OT, where God and humans are involved (see SMITH comment on "Covenant" at NETBible). In the former it is the LORD who pledges Himself unconditionally, ONLY God "passed between the pieces". In the latter it is the "the leaders of Judah and Jerusalem, the court officials, the priests, and all the other people of the land", ONLY men "passed between the parts of the calf" "before God".
.
Abraham, who was faithful ad obedient to God like a servant, did NOT behave with the motivations of a servant, but out Faith,  Hope and  Love. That is why he is, rightfully, the only one to be called "friend of God"(James 2:21-23)
.
That Abraham responds with Faith and Hope  to the request of the LORD to offer Isaac in sacrifice as a test, is confirmed beyond doubt by this fundamental verse: Then Abraham said to his young men, “Stay here with the donkey; I and the boy will go over there and worship and come again to you.” (Gen 22:5) (#)
.
That "Abraham's Trial" is a genuine trial (test, temptation) both for God who initiates it, and for Abraham who responds to it, depends essentially on the fact that Abraham enjoyed genuine human freedom, which would have been incompatible with God's absolute foreknowledge.
.
Abraham's faithfulness and obedience truly express themselves in Abraham's response to God's request, that is in his offer to sacrifice his son Isaac.

NOTE
(#) Some have interpreted this passage of Hebrews ...

17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son,   18 of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.”  19 He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back. (Heb 11:17-19)

... to mean that, if ever God had indeed required Isaac’s death, God would have returned Isaac to Abraham by way of resurrection.
While I am perfectly aware of what the author of Hebrews says, it is definitely far-fetched to attribute to Abraham the belief that, if the Mysterious God really  wanted him to go all the way with the sacrifice (slaughtering his son Isaac and burning him to ashes), he overcame that thought, because "He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead".
There is no serious ground to infer that, at that initial stage of God's revelation, Abraham could possibly think of the resurrection of the dead.
It is evident that this is ONLY a rhetoric figure, on the part of the author of Hebrews, so as to introduce the second (and most relevant) part of the verse: "from which [the dead], figuratively speaking, he did receive him back." (Hebrews 11:9).
The author of Hebrews is clearly speaking in figure: what he is saying is that it is as though Abraham, through his faith and his obedience, approved by God (Gen 22:12,16), had received Isaac back, because only "hoping against hope" could he possibly "know" that God would have stopped short of letting him go through with the sacrifice.
To understand the essential role of hope in Abraham's Trial, Paul, with his Epistle to the Romans is of much more help than the Epistle to the Hebrews:

 In hope he [Abraham] believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, “So shall your offspring be.” (Romans 4:18 - ESV - emphasis MdS)