Genesis 12:1-14
Let me begin with a question for you all. You do not
need to put your hand up but just think about how you would answer the question.
“As a lifelong follower of Christ do you think that
you have biblical values?”
It would be my suspicion that most of you would say, “Yes,
I do”. And if I asked then how do you view the scriptures you may even quote a
Bible verse at me, 2 Timothy 3:16.
“All scripture is inspired by God and
is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in
righteousness, so that the person of God may be proficient, equipped for every
good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16) NRSV
Or
maybe you like the NIV translation.
“All Scripture
is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training
in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for
every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16) NIV
But here is the problem if you answer affirmative to
those questions without any qualification you are possibly affirming ideas that
you would find unconscionable.
There are stories within the scriptures like the one
that we read today that present an image of a God who plays with human lives in
horrifying, distasteful, and even abusive. What do we do with these hard bits
of scripture and the apparent vacillations of a God who appears to be capricious.
For when we look closely, we find that there are inconsistencies with the
decisions made by God in this story and the scriptures are contradictory.
The story of the Binding of Isaac, as it is
traditionally known, read in our modern context should cause any sane person to
recoil in horror and asl themselves, “Should I, can I, love such a God as
this?” There is no escaping the trauma that was caused for the child Isaac who
is the innocent party in this story. It is nothing less than child abuse and we
need to name it as such.
Stories like this one which are upheld as a sign of
Abraham’s faithfulness can cause people to simply say, “I cannot believe in
such a God like this”. Or “I cannot take the Bible seriously”. And there is
part of me that would say to them I understand, that is a fair call.
In his book on biblical values the Biblical scholar
John J. Collins indicates that when think about biblical values they “must be
sifted and evaluated” and they must be measured against the command to love
your neighbour.
Recalling Robin Whittaker’s view that we should “take
the Bible seriously not literally” I want to suggest that there are lessons
that we might glean from this horrific story without leaving such a distaste in
our mouth about a God who may have asked a man to commit infanticide.
In coming across this piece of scripture, we may be
left asking can I really trust a God such as this. And, is this piece of
scripture actually God breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting,
and training in righteousness?
In his reflections on his passage the Lutheran
Scholar, Terence Fretheim, presents a nuanced understanding of this episode and
suggests that what God is doing is testing whether Abraham will not kill
Isaac?
Fretheim’s view is one that I have a lot of time for.
Elsewhere in the first five books of the Bible known as the Pentateuch God’s
command is to prohibit the sacrifice of children. This is found in Leviticus
20:18 and Deuteronomy 18:10. These decrees feel consistent with what we find in
the Commandments that are handed down to Moses which include thou shalt not
murder found in Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17.
Furthermore, the context of Isaac being the fulfilment
of God's promise to Abraham to be the father of many nations also sits in stark
contrast and contradiction to what God asked of Abraham in this story.
This seems consistent with Fretheim’s interpretation
that what God is doing is testing whether Abraham will not kill Isaac.
Having said that and acknowledged the instruction that
God gives elsewhere not to sacrifice children there is evidence within the Old
Testament that at least three of the Israelite Kings practised child sacrifice.
I am grateful to John Squires for his work on this passage. He notes that Molech,
Ahaz and Mannesah all appear to have engaged with the of sacrificed children.
In Exodus 22 and Exodus 34 God demands animal sacrifices
and the giving of the firstborn sons. It is unclear if this included sacrifices
but as John J Collins says “God is the giver of life. One way of acknowledging
this was to return the firstborn, and the first fruits, to God.”
So, which is it? Are biblical values pointing at
sacrificing children or not sacrificing them? Is God in favour or not? The Bible
is not a simple consistent book that has a consistent story to tell us but
raises for us difficult questions about the history of the people of God and
their interpretation of what they believed God wanted them to do.
To return to the conundrum of Abraham and his son
Isaac one of the many troubling parts of this story is the blind faith with
which Abraham acts. Abraham is understood to be the father of faith for the
Jewish religion, the Christian religion and the Islamic religion. This story is
upheld by all as a story of Abraham’s faithfulness, but I believe we should be
questioning the blind faithfulness that is exhibited in this story.
Abraham appears to be willing to go through with God's
command without question. And at least at two points in the narrative God
appears to affirm Abraham’s willingness to do so. It could be argued that when
Isaac asked the question “where is the lamb?” Abraham’s response that God will
provide, alongside his indication to his servants that the two of them will
return, do indicate that Abraham is trusting that God is going to allow this
sacrifice to occur. Yet it appears that the faithfulness that is exhibited is
precisely that Abaraham is prepared to go through with it.
Ultimately, the injunction that he is not to lay a
hand on the boy, when the Angel speaks. However, the trauma inherent in this
scene and this story do not sound like good news to me nor present a God who is
easy to identify with and follow.
One of the things that Fretheim says about the story
and the unquestioning obedience of Abraham is that it is inconsistent with Abraham’s
previous willingness to question God. Just a few chapters earlier in the story
God declares that he will destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham's response is to
plead for these cities. In contrast to his innocent son. In the book of Ezekiel,
we are taught that these cities were destroyed because “she and her daughters
had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease but did not aid the poor and
needy.” (Exodus 16:49) As an aside, even the notion that God has destroyed
these cities can cause us to question whether God is a God of love.
The point is that Abraham questions God. Fretheim suggests
that having already heard this story we as listeners should be willing to
question what is happening in this story and question God's motives just as
Abraham had done in the previous story. We should be asking the question can
such a God be trusted?
As a follower of Jesus Christ, who is God's love
Incarnate, this passage should draw us into critical reflection on our own
blind faith and willingness to simply follow what we think might be God's
command in the Bible. This is an uncomfortable teaching for many of us, but it
is a Biblical teaching.
In digging into what lesson might come from this story,
on the website my Jewish learning, James Goodman says, “I learned this story
was God's way of proclaiming his opposition to human sacrifice”. This insight
about the story is echoed by the ethicist and Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. This learning
is often presented as an alternative to the child sacrifice by many ancient
cultures. It is a distinguishing feature of Judaism that they do not sacrifice
children. However, even ironically, as already noted in other passages God does
command the sacrifice of children.
The possible learnings that we might glean from this
passage are accompanied by what many of us will find an even more uncomfortable
lesson. Again, it is Terrence Fretheim who provides this insight. It is God who
is learning something in this story. It is God who is placing Godself in a
position of vulnerability. As Abraham continues to follow through on the
potential horrific act God's response is to say, “now I know”.
These words suggest that prior to this point in the
story God did not know what would occur that God did not understand how
things would play out. This suggests that God is not omnipotent (all knowing) and
that God is changeable but also more importantly that human beings have the
freedom to act of their own accord. Abraham can make his own decisions, and the
word of God can be resisted.
Further that in the context of this story once God has
said something it doesn't mean it has become law for God and that can change
God's mind. God commands a human sacrifice and then says do not do this. If God
had known how things were going to work out in the way this story is told, then
the story has no meaning apart from the psychological damage on Abraham and
Isaac. But if God is the one putting the covenant at risk because God does not
know what will occur then despite its atrocious plot the meaning of the story
changes.
There is a mystery in this story that invites a
questioning of what it means to listen to God, to question God, to trust God,
and to expect that God may not know the outcome of all things.
We did not continue to read the interaction between
Abraham and God after this section of the story. But in the following verses
God says to Abraham “by your offspring shall all the nations gain blessing”. I
think it is important to return to this message that pops up repeatedly through
both the Old and the New Testament. God's desire is for the good for all
peoples. This is continually evident. This may be the kernel of truth for us to
grasp onto as we continue to grapple with this difficult story; the nations of
the earth will gain God’s blessing.
Before I leave the story of Abraham and Isaac, I want
to pay tribute to Elizabeth Raine who parallels this story with a story found
in the book of Judges, chapter 11, verses 29-40. It is a story in which one of
the Israelite commanders called Jephthah makes a rash promise to God. After
being granted victory in battle he says on his return home whoever comes out of
the doors of his home he will sacrifice.
On returning home Jephthah’s daughter walks out of the
doors of the house joyously to greet her father's return and he is heartbroken
for he is made this promise. On explaining what is going to occur and the
promise he has made is Jephthah’s daughter encourages her father to continue
with the sacrifice. There is no intervention by God, there is no ram in any bush,
and after two months of preparing for the event, his daughter is put to death.
Raine questions whether this is because women were of
less value than of a treasured son, like Isaac. As much as we should be
horrified at the story of the binding of Isaac this other story and how it unfolds
way and the religious violence that is condoned rather than condemned is
difficult for us.
Collins in his book suggest that we must have criteria
for the values that we draw from the scriptures. The values that we might have
and the good that we might seek as Christians are shaped by the God that we
encounter in Jesus Christ. If there is anything that I would draw from the
story of Abraham and Isaac into Jesus story it is the capacity for human
freedom.
I would argue that in Jesus the man from Nazareth
there is the freedom of choice that a human can make to follow a particular
pathway or not. If Jesus was not susceptible to saying no to what was occurring
in and through him then what Jesus does is devalued and devoid of meaning. It becomes
all a sham. But if Jesus has genuine freedom of choice, then God takes a real
risk in becoming human.
As followers of Jesus, we should be attentive to how
Jesus himself debates with the rabbis and the scribes and the Pharisees. Jesus
critiques the words of the scriptures and the way they were being interpreted.
If we are being blind in our faithfulness as followers
of Jesus then we're not probably following Jesus and his example. When we look
at passages as difficult as the one that we have today then we should not
simply be dismissing them but looking deeply into them and trying to make sense
of how we might explain them.
It might seem strange to have chosen to preach this
sermon as we prepare for our Community Open Day. But when people come face to
face with a story like this there needs to be some explanation as to why it sits
within the corpus of our scriptures. And each of us needs to be able to explain
what the Bible means to us without unintentionally opening the door to all
kinds of evil.
In my view, the key to unlocking any of the Biblical
stories is to go back to Jesus’ command to love God and love one another and to
listen for what is written in the book of 1 John “God is love and those who
abide in love abide in God”.
If you are asked do you abide by Biblical Values the
answer you might give could be “which ones?” And if you are asked your view of
the Bible maybe acknowledge that it can be a difficult book, but you still seek
to listen for its wisdom.
