An Ethical Reading of Genesis 22.pdf

An Ethical/Theological Reading of Genesis 22:1-19 n Balu Savarikannu, Ph.D. Scholars have different opinions on the ethical relevance of the OT texts. Some are less convinced that the Hebrew Bible contains a coherent ethical perspective. Cyril S. Rodd, for example, asserts that the OT is far removed from our times, hence any attempt to bring moral relevance from OT texts is doomed to frustration. For Rodd, the OT offers narrow windows which we glimpse parts of a panorama, most of which is forever beyond our view. It is like a tall tower having a few small windows through which one can only see limited view of a beach. Rodd argues that one cannot see any moral relevance to the present day because the OT is a strange land and this strangeness is the very virtue of the OT texts.1 This “Rodd’s Route” is a big challenge for Christian ethicists. Rodd is sceptical for the whole effort to make the Old Testament relevant today. However, according to Gordon J. Wenham, there are principles of interpretation that can guide us and much in OT narrative texts can stimulate our ethical reflection. The narrator's evaluation of the characters is a vital clue to know the ethical dimension. The OT texts primarily focus on God's kindness and faithfulness. He says, “…in many…Old Testament stories God treats his people much more kindly than they deserve to demonstrate his faithfulness to his promises."2 The OT narratives witness God’s tolerance and his faithfulness to his promises despite the unfaithfulness of his people.3 Evangelical Christians believe that the Scripture is the product of the faith community and the canonical text is applicable for our times. In this paper, I would like to read Gen 22:1-19 as a test case to talk about the relevance of OT ethics for our times. 1 Cyril S. Rodd, Glimpses of a Strange Land: Studies in Old Testament Ethics (London: T & T Clark, 2001), 5-27. Gordon J. Wenham, Story as Torah: Reading Old Testament Narrative Ethically (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 119. 3 Wenham, The story as Torah, 154-155. 2 The sacrifice of Isaac in Gen 22 is one of the enigmatic narratives in the Hebrew Bible because it raises so many questions: Does the story condemn the practice of child sacrifice? Does it have an "etiological" function, reasoning out how human sacrifices animal sacrifices replaced human sacrifices? Or Does the story convey how God tests the fidelity of his believers? Or does the story intend to show the nature of true belief? The Aqedah or the Binding of Isaac in Gen 22 narrative is also difficult to interpret. Who is the central character in the story? God or Abraham or Isaac or the ram? While the Christian tradition related the story to Abraham’s faith (Heb 11:17-19), the Jewish tradition sees Isaac as a central character in the narrative possibly in reaction to the Christian interpretation of the story.4 The early Church saw the typology of Isaac’s sacrifice on Mount Moriah to Jesus’ sacrificial death on Golgotha. The Church read Isaac carrying the wood as a foreshadow of Jesus carrying the cross.5 The Ethical Problem in Gen 22 and Various Responses How could a righteous God command for a human sacrifice even it was testing human faith? Questions as such are not only modern ones. Judaism and Christianity faced such ethical related, and each tradition tried to respond to such difficult questions. When accused by the critics that the Jews did practice human sacrifice, Flavius Josephus the Jewish historian responded to his critics that God does not require human sacrifice. God only intended to test Abraham's faith and obedience.6 Philo of Alexandria too faced a charge that child sacrifices were common in Abraham's time and Abraham's action is not unique. Philo defended Abraham's actions saying 4 Ed Nora and Eibert Tigchelaar (eds), The Sacrifice of Isaac: The Aqedah (Genesis 22) and Its Interpretations (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 93. 5 Albert van der Heide, “Now I know”: Five Centuries of Aqedah Exegesis (Leiden: Springer, 2017), 2-3. 6 Ant. 1.233, Cited in Edward Kessler, Bound By the Bible: Jews, Christians and the Sacrifice of Isaac (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 38. that Abraham did not bother about his customs or for the love of honour in his society; instead, his actions were motivated by complete obedience to God.7 Modern philosophers too saw the ethical problem in the story of Isaac's sacrifice. Immanuel Kant could not accept the fact that God would ever command a man to kill his son thus indulge such unethical deed. Kant argued that Abraham should have disobeyed God's command saying, "That I ought not kill my good son is quite certain. But that you, this apparition, are God--of that I am not certain, and never can be, not even this voice rings down to me from (visible) heaven." Because demanding a child sacrifice was against the moral law. Kant's reasoning undermines the integrity of the biblical account.8 However, Soren Kierkegaard calls Abraham as the knight of faith because Abraham carried out God's command despite his judgment of right and wrong. Although Abraham's actions are not ethical, Abraham believed that everything is possible with God. According to Kerkegaard, the universal nature of ethics may lead to "teleological suspension" because from God's standpoint there are situations in which ethical temporarily ceases to apply. Thus, Abraham's obedience to God's command could not bear moral responsibility.9 The Jewish traditions defend God by adding more to the story. For example, the Book of Jubilees (160-150 BCE) says that God did not put Abraham to the test but the demon Mastema.10 The Early Church did respond to the problem. Origen saw God's command to sacrifice Isaac as a divine test, and also it prefigures future truth. Abraham believed in the resurrection. He knew that Christ was to be born from his lineage and offer himself as a substitutionary victim for the 7 LAB 18:5, Cited in Kessler, Bound By the Bible, 38-39. Immanuel Kant, "The Conflict of the Faculties," in Immanuel Kant, Religion and Rational Theology, trans. Mary J. Gregor and Robert Anchor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 283. 9 Soren Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling, trans. Alastair Hannay (London: Penguin Books, 1985), 65-109. 10 Jean Louis Ska, “Genesis 22: What Questions Should We Ask the Text?” Biblica 94 (2013) 257. 8 whole world. Isaac is the figure of Christ. According to Caesarius of Arles, Abraham is a type of God the Father and Isaac as a type of Jesus the Son.11 Modern scholars differ in their interpretation of the narrative. Hermann Gunkel argued that the biblical narrative justifies the abolition of child sacrifices and suggest an alternative to animal sacrifice. Thus, the story holds "etiological" purpose, explanation of how animal sacrifice replaced human sacrifice.12 The problem with Gunkel's approach to the story is that the text tells Isaac himself asked Abraham about an animal for the sacrifice (Genesis 22:7). There is not much evidence that the Israelites practised child sacrifice. Children's tombs do not contain sacrificed children bodies.13 Gerhard von Rad argued that whole story is about Abraham. Isaac is merely passive in the story. Gen 22 is not the story of child sacrifice. Preferably, it is the story of the problem of the possible annihilation of God's promise to Abraham. If Isaac were dead, there would be no fulfilment of God's promise. God tests Abraham whether Abraham fully understands God's promise as a divine gift. The story confirms that God will fulfil his covenantal promises in the end.14 von Rad’s theological reading of the biblical text is commendable because unlike Gunkel who was more interested in the oral tradition of the story “he was able to read biblical texts, and he wanted to teach others to read biblical texts”.15 Recent scholars say that God was only testing Abraham's faith. God would never have allowed Isaac to die as a ritual sacrifice. Elsewhere God commands that the Israelites should not offer human sacrifices because they are an abomination to the Lord (Lev 20:2-5).16 11 Thomas C. Oden, ed., Genesis 12-50, ACCS (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, Digital Edition. Hermann Gunkel, Genesis (HK I/I: Gottingen, 1910), 240-242. 13 Ska, “What Questions Should We Ask the Text?”, 261. 14 Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Publishing Corporation), 239-240. 15 Konrad Schmid, “Abraham’s Sacrifice: Gerhard von Rad’s Interpretation of Genesis 22,” Interpretation (July 2000) 275-276. 16 Jesudasan Basker Jeyaraj, Genesis, in Brian Wintle (ed.), South Asia Bible Commentary: A One-Volume Commentary on the Whole Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015), n.p., Kindle Edition. 12 Close Reading of the Text of Genesis 22 Biblical texts are beautiful in form and rich in content. We should enjoy reading the text before we come up with the questions to the text. Genesis 22 is a lovely narrative. We get here all the elements of a narrative proper: a plot, a crisis, and a resolution. God tests people to know what is there in their hearts (Deut. 8:2; 2 Ch 32:31), if they are loyal to him (Deut 13:3) and obey his commandments (Judg 3:4). However, the sacrifice of Isaac narrative has enough to thrill the audience. God's command to offer Isaac as a burnt offering in a chosen place does not only shock Abraham but also the readers. God was not joking. God knew what he was asking. He commands with much clarity that Abraham should offer Isaac as a burnt offering (also, notice God's command-cum-entreaty in Hebrew, kach na which means "Take I pray"). We are not told the motive behind God's test at this time. It is also surprising that Abraham is quick in action. If God's command for child sacrifice is bizarre, so is Abraham's quick response. Earlier, Abraham was pleasing and protesting to God (ch 18). Here, Abraham is passive and obeys God completely. He gets up early, saddles a donkey, takes two workers him, prepares wood for altar, and travels with Isaac. The narrative is silent about what happened with Abraham during the three days of the journey. Abraham keeps God's command secret. Abraham says the servants to stay where they are and that both Isaac and he will go up on the mount, worship God, and return to them. Abraham takes everything that needs for a sacrifice: wood, fire, a knife, and Isaac. He did not tell Isaac and also the servants. When asked where the animal for slaughter is, Abraham replies that God will see to it implying that it is God’s responsibility and they do not need to worry. Most of the modern English translations translate the Hebrew phrase, Elohim yiryeh lo in verse 8 as God will provide. But the text means God will see to it. The implication is that God will intervene in situations and do the needful.17 There are no assured provisions of God. When they reached the place, Abraham builds the altar for the Lord, sets wood, binds Isaac and places him on the altar. Like verse 3, verse 9 also is filled with action. Abraham picks up a knife to slaughter his son. There he hears a voice from heaven, "Abraham, Abraham!" The angel of the Lord stops the sacrifice of Isaac for the reason that God has known for sure that Abraham believes God's promises. Abraham finds an animal and offers it as a burnt offering instead. He calls the name, the Lord sees. God speaks to Abraham again and assures his blessings to his future generations. The Theological Significance of Gen 22 Divine commands for child sacrifice was not uncommon in ANE. Child sacrifice existed in Canaan. In Israel too, YHWH demanded the first-born (Exod 22:29), but people can offer animal sacrifice instead (Edod 34:40). YHWH the sovereign God can require anything, but he guards the sanctity of human life. Abraham was willing even to offer his son as a burnt offering but driven by the divine command he did a usual practice and offered an animal instead.18 The Semites practised child sacrifice. Though there are traces of child sacrifice practice among the Israelites, God's law condemns it, and those who practice it will suffer severe punishment (Lev 20:2-5). Child sacrifice was abhorred in favour of animal sacrifice (Exod 13:12; 34:19-20). Perhaps the narrator employs an old cultic practice that was no longer observed to highlight Abraham's faith-obedience.19 In the ancient world, children were considered less important, and 17 Michael Malessa, “Reflections on the Use of “Jehovah Jireh” or Why This Expressions Should be Removed from Our Vocabulary,” Mission Round Table 13 (May-August 2018), 22-26, https://omf.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/08/MRT-13.2-Reflections-on-the-use-of-Jehovah-jireh-Michael-Malessa.pdf?x86309 (accessed 10 January 2018). 18 Thomas L. Brodie, Genesis as Dialogue: A Literary, Historical & Theological Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 269. 19 Dianne Bergant, Genesis: In the Beginning (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2013), 63. they were vulnerable to abuse. But adults were deemed to be important because they support families. A parent can decide for children (Judg 11:34-40). Abraham chooses to offer his son as a burnt offering. God has a right to ask because he created everything, and he has the right to take back what he wants (Job 1:21).20 The turning point of the story is that YHWH saves the child from death. Thus, YHWH is counter-cultural and covenant-bound. God’s theophanic encounter with Abraham required a dramatic event. It needed the proving of Abraham’s absolute fear and reverence. The story tells that Abraham successfully responded to God's command, but the narrative is “more revealing about God than it is about Abraham”.21 It seems the whole narrative centres around the act of seeing. Abraham sees the place of sacrifice (v 4). He asserts that God will see to it (a sacrificed animal) (v 8). Abraham sees God's intervention (v 13). He names the place "God sees" (v 14a). The narrator explains why that place is called "the Lord will be seen" (v. 14b).22 Such an act of seeing God's intervention might echo Moses' encounter with God on Mount Sinai. Thus, the narrative could be seen as a theophanic event more than child sacrifice event. Abraham had been hearing from God. He needed to encounter with God especially just like Moses. Gen 22 shows how God becomes relational to humans. To the question of how we can interpret God coming to know Abraham's faith ("Now I know…), Robert B. Chisholm does not deny that God is omniscient. He also sees the narrative as "anthropomorphic." However, he argues that God gaining knowledge should be explained in the light of the larger context. Elsewhere God acts as a righteous judge sorts out the facts and the evidence before rendering a verdict on the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18). Although God knows everything, here, 20 R. W. L. Moberly, Genesis 12-50, OTG (Sheffield: JSOT, 1995), 43-45. Victor P. Hamilton, Handbook on the Pentateuch: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 98. 22 Abraham Kuruvilla, “The Aqedah (Genesis 22): What is the Author Doing with What He is Saying?” JETS 55 (2012), 466. 21 God himself has become a character so involved with other characters in the story. Chisholm writes biblical narratives are "not so much concerned with making philosophical pronouncements about the divine character of God as they are with revealing a personal, dynamic God who longs to relate to his people and move them toward the goal he has for them".23 Gen 22 concerns not only the trial of Abraham but also it concerns the trial of YHWH. The narrative concludes that Abraham passed the test of testing and this faith response is not unique because Abraham has been obedient all along. YHWH’s promise, on the other hand, has come into question throughout this narrative. YHWH proves to be a true deity.24 Therefore the narrative is about both Abraham’s faith as well as YHWH’s covenant faithfulness. The ethical question why YHWH required a human sacrifice to test Abraham also involves Gods own trial of himself. God himself put into jeopardy. In the end, YHWH proves that he is not like other deities who demand child sacrifice. In contrast to the god Molech in Moab, YHWH does not wish for child sacrifice. Israel was rather guilty of following the practices of other nations (Der 7:31; 32:35), but YHWH is set apart from other gods.25 Instead, he is the one who sees into the situations of the people and intervenes and delivers them. YHWH is a life-giver. Ethical Relevance for Today Child sacrifice was not uncommon in various parts of the ancient world. The Greeks and the Romans practised child sacrifice. Thors offered their sons to the gods. King Oen sacrificed nine sons for his long life. The Persians rather differed from their neighbours and did not practice human sacrifices. The Vedic religion of Hinduism could have had the Persian religious 23 Rober B. Chisholm and David M. Howard, Jr., ed., Interpreting the Historical Book: An Exegetical Handbook (Grand Rapids: MI: Kregel, 2006), 32. 24 Marvin A. Sweeney, The Pentateuch (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2017), 29. 25 Cella B. Sinclair, Genesis (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999), 62. influence. It did not tolerate human brutality in the name of religion. The later development of ancient Hinduism practised animal and human sacrifices. Bengali women used to consign their first-born babies to the Ganges as part of the religious ceremony. For many years, Hindus performed the rite of Narabali (human sacrifice) in various parts of India. It was a customary practice with the Hindu Rajas to lay the foundations of huge buildings in human blood.26 Child sacrifice still practised in some parts of Asia, and the motivation is clear: to bring good fortune or to appease gods. Ashok Pandey captures some chilling stories of such case: A Nepalese man has confessed to the murder of a boy after saying a local holy man advised him that a human sacrifice would heal his ailing son. He also burnt some incense and recited mantras, after killing the boy. After all, he just believed the Shaman, what is usually the highest authority in villages to announce the source of the illnesses and bad fortune that befalls them. The Indian couple kidnapped and sacrificed a child to have their child. The guru said that they should kidnap a boy and sacrifice him on the banks of the river. In October 2011, a 7-year-old Indian girl was dismembered by two farmers, who killed the girl and removed her liver as an offering in a ritual sacrifice to make sure a better harvest. 27 How do we read Genesis 22 event in the light of the present reality? Gen 22 narrative will not work with any other child than Isaac because the whole narrative is related to God's covenantal promises. The Bible is not a text-book for ethical questions. We need to be careful what questions we bring to biblical texts. The Bible is theological. Ethics is primarily a faithful response to God. God’s people have to imitate the character of God (Lev 19:2). The OT is often polemic against pagan practices. If we see the creation narratives, God creates the world for the welfare of humanity. He creates everything and brings all of them under human control. The creation account is more about God's generous provision than his control what to eat and what not to eat. The ancient Near Eastern creation accounts say that the gods created humans so that humans will bring food to those gods. Also, the OT historical narratives account Israel's history 26 Rajendralal Mitra, Indo_Aryans: Ancient and Medieval History, Vol 2 (Calcutta: W. Newman & Co, Press, 1881), 60-112. 27 Ashok Pandey, “Ritual Killing and Human Sacrifice: Human Sacrifice Today,” SM J Pharmac Ther. 1 (2015): 1004. from theological landscape. The Prophets too focused on the divine-dimension in their interpretation of the world events. For example, the Scriptures interpret the return of the Israelites after the Exile as God's doing, not just Cyrus' goodwill. Gen 22 has its theological focus. God tested Abraham for a personal encounter with him. God wanted to prove that he is the most reliable God and wholly set apart from other deities. Such a theophanic encounter needed a dramatic event. Also, Gen 22 a limited event just as Cherem, the Just War was. There are many responses to Cherem.28 The OT texts are more than a dry record of bare facts about what happened in the past. Instead, they are exciting and fascinating stories with God's purposes in mind. Evangelicals regard the OT narratives as true, aesthetic and theologically purposeful.29 Gen 22 is one such extraordinary event that testifies Abraham’s faith, Isaac’s submission, and also God’s loyalty to his people. The Jewish readers would be encouraged to imitate Abraham’s faith, Isaac’s submission, and also God’s covenantal commitment. Gen 22 is primarily theological in content. It holds theological essence, that is YHWH tests Abraham but does not wish for child sacrifice. Unlike pagan gods that demand child sacrifice, YHWH only tests Abraham. Jesus also challenged the rich young ruler similarly (Luke 18:18-23). The young man was asked to sell his wealth and give it to the poor. Thus, Jesus tests the young man’s faith if he can denounce all of his loved wealth.30 The canonical perspective of the Bible will help understand that the overall biblical portrait of God is more of a life-giver than a destroyer. 28 Some argue that the wages of sin are death, so the fate of the Canaanites in Joshua is no different from the fate of all human beings. If God does something, it must be right. The Canaanites had a choice to believe in YHWH. Like Rahab, the other Canaanites could have escaped the danger by believing and confessing the power of YHWH. Cherem is a realistic solution to the problem of idolatry. Others argue that Cherem should be understood spiritually. The narrative tells us how we should wage war against sin in our lives. There are those who deny that the incident of Cherem ever happened. It was a not factual history. For some, no serious wickedness constitutes a justification or genocide. Chisholm and Howard, Interpreting the Historical Book, 26. 29 Chisholm and Howard, Interpreting the Historical Book, 26. 30 John H. Walton, Genesis, NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), n.p., Ebsco Ebook.