“…to obey is better than sacrifice,
to heed than the fat of rams…”
When God commands Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac, what does He expect? Many argue that Abraham’s blind obedience is an example to be followed (as well as Isaac’s submission). But is this really the character of the God we worship?
In J. Richard Middleton’s book Abraham’s Silence, he argues that God’s testing of Abraham was not to determine whether he would obey – whether he loved God more than anything else – but to determine his understanding of God’s nature.
The nature of God that is revealed most directly to Moses, & is quoted or alluded to dozens of times elsewhere, is found in Exodus 34:6-7:
Yahweh passed before [Moses] & proclaimed, “Yahweh! Yahweh! A compassionate & gracious God, slow to get angry, & abounding in lovingkindness & faithfulness, preserving lovingkindness for the thousandth [generation], bearing perversity, rebellion, & offense, but not entirely acquitting – overseeing the father’s perversity on the sons, & on the sons’ sons; on the third & fourth [generation].”
Going further, we have an even more direct revelation of God in the incarnation of Christ. As Hebrews 1 says, “He is the radiance of the glory of God & the exact imprint of His nature…” Or, as Paul asserts, He is “the image of the invisible God.” (Colossians 1:15, 2 Corinthians 4:4, Philippians 2:6ff)
From the very beginning, Christ (The Image) was the goal of humanity. Genesis 1:26 says that humankind was made “in God’s image” & “as His likeness”. Taken alongside the strong temple language of the Genesis 1 creation account, many have noted that “image” (Hebrew tzelem) should be taken to mean the idol that represents the deity in a temple – not just a symbolic object, but a living entity that the deity resides in so that the “image” can act as its physical representative. Obviously, we have not lived up to this calling, but Christ did, recapitulating human history, & He leads us into participation through His Spirit.
Going back to Moses, it’s clear that intercession is part of that calling. When the Israelites fail to keep the covenant immediately after agreeing to it (Exodus 24, 32), Moses pleads with God not to destroy His people. Then, when God relents, Moses continues by asking that God’s presence would accompany them, & that He would show him His glory (which God equates with His goodness). Immediately after this is where we get the passage from above (Exodus 34:6-7), & at the end of the chapter, Moses descends the mountain with his face “shining”.
A side note: This could also be read as Moses’ face “sprouting horns” – you can look up medieval images or sculptures that reflect this reading. What this would be conveying is that Moses has taken on the preeminent role of offering to God – He has “gone up” in the “devouring fire” of the mountain into God’s presence. At face value, this looks like death, but it is really the only way into true life. Moses is willing to face death in order to be in God’s presence, & it results in life for himself & others. The people are not willing, & it results in death.
This issue of “right perception” was at the heart of many Early Church discussions on the issue of free will & sin. Even before them, philosophers like Protagoras stated that “No one willingly goes towards (what one deems) evil.” Whenever someone makes a decision, it is because they believe it is toward the greatest good. This viewpoint is referred to as “moral” or “ethical intellectualism.” In my opinion, everyone is on a course of seeing God for who He truly is, which will culminate in the age to come in what the Church has referred to as “theosis” or “divinization” (cf. John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 13:12, 15:49, 2 Corinthians 3:18, 1 John 3:2, 2 Peter 1:4), but I digress.
Moses isn’t the only intercessor in the Hebrew Bible (though his intercession here is referenced or alluded to many times as paradigmatic, e.g. Psalm 106:23, Deuteronomy 9:18-20). Indeed, Moses himself promises that a prophet like him will arise in Israel, & the prophets repeat this intercessory role. God laments to Ezekiel that He can find no one to “stand in the gap” for Israel, & that He ultimately acts “for the sake of His name” by not making a full end of them. God commands Jeremiah not to intercede on three separate occasions (7:16, 11:15, 14:11-12) – it is as if God knows that, if Jeremiah continues to intercede, mercy will continue to be shown to Israel & judgment will not come (which is the only way to resurrection & new life).
This theme reaches its culmination in Christ, who, on the cross, asks His Father to “forgive them, for they don’t know what they’re doing,” (Luke 23:34, which seems to support the ethical intellectualist viewpoint.) & who “always lives to make intercession” for those who draw near to God through Him (Hebrews 7:25, cf. Hebrews 9:24, Romans 8:34). If the Father has always sought to show mercy to us, & the Son is now always present to ask the Father to show us mercy, what should we expect? The “problem” does not lie on God’s side of the equation (if it ever did); it lies with humanity, which is why Christians are given the “ministry of reconciliation” (2 Corinthians 5:11-21) & are called to “make disciplined followers” (Matthew 28:19) empowered by the Spirit.
From this standpoint, I think we can (& should) evaluate other decisions in the Hebrew Bible, & then in our own lives.
First, Abraham. As mentioned, Middleton sees Genesis 22 as a test, not of Abraham’s blind obedience to God’s command, or of his love for God over his son, but as a test of Abraham’s understanding of God’s nature, which he is supposed to teach to his children & the nations (Genesis 12:3, 18:18). But now, the nations will have to be taught by Abraham’s offspring, who wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for God’s gracious personal intervention (Genesis 22:18), because he failed to gain a complete understanding of Yahweh’s nature. Abraham’s partial success in Genesis 18 leads to our second narrative.
While the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah are the second time God “rains” on the earth, the first time is the destruction of the earth by The Flood. Even more so than Abraham in Genesis 22, Noah is silent in the face of God’s decision to “make an end of all flesh.” Interestingly, the first words that are actually spoken by Noah in the narrative are the cursing of his son.
The other event that causes many non-Christians (& Christians) to question the God of the Bible is The Canaanite Conquest by Joshua. This story is much more complicated than many make it out to be, & is disturbing even if you try to minimize the quantity & quality of the atrocities, as many Christian apologists attempt to do (e.g. Paul Copan’s Is God a Moral Monster?). Matthew Lynch’s Flood & Fury & Greg Boyd’s “cruciform hermeneutic” both play into my following line of questioning.
How would Jesus (who shares a name with Joshua, the leader of the Conquest) respond to the command to exterminate everything that breaths? Maybe we don’t need to ask that question – when Joshua asks who the commander of the Yahweh’s armies is for: Joshua or his enemies, the commander replies, “neither.” There are those faithful to Yahweh in both groups, & there are those who are disloyal to Him in both groups, just like in Sodom & Gomorrah.
If God is looking for intercessors, & He tests His people to gauge their understanding of Him, then was He actually hoping for Israel to destroy the Canaanites, or for them to intercede for them? We have stories of Rahab, Ruth, & the Gibeonites serving the God of Israel in this time period, & other Gentiles later – how many other “righteous” were swept away with the wicked in this flood? How many faithful Israelites were swept away with idolatrous Israelites during Assyria & Babylon’s invasions?
How did Israel’s response to God’s command affect their witness to the nations? Middleton addresses the direct effect on Isaac, but I believe they are further reaching than that, & similar decisions carry on into the Christian age, which leads to my last observation.
In the Bible, there is a character who is the antithesis of this – The Satan. Literally translated, it would be “The Adversary”, “The Accuser”, or even “The Attacker.” Interestingly, this title is most often attributed to humans in the Hebrew Bible, which I think is telling. In the New Testament, he is the preeminent spiritual enemy to Jesus & His followers. The thing about spiritual beings is that they most often function in the world through humans – they desire to be embodied in a tzelem.
It is a common Hebrew idiom to refer to someone as a “child of” whatever they imitate – Joseph is given the name Barnabas, which means “son of encouragement” in Acts 4:36. Jesus refers to a group of Jews as “sons of your father, the devil” because they desire to do his will in John 8:44, even while simultaneously calling them sons of Abraham. He rebukes his own disciples, calling Peter “Satan” (Matthew 16:23, Mark 8:33), & telling the Zeus-like “sons of thunder” that “they do not know what spirit they are of.” (Luke 9:55) No doubt, Peter, James, & John thought they were doing the right thing, but they did not discern the nature of their Teacher. If our reading of Scripture does not conform us to the Image we were created to be – if it causes us to dismiss the plain commands of our Teacher – then we need to re-evaluate our interpretation of the text.
Some closing thoughts: First, if we are caught up in judgment, whether it is due to our own decisions or someone else’s, we can trust our Father to come to our aid when we call on Him – He does not ignore or despise the affliction of the afflicted (Psalm 22:24). Second, if we see injustice in the world, we should seek to right it, both through direct action & by presenting the case to our Father, who is a just Judge & a righteous King (cf. Luke 18:7-8). Third, God wants a relationship with His creatures, & relationships are built on trust (pistis?) & communication. Both feed into one another, & I’m finding that a healthy prayer life is critical to an active, living, Spirit-led Christian life.
Nathan's Meditations 