In Genesis 22:2, when speaking to Abraham, God refers to Isaac as “your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love” prior to the test, while in contrast, after the test, twice (22:12, 16) Isaac is referred to just as “your son, your only son.”33 Kuruvilla interprets this as follows,
The narrative omissions in 22:12 and 16 help to clarify the reason for the test. The trifold description of Isaac in Gen 22:2 was to emphasise that this son, this particular one, was the one Abraham loved, with a love that potentially stood in the way of his allegiance to faith in, God. The subsequent, post-test deletion of the phrase, “the one you love,” was clear indication that Abraham had passed the examination… The Akedah
32 Other proponents of a similar attachment theory include: Phyllis Trible, Peter Steffens, Tim Keller, A.W.
Tozer and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Soren Kierkegaard also shows some elements of attachment theory (while not giving a fully developed/clear view). Attachment theory has become heightened during the late modern and postmodern periods. See Trible (1991), Steffens (ISB), Keller (2009: 4-21), Tozer, A.W. 1976, ‘The Blessedness of Possessing Nothing’, The Pursuit of God, Boston/London, Horizon House, pp. 21-31 and, Bonhoeffer, Dietrich 2001, ‘Discipleship and the Individual’, The Cost of Discipleship, London, SCM Press, pp. 48-55. For Kierkegaard on attachment-idolatry see Kierkegaard, Soren 1985, Fear and Trembling, London, Penguin Classics, p. 65 and, Mooney, Edward F. 1991, Knights of Faith and Resignation: Reading Kierkegaard’s Fear and
Trembling, New York, State University of New York Press, p. 30, 92-93.
92 was, in reality, a demonstration of love for God over and against anything that advanced a rival claim to that love.34
It is therefore highly significant that the first time the word “love” (’hb) occurs in the Bible is in Genesis 22:2. With the entry of this word into scripture came an implicit question: Was Abraham’s love for Isaac so strong that his allegiance to God had diminished? It appears, then, that this love of Abraham for Isaac was a crucial element in the test – it was this love that was being tested. Would Abraham be loyal to God, or would love for the human overpower trust in the divine?35
Kuruvilla draws on Phyllis Trible’s work on ‘attachment theory.’36 With reference to ‘the trifold
description of Isaac’ she states that ‘language accumulates attachments’.37 This has significant
parallels with Kuruvilla’s theory, which similarly moves beyond simply seeing the test as choice to trust God (or not), or even a choice between trusting God and wanting his son to live.
Kuruvilla goes further than this and states that Abraham had a ‘love that potentially stood in the way of his faith’ and that Isaac was ‘a rival claim to that love’38, and he subsequently quotes Trible’ to
make a greater claim concerning ‘the test’ - “The story has to do with idolatry – the idolatry of a son.”39 Kuruvilla applies his third point (Exhibit God’s Fear) in his sermon in terms of idolatry. He
states, ‘Nothing ought to come between us and God, anything or anyone that does is an idol.’40
Although Kuruvilla’s ‘attachment theory’ has similarities to Trible’s, his use of ‘the only son’ is more adherent to explicit textual usage because he expounds the omission of ‘whom you love’ in 22:12, 16 (in comparison to 22:2). At no point does Trible use this omission to support her interpretation as she reads Genesis 22:2, 12 and 16 as a straight repetition. In effect she sees the words ‘your only son’ in 22:12, 16 as to include ‘whom you love.’41 Kuruvilla comes to the same ‘attachment
conclusion’ as Trible, and does indeed use her work. However, he has simplified this move by expounding the omission of ‘whom you love’ in 22:12, 16. For Kuruvilla, ‘attachment theory’ is shown within the words of the divine command which recognises Abraham’s love for Isaac prior to 34 Kuruvilla (2013:229). 35 Kuruvilla (2013:229). 36 Trible (1991). 37 Trible (1991: 172). 38 Kuruvilla (2013: 229-230).
39 Trible in Kuruvilla (2013: 229), from Moyers, Bill (ed). 1996, Genesis: A Living Conversation, New York,
Doubleday. p. 227.
40 Kuruvilla (2008) – ISB.
41 Trible (1991: 178-9). Trible’s attachment theory (attachment, detachment and reattachment) centres on the
words ‘son,’ ‘Isaac’ and ‘boy’. Her reading suggests that at first the text shows Abraham’s attachment but subsequently shows him as increasingly detached from Isaac. For example, concerning 22: 5 Trible states, ‘“I and the young man,” he says, not “I and my son” or “I and Isaac.” Otherness undercuts oneness; detachment vies with attachment. Establishing distance, na’ar avoids the pain of paternal bonding. “Your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac in the language of God has become in the speech of Abraham “the young man,” like the other “young men [22:5, 19].” Trible (1991: 174).
93 the divine intervention but does not include this ‘love’ after it, thus showing detachment - Abraham from Isaac. Kuruvilla states,
[T]here is a significant alteration, before and after the test, in how God/angel of Yahweh described Isaac. The narrative omissions in 22:12 and 16 help clarify the reason for the test. The trifold description of Isaac in Gen 22:2 was to emphasize that this son, this particular one, was the one Abraham loved,42 with a love that potentially stood in the
way of his allegiance to, and faith in, God. The subsequent, post-test deletion of the phrase, “the one you love,” was clear indication that Abraham had passed the examination.43
In this Kuruvilla interprets a textual ‘omission’ which many ignore. We will return to look at how this ‘contrasting silence’ (text compared with omission of the same) might alternatively be interpreted, for we will see his interpretation does come with problems. However, first we shall look at Kuruvilla’s second point in his development of ‘attachment theory’ as both points are intertwined in his ‘attachment theory.’