While we have seen that claiming the test as concerning a developed understanding of idolatry and attachment/detachment is problematic, there may be some grounds, textually and canonically, to claim the test as concerning love. We have seen that Kuruvilla claims that John 3:16 has ‘almost’ a connection with Genesis 22 (in reality his congregation will certainly have registered this suggestion). As he makes this link he does so with reference to ‘the test’ concerning love, as after the sacrifice he states that - ‘One might almost say: For Abraham so loved God that he gave his only begotten
son…’60 If one links John 3:16 to Genesis 22 (either by claiming conscious authorial intent or a reader
response interpretation), one must conclude that canonically Abraham’s ‘love’ of God is an integral part of his ‘fear of God’.
In terms of Kuruvilla’s claim that this test of love trumps every other allegiance, such a point remains apt. Not through developed attachment theory, rather because the test concerns something/one who is very dear to Abraham indeed – a family member ‘whom he loves.’ There is of course a sense of choosing his son ‘who he loves’ or God who he must therefore love more. However, again no more needs to be said as Abraham’s idolatrous attachment to Isaac has been shown as unlikely.
59 There seems to be no rabbinic or Christian president for such a reading. This reading of course has problems
in terms of how exactly the two goats of Leviticus 16 would fit the narrative because the ‘Lord’s goat (sin offering), which is killed, does not feature – in Gen. 22, this is a ram (which does feature in Lev. 16:3). Ultimately therefore, such a line of thought is somewhat confusing and this suggestion is questionable regarding development. Yet such an interpretation does have some ‘resonance’ to it, and it should be noted that exactly what is going on in Gen. 22 with reference to Levitical sacrifices is not totally clear, especially in terms of sin (as discussed). The claim therefore would just be that Gen. 22 links Moriah/temple to the keeping of Torah (Moberly), which sacrifice is a significant part of, and which may well use the image of the Aza’zel and expiation as well as guilt (ram) and the ‘olah.
99 5) Demonstration of faith in God’s promises and his word results in divine blessing/reward. Kuruvilla’s exegesis of point five cannot be critiqued in terms of praxis as his recorded sermon does not use this point at all. It may be that on the occasion he simply did not have time to move to this point, or possibly, as his method and commentary were written after the time of his 2008 sermon he decided on further refection that it was an important addition.61
While Greidanus might be said to rush towards ‘provide/blessing’ as the outcome of the test, Kuruvilla’s preached sermon remains centrally on ‘fear and love of God’ and never arrives at ‘blessing.’ However, his exegesis does; therefore here we will simply state his point with comment. It should be noted that this final point perhaps makes a very sizable contribution to Kuruvilla’s methodology in terms of divine demand. Thus it is extremely significant here in terms of its possible influence over his entire preaching hermeneutic.
Concerning this point, once again Kuruvilla holds very tightly to the text and its concerns, and he again also interprets Genesis 22 to the end. His position is as follows. He states,
The consequences of Abraham’s action in the narrative of Gen 22, also give credence to the interpretation of the story as teaching what it means to fear God.62
Again noting his interaction with the wider Abrahamic narrative,
… Abraham successfully passes the test… the narrative is both the zenith of the Abraham Story and the climax of Abraham’s worship. Of the three altars in the patriarch’s story (12:8; 13:18; and 22:9), the one in Gen 22 is the only one with a sacrifice; with the others, Abraham only calls on the name of Yahweh (12:8; 13:4).63
From this point Kuruvilla makes the following statement, which while it may well depart from the perspective of many scholars, he shows how it holds to the text,
Scholars have generally held that the Abrahamic promises (in Gen 12, 15, 17, 18, 22) are unconditional. Yet, upon examination of the promise made to the patriarch at the conclusion of the momentous events of Gen 22, one cannot but notice contingency: the clauses “because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only son” and “because you have obeyed my voice”… bookend the promised blessing (Gen 22:16c-18).64
61 One cannot interpret this silence for sure, though theories abound! 62 Kuruvilla (2014: 261).
63 Ibid. 64 Ibid.
100 This is the basic thrust of Kuruvilla’s final exegetical movement/point. He goes on to state the heightening of the already stated divine promises, saying, ‘Every element of the original promise is fortified here, ratcheted up a notch.’65 The heightened promises, in short, are as follows,
Gen 22:17a has “greatly bless” (…unique in Genesis); likewise “greatly multiply” (… also found in 16:10m but 22:17b is the only instance of this promise to the Abraham-Isaac- Jacob lineage). Moreover, 22:17c employs two similes – stars of the heavens, and sand of the seashore… used elsewhere in Genesis singly, but never together… and the possession by Abraham’s seed of “the gate of their enemies” (…Gen 22:17d) is unusual for the promises in Genesis.66 The nations being blessed “in your descendants” (…
22:18a and26:4; 28:14) is also new - thus far the blessing of the nations had been explicitly “in Abraham” (12:3; 18:18)… It is an enhancement of the earlier promise, especially solidified in Yahweh’s unique swearing by himself (… 22:16).67
From this Kuruvilla moves to conclude that Abraham’s testing which results in such a heightening of the promises has implications concerning his actions of obedience to God,
Thus human obedience has greater value than merely being incorporated into divine plan, and the resulting blessing is more than just a confirmation of what God has already promised… Obedience does result in reward/blessing, an act of divine grace.68
Here Kuruvilla is most likely concluding by way of critiquing Moberly’s suggestion of ‘incorporation’69, and Calvin’s suggestion of ‘confirmation.’70 However, while Kuruvilla has
demonstrated from the text why Calvin here falls short of the mark, it is not immediately clear as to just how he differs from Moberly. The difference is subtle and it primarily comes down to strength of statement, and implications beyond statements. In Moberly’s later work (which Kuruvilla engages with) he states that,
Neither human integrity nor divine gift are trivialised… only here is God’s blessing in some way dependant upon Abraham’s obedience (…18b)… On the one hand, there is a sense in which the basis for God’s blessing has changed… [“]Abraham’s obedience has been incorporated into the divine promise[”]… On the other hand, Abraham has not used God’s promise of descendants through Isaac (17:15-19; cf. 18:18) as a reason for not heeding YHWH’s voice. His response shows the logic of trust in its most sharp and paradoxical form. The reaffirmation of the divine blessing is therefore an affirmation of the righteousness of Abraham’s construal of the promise… God does not just promise to Abraham but swears an oath to him…[Quoting David Blumenthal -] ‘all references in the Torah to God having sworn to do something for the forefathers go back to one instance’, that is Genesis 22:15-18. Whatever precisely one makes of this, it underlines
65 Kuruvilla (2014: 262).
66 Kuruvilla footnotes – ‘This phrase also occurs in Gen 24:60, with the blessing of Rebekah by her family.’ See
Kuruvilla (2014: 262, ft. 32).
67 Kuruvilla (2014: 262). 68 Kuruvilla (2014: 263). 69 See Moberly (1988: 321).
70 Kuruvilla cites Calvin (no reference given) as saying, ‘…this same promise has already been given; and now it
101 the foundational nature for Israel’s life of Abraham’s response to God which takes trust to its extremity.71
Clearly here Moberly is cautious in his language yet conveys the importance of both the divine command/test and human obedience (with its implications for the life of Israel). What he does not do, and this is where Kuruvilla moves beyond Moberly’s position, is to make any claim regarding the ability of human obedience being able to bring about God’s grace. Kuruvilla is a careful scholar and undoubtedly is completely aware that to state that, ‘Obedience does result in… an act of divine grace’ is problematic for some. He has demonstrated that the text shows contingency, as does Moberly. However, to frame this within the concept of grace may well be a move beyond/outside the primary concerns of the narrative. With such contingency being shown as unique to this Abrahamic text, its presence within the Akedah may simply be literary in feature, with its inclusion coming at the ‘zenith’ of the whole Abrahamic narrative to primarily show the importance of human obedience within the test.
While Kuruvilla does not include this last point in his 2008 preached sermon, having viewed his exegetical arguments here, we can now see that his reading of divine blessing/promise through testing in Genesis 22 may have been significant for him in forming his presented hermeneutic for preaching (i.e. obedience to divine demand in every pericope of Scripture). Further critique/comment on this will follow in chapter 5.