Text and Context

2) Literary Features 3) The Plot Line

4) Theocentric Interpretation 5) Textual Theme and Goal3

So as to remain with Greidanus’ own concerns we will follow each of his headings to outline and critique his interpretational movements (where relevant). With there being many evident examples of preachers and scholars who utilise HR methods for preaching this section will draw on the voices of these interpreters by way of critique of Greidanus and expansion on his HR methodology.

1) Text and Context

It is common amongst preachers and scholars to note Genesis 22 as being the pinnacle of Abraham’s faith walk with God.4 _{This is usually taken from a straightforward literary analysis of the Abrahamic}

1 _{We will continue to use Kuruvilla’s definition of ‘general’ and ‘special’ hermeneutics in this way so as not to}

add unnecessary new terminology or different categories.

2 _{Greidanus (2007: 194).}

3 _{Using Greidanus’ headings/sections from Greidanus (2007: 195-201), also see Greidanus (1999: 279-307).} 4 _{For example Tremper Longman III places the whole of Genesis 12-21 under the heading ‘The journey of faith’}

and gives Genesis 22 the heading of ‘The ultimate test of faith’ and states that concerning Genesis 21 ‘it appears that the plot has reached its appropriate resolution. The promised child has been born! However, such a reaction to the story is soon shown to be premature.’ See Longman, Tremper III 2005, How to Read Genesis, Illinois, IVP, p. 128 & 134. Similarly Derek Kidner states that – ‘the test, instead of breaking him, brings him to the summit of his lifelong walk with God.’ See Kidner, Derek 1967, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary,

52 narrative. For example, concerning Abraham, Elie Wiesel states that ‘one day God decided once more to test him – for the tenth and last time.’5 _{While Greidanus does not state this in such terms he}

effectively does so by comparison of Genesis 12 and 22 noting that ‘the stakes are raised’6_{, and using}

Rendsburg, Greidanus shows this transition via a chiastic structural analysis of the wider Abrahamic narrative with the Akedah. In this he sees the whole of the Abraham story repeated in short within Genesis 22 itself and interprets Genesis 22 within the context of the whole Abrahamic narrative. Greidanus states,

For our present narrative, the important issue in this chiasm is the narrator’s deliberate parallel development between Genesis 12:1-9 and Genesis 22:1-19.7

Greidanus falls short of actually claiming this chiasm as authorially intended and yet his linking of Genesis 12 and 22 does suggest he views the structure in this way. However, to claim a chiasm across a long narrative where one has so many different individual stories to choose to fit into this structure (or indeed omit) as being purposed by the author is not something one should state definitively. Authorial intention is therefore questionable, and this claim cannot stand up alone. That said, partial support for such a claim is evident in Greidanus as he notes the linguistic linking via word repetition of the calling of Abraham (Genesis 12) with Genesis 22 as a likely purposed authorial motif. He states,

In Genesis 12:1-9 the Lord commanded Abram to “go” [lek-lekā], offer up his past (country, kindred, father’s house), and receive the promises of the Lord’s rich blessings. In this narrative the Lord commands Abraham to “go” [lek-lekā], but now to offer up his future, “your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love.”8

Greidanus states that lek-lekā is ‘used in the Bible only in these two passages and, in the feminine form, in Song 2:10.’9 _{Specifically, it is this unique repetition that presents reasonable evidence of a}

likely authorial intended link between Genesis 12 and 22, rather than a worked out, but arguably selective, chiasm across a long narrative. It is this link that structurally ties Genesis 12 to 22 together Illinois, IVP, p. 142-3. As a preached example US Baptist preacher Chuck Missler notes that Genesis 22

‘represents the climax of the life of Abraham.’ See Missler, Chuck, Sermon: Gen. 22 & 24: Resurrection of Isaac,

www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/viewcat.php?cid=549&min=20&orderby=titleA&show=20 , cited 16/7/15.

5 _{Note that Wiesel does not set out to catalogue the ten times. He may well see this as literally a tenth testing}

but importantly here we note that the Akedah is the final test. In Wiesel (1976: 63).

6 _{Greidanus (2007: 195).} 7 _{Greidanus (2007: 195).}

8 _{Greidanus, (2007: 195). Others also specifically note the giving up of past and future (Gen. 12 & 22). For}

example Gerhard von Rad states that, ‘Abraham had to cut himself off from his whole past in ch. 12.1f.; now he must give up his whole future.’ In von Rad, Gerhard 1972, Genesis, London, SCM, p. 239. Robert Davidson also states that ‘[Abraham] is commanded by God to sacrifice that which alone guarantees the future.’ In Davidson, Robert 1979, Genesis 12-50: Commentary, Cambridge University Press, p. 94.

53 and effectively forms the life of Abraham, with Genesis 22: 20-25:11 being focused on Abraham’s lineage/Isaac after completing the test of the Akedah. No matter his reasoning, chiasm and word repetition, Greidanus makes the point concerning the pinnacle nature of the Akedah for Abraham using the wider Abrahamic narrative. Kuruvilla too recognises these two important events, via this repetition and the whole Abrahamic narrative, and states that, ‘In Gen. 12 God spoke to the patriarch for the first time; in Gen 22, for the last time’10 _{thus noting that the Akedah brings with it a}

heightened importance of the divine word/command.

Greidanus’ noting of Abraham offering up his future (already given his past) is certainly an important point. In making this statement one might conclude that he affirms a reading of the text that sees Genesis 22 as primarily concerning Abraham and God, yet in due course we will see that this is not the case.