Textual Theme and Goal

In this section Greidanus determines to lay out the central theme and goal of the text. He proposes two possibilities. We have already noted that the text’s own declaration in 22:12, that Abraham’s fear of the Lord (faith) is the goal of the test (and thus a central point in the narrative), is not a focus Greidanus notes or takes. This is not surprising because he rejects ‘the test’ as his first possible choice of a central theme. As a result, the outcome of ‘the test’ is therefore off his radar and is set aside in terms of its significance. Greidanus does note that scholars of weight have seen ‘the test’ as of high importance as a textual emphasis. He states,

40 _{Greidanus (2007: 198).} 41 _{Greidanus (2007: 198).} 42 _{Greidanus (2007: 198-99).}

43 _{Note there are two alternative endings of Greidanus’ 1976 sermon. Both offer different renderings of a}

Christmas time message that combines the giving of the Son in incarnation as well as in death. See Greidanus (1976: 7 & 8).

63 Von Rad maintains that one of the main thoughts in this narrative is “the idea of a radical test of obedience. That God, who has revealed himself to Israel, is completely free to give and to take, and that no one may ask, ‘What doest thou?’ (Job 9:12; Dan 4:32), is without doubt basic to our narrative… Yahweh tests faith and obedience.44

Greidanus also notes that similarly Wenham affirms von Rad’s suggestion saying, ‘the central thrust of the story [is] Abraham’s wholehearted obedience and the great blessings that have flowed from it.’45

However, Greidanus sums up these arguments as follows,

These comments suggest that Israel heard in this narrative the message that God is sovereign and free to test his people’s faith, and that he expects the unquestioning obedience and total trust that Abraham displayed… Although this theme is not unbiblical, I believe it misses the specific theme of this particular narrative.46

We have already seen that in his sermon he is quick to express that God never again tested someone with such severity as He did Abraham, and because of this he affirms the idea that this is a ‘patriarchal temptation’ only (as suggested by Luther).47 _{His above statement upholds von Rad and}

Wenham’s views as biblical, just not as a primary concern of Genesis 22.

Greidanus’ suggestion that ‘the test’ of 22:1 is ‘only a test,’ because the reader is aware that child sacrifice is not acceptable to YHWH, has already removed some horror from the text and something of the awesome nature of the Almighty. Likewise, now moving to assure his listeners that ‘the test’ is an exclusive ‘patriarchal temptation’, not only surely removes the sting from the narrative’s punch, but it does so this time in regards to application of the text to its readers, for it may be heard as in effect saying, “don’t worry; God won’t test you like this”.

A sense of patriarchal temptation is certainly relevant, for few would claim that such an event was to be followed to the letter by ordinary fathers and their sons. However, if the concept of the extreme testing of God’s people, by God Himself, is lost, then application of Genesis 22 becomes weakened and those who have found ‘the test’ deeply encouraging in the realm of God Almighty and His sovereign acts will now find discouragement concerning their plight (e.g. those Jews and Christians

44 _{Greidanus (2007: 199), citing von Rad (1972: 244).}

45 _{Greidanus (2007: 199). Wenham, Gordon J. 1994, Genesis 16-50: Vol 2, Word, Dallas, p. 112.} 46 _{Greidanus (2007: 199).}

47 _{Luther states, ‘…because Abraham is the foremost and greatest among the holy patriarchs, he endures truly}

patriarchal trials which his descendants would not have been able to bear…’, in Pelikan, Jaroslav and Hansen, Walter (eds.) 1964, Luther’s Works Vol. II: Lectures on Genesis Chapters 21-25, St. Louis, Concordia.

64 who suffered greatly in the Shoah). The preacher must be able to clearly mark out both the unique nature of ‘the test’ as well as its universal application concerning the faith of all Christian believers.48

Greidanus’ conclusion of the test being ‘only’ and ‘only patriarchal’ primarily comes from him not identifying with Abraham as the central character exemplar who is to be followed, while Wenham and von Rad’s suggestion is that the Akedah concerns the ‘testing Abraham’s faith/fear of God towards the establishing of the patriarch as an aspirational model of obedience for Israel.’49

We shall return to critique Greidanus’ position concerning Abraham as an exemplar after we have seen Greidanus’ central theme of Genesis 22. Greidanus states,

To hear the more specific theme of this narrative we first need to hear it as the narrator intended Israel to hear it. In this connection, a key question is, With whom would Israel have identified? This is often a difficult question to answer with any degree of certainty. In this narrative the choices are limited to Abraham and Isaac. Initially hearers would probably have identified with Abraham and the excruciating choice he had to make. But at a deeper level, there can be little doubt that Israel would have identified with Isaac: Would Isaac live or die? If Isaac had died on the altar, there would never have been a people of Israel; the ram dies so that Isaac, that is, Israel, might live. Even in modern times Jews identify with Isaac and they read this narrative of what they call “The Binding of Isaac” on the Jewish New Year’s Day.50

Having suggested that Israel would have identified primarily with Isaac, Greidanus says the following to state his understanding of the Akedah’s primary theme,

Moreover it is clear that “God will Provide” is a “turning point of the story,” as Wenham and others admit. But “God will Provide” is not merely a turning point of the story, it is the heart of the message of this narrative for Israel. When Israel heard this narrative of Isaac on the altar, it heard the story of its very existence in the balance. For Israel, Isaac’s death or life is the heart of the plot. At the climax, Isaac is only a knife-thrust removed from death; then he receives his life back and a ram is offered “instead of” Isaac. This entry into the text, not only does greater justice to the narrator’s plot line in verses 2 to 14 but also to his explicit signals of meaning given in the repeated keywords, “God will Provide.” 51

Having established that Isaac is the main character that Israel would identify with Greidanus pushes home ‘The Lord will Provide’ as the text’s primary theme. He states,

…“God will Provide.” As we have seen, we hear these words first in Abraham’s testimony to Isaac, “God will provide” (v8), next implicitly in God’s actual provision of a

48 _{It is common for interpreters to understandably be most cautious about direct application of the Akedah to}

the individual due to this being interpreted as condoning religious violence in the sense of “God told me to do this, I have divine approval.” See Chilton, Bruce 2008, Abraham’s Curse: The Roots of Violence in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, New York, Doubleday, pp. 1-13.

49 _{Greidanus (2007: 199).} 50 _{Greidanus (2007: 199-200).} 51 _{Greidanus (2007: 200).}

65 ram to be offered “instead of” Isaac (v 13), then in Abraham calling that place, “The Lord will provide” (v 14), and finally in the narrator’s own testimony, “On the mount of the Lord it shall be provided” (v 14). This focus on Isaac is even supported by the concluding covenant blessing which, in contrast to the blessings in Genesis 12:2-3, now deal not so much with Abraham as with his seed… (vv 17-18). Therefore, we can formulate the theme of this narrative for Israel as: The Lord provides a lamb for a burnt offering so that Isaac/Israel may live.52