Preacher: Nathan Hosler

Date: July 2, 2023

Scripture: Genesis 22:1-14

After these things God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” ² He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you.” ³ So Abraham rose early in the morning, saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him and his son Isaac; he cut the wood for the burnt offering and set out and went to the place in the distance that God had shown him. ⁴ On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place far away. ⁵ Then Abraham said to his young men, “Stay here with the donkey; the boy and I will go over there; we will worship, and then we will come back to you.” ⁶ Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. And the two of them walked on together. ⁷ Isaac said to his father Abraham, “Father!” And he said, “Here I am, my son.” He said, “The fire and the wood are here, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” ⁸ Abraham said, “God himself will provide the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.” And the two of them walked on together.

⁹ When they came to the place that God had shown him, Abraham built an altar there and laid the wood in order. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar on top of the wood. ¹⁰ Then Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to kill^[a] his son. ¹¹ But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” ¹² He said, “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.” ¹³ And Abraham looked up and saw a ram, caught in a thicket by its horns. Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son. ¹⁴ So Abraham called that place “The Lord will provide,”^[b] as it is said to this day, “On the mount of the Lord it shall be provided.”^[c]

I’ve heard of this story discussed as a pretty straightforward test of Abraham’s commitment to God. Indeed, this seems to be the intent of the passage. Isaac was the long-hoped for child. The story is that Abraham and Sarah had been promised that they would be the start of a great nation but were well beyond the age of having a child. Three messengers of God, which are, at times, understood to be an early appearance of the Trinity, show up and tell them that they will have a son. Sarah, overhearing this, laughs. However, though this seems impossible, it in fact happens as the messengers predict.

A child of promise is born. Miraculously and as the beginning of the dream and promise of the family line which will become a nation. Any child is a big deal and important. This child not only was a child in that sense but was seen as both a miracle and the one that carried forward the hopes of his parents and the promise of God. In this context, the described testing by God of Abraham’s commitment to following God is heightened by this latter sense. The added weight of Divine promise and expectation only intensifies this test.

The existentialist philosopher and Christian, Soren Kierkegaard spent a great deal of time focusing on the anguish and decision wrapped up in this event. While this story moves forward the narrative and genealogy of the Israelites, the inclusion is seemingly to demonstrate great faith and also inspire future followers of God to be similarly committed to God.

While this seems to be the intent of the passage, I was caught up as I read the familiar passage. Perhaps it was the amount of time I spend reading children’s Bible stories these days. It is hard to make a children’s story of an Epistle. Paul’s letters, for example, are very wordy and theological. Complicated without a lot of overt action. Kids, and perhaps adults, are drawn to plot lines that move, perhaps including an underdog winning, or something dramatic.

The challenge for parents is that many of these “action” stories have complicated or difficult to wrestle with theology. Noah’s ark is pictured as a nice big boat brimming with animals and a peaceful rainbow—however, the story depicts God wiping out all of humanity—even that is too general. One can picture scenes of terror as water engulfed families and communities. Even if one is of the interpretive tradition that thinks this wasn’t an historical event, it still is described as such and, as such, requires theological attention.

Last week, during our Bible study, we asked an interpretive question. We were reading the Bible and also reading the resolution coming to Annual Conference this week—With Actions and Truth: A Lament of the Doctrine of Discovery.  The Doctrine of Discovery is a collection of explicit and implicit theologies and laws which not only made it legal but encouraged people of European decent to seize, often violently, the lands of indigenous peoples. This harm continues through today. While we studied and discussed this document, we asked the question, “How would these Biblical passages be heard differently by Indigenous Peoples compared to Europeans arriving?

When we read the Bible, we often read ourselves into one of the characters or positions. When done well, this can bear fruit in discipleship and shaping our thoughts, lives, and actions. We can, however, miss some of the richness of the passage by only understanding it from our own view or that of others similar to us.

In the passage we read and the interpretation I have usually heard, we focus on Abraham and his anguish and obedience along with God’s provision of the ram. The story is rather short, and we don’t get much description. However, what if we think of Isaac? Would not Isaac, the son turned sacrifice, have been horrified and traumatized? Did he struggle, resist?

The story portrays Abraham as relieved and seems to walk away from this back to normal life. However, certainly Isaac would not have simply thought, “well that was a close call” and go back to everything as it was. I know theologies and assumptions of what gods might ask were different then, but Isaac was still a human which includes trust and broken trust and trauma.

So, I wonder, how does seeing it from this perspective change the story of great faithfulness? Did they address this broken trust and trauma? Did the relationship go back to “normal”?

The question is at times asked, can’t we just move past historic wrongs and sins? This question has been asked and will be asked about the resolution on the Doctrine of Discovery this week. This has been asserted about historic and ongoing racial injustice in many forms. Was it really that bad? Am I implicated in the past actions of people associated with me?

I’ve felt the flip side of this in my own awareness of my American identity while traveling in Iraq or as a white person while visiting the Lynching Memorial with African American colleagues on the National Council of Churches Board.

If I identify with Abraham, I wonder how my faith is tested and if it is found adequate. If I think about the experience of Isaac, I wonder what work of repair is needed. I wonder how trust has been broken and was healing or reparation is needed.

The Matthew passage speaks of the radical and difficult call of Jesus. The call to “take up your cross” and the prediction of conflict and even division in closest relationships. This week at Annual Conference our call to address the Doctrine of Discovery and racial justice may bring (or highlight) divisions in the church family. The Church of the Brethren’s opposition to war and questioning the celebration this country’s military might puts us at odds with many over the 4^th of July. The Washington City Church of the Brethren affirmation and inclusion of our LGBTQ+ siblings may put us at odds and bring division. The call to faithful following is a rigorous call. We see and imagine the struggle with Abraham and Isaac. We hear the words of Jesus to his disciples as they go forth to proclaim the Good News.