2 of 3

Surely texts such as these can provide a lens through which I interpret what is going on between God and Abraham. If I can't use them to interpret the Abraham narrative, then one must conclude that there are at least some of Abraham's thoughts, indeed, his most important ones, that are beyond the ability of God to discern until Abraham actually acts. Thus God's knowledge is not only limited as to the future but also in the present.

As a result of the test, God now knows that Abraham fears God. Ware rightly asks if God did not know this already. Is this lack of knowledge plausible? Had not Abraham's actions, from his response of faith in Genesis 12 to God's promises, to his willingness to continue to live a life of faith in Genesis 15, indicated that he deeply feared God? Is it plausible to believe that God did not know Abraham feared him until the very point when Abraham raised his knife above the child of the promise? If so, Abraham seems to understand God better than God understands Abraham, for Abraham realized that God possessed the power to raise Isaac from the dead (Heb. 11:19). Did God not perceive that Abraham understood God possessed this power? Abraham understands this before he ever attempts to sacrifice Isaac. And yet God couldn't perceive this tremendous faith in Abraham? Think, too, of Abraham's instructions to his servant in Genesis 22:5. He instructs his servant to wait for both him and Isaac. Why? Abraham fully expected that both would return, even if a resurrection is demanded for the return trip to take place. Such a perspective seems to be demanded if the logic of Hebrews is included in the interpretive grid of Genesis 22. If so, how can your interpretation be correct? A "literal" interpretation of Genesis 22 appears to run into insuperable difficulties.

Ware, I think rightly, points to Paul's words in Romans 4:18-22 as evidence of Abraham's long track record of faithfulness and reverence, well before the command to sacrifice Isaac. "Against all hope," Paul writes, "Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations. … Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead. … yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God." Abraham's demonstration of faith and reverence, a faith credited to him by God as righteousness, is already established by the time we reach Genesis 22. Is that same God suddenly second-guessing himself by asking Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? Was God not convinced by the long history of faithfulness that had already occurred between Abraham and him?

Finally, Ware asks how can God possibly know, at least from an openness perspective, that Abraham will remain faithful in the future? In Ware's words, "What open theists claim God gained from this was, on openness grounds, either already known to God (so he did not learn something new in this test) or at best was a transient and passing truth (which could give no real assurance of how Abraham would act in the future). The straightforward meaning open theists commend simply cannot be the intended meaning of the text." If the text does not concern the extent of God's knowledge, what does it concern? When we find New Testament writers such as James or the author of Hebrews commenting on this text, they focus on Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac as a sign of faith manifesting itself in good works, and on Abraham's faith in God's power to raise the dead. Even if Isaac dies at Abraham's hand, Abraham believes God can bring him back to life (cf. Heb. 11:17-19; James 2:21). No New Testament writer uses this text to develop ideas concerning the nature or extent of God's knowledge. So, if I'm to find the heart of the text's meaning, I need to hear the text as apostolic witnesses are hearing it.

next page... |  2 of 3

share this page

May 21 2001, Vol. 45, No. 7