3 of 3

This reading of the text, one that focuses on Abraham's faith in God's power to raise the dead, is also emphasized by early patristic commentators on this narrative. Origen does mention briefly that some opponents (probably non-Christian critics of the gospel) have "thrown out against us that God says that 'now' he had learned that Abraham fears God as though he were such as not to have known previously." Origen dismisses this possibility out of hand, as do almost all patristic commentators on Genesis 22. Why?

He constantly compared Scripture with Scripture. The interpretation which Origen offers, along with other early Christian commentators such as Ambrose, Chrysostom, and Caesarius of Arles, is multileveled. For example, the Fathers frequently understood Isaac to be a type of Christ; so was the ram caught in the bush. Caesarius understands Abraham to be a type of God the Father, who later is to willingly offer his Son as a sacrifice for the sin of the world. Indeed, Caesarius notes that in the liturgical rhythm of the year, Genesis 22 was read at Easter, "when the true Isaac, whose type the son of Abraham showed, is fastened to the gibbet of the cross for the human race." I find this multileveled reading of the text to be exegetically fruitful and theologically profound.

Perhaps more to the point regarding the openness position, the comments of both New Testament writers and patristic commentators insist the heart of Genesis 22 is Abraham's faith, not God's knowledge. If the openness interpretation of Genesis 22 is valid, why do neither canonical nor patristic writers advocate it?

Chris

John Sanders replies, next page.

Copyright © 2001 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

first page |  3 of 3

share this page

May 21 2001, Vol. 45, No. 7