Father Abraham

Although we had to cram it into the last few minutes of class today, the story of Abraham and Isaac really got me thinking , especially with my never having heard the word lacuna, or at least its definition (I'm chosing to block the memory of that death metal band).

At my church, the story of God asking Abraham to kill his only son for a burnt offering is one used to teach faithfulness and obedience. Abraham is taught as being a great man of faith because he was willing to give up his miracle-born son that he so long wished for without complaint or question unlike someone like Moses who would probably just say "why? you said I could have a son?" Because of this interpretation I always saw the fact that God spares Isaac was because he was just testing Abraham's faith since I was also taught that the consequences of Ishmael's birth and his consequential exile were the product of Abraham and Sarah's pride and disobedience. Abraham didn't trust God enough to give him a son the first time, so God was just testing that Abraham would do as he was told this time with the son he was originally promised.

It never occurred to me that the lack of kicking and screaming on Abraham's part could simply be a gap in the story (a lacuna) and not a profound faith in God's judgement. If what was said in class today is true, and God loves conflict, then why was that part left out? A showdown between the 99 year old Abraham and God over the life of a small boy would definitely give the story conflict, and possibly an awesome fight scene, or at least a divine shouting match. Abraham haggled for the lives of those living in Sodom and Gomorrah, why not his son?

The only conclusion I can come up with is that the author of this story wanted to portray a benevolent God, and like the good people of the Southern Baptist Church, give a narrative of the benefits of obedience.