The Surety of God's Promises: A Theological Interpretation of Genesis 22

Abraham Prior to Genesis 22

To understand Genesis 22, it is vital to understand the narrative context within which it is placed (Childs: 326; Moberly 2009: 184–89; Brueggemann: 185). This process must take into account the life of Abraham up to this point in Genesis, especially as it relates to his relationship with Yhwh. This is because Abraham and Yhwh are the main characters within the narrative of Genesis 22. Although Isaac speaks, he is depicted in a supporting role (Moberly 2000: 71–131). Only after this preparatory stage may this complex chapter be addressed.

In Genesis 12, God calls on Abraham (then named Abram) to leave his family in Haran and go to a land that God will show him. God also promises to bless Abraham and to create through him a great nation. The remainder of Genesis 12–14 depicts a general instability in Abraham's life; although he becomes wealthy he never finds permanent settlement in the land, nor does he have a child to succeed him, apparently because of the barrenness of Sarah's womb.

In Genesis 15 God renews his covenant with Abraham, promising to give the land of Canaan to his descendants, to greatly bless him, and to make him into a great nation. Thus, the reader again sees the three-part promise of land, seed, and blessing. Yet, despite the renewed promise of Yhwh, a son is yet to be born and the land is yet to be secured.

In Genesis 16 Sarah, fearing that she will never provide Abraham with an heir, gives her maid Hagar to Abraham as a wife. After Hagar conceives, Sarah feels despised in Hagar's eyes (16:5). This can only be because Hagar provided a child for Abraham when Sarah could not. Sarah is jealous for her own status in the family, and sends Hagar away in order to protect the inheritance for any children that she might provide for Abraham in the future.

In Genesis 17:1–14 God provides Abraham with the sign of circumcision and again confirms his covenant promises, promising to provide Abraham with an heir through Sarah. Indeed, God says, “I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year” (17:21). This text is important precisely because of God's specificity regarding the future progeny. It would otherwise be easy for Abraham to assume (and he does assume) that Ishmael can serve as the promised heir. However, in these verses God reveals that the promised heir must come from the womb of Sarah, perhaps so that the heir would be provided through supernatural means (von Rad 1972: 202–03). Genesis 20 seems to support this understanding. Abraham and Sarah journey southward to escape a famine and again (cf., Gen 12:10–20) God prevents Sarah from having sexual contact with a man other than Abraham. This event may indicate to the reader that God wants to ensure that the promised child is without any doubt the biological child of Abraham and Sarah. Taking these considerations into account, the heir of Abraham will be born when God allows the heir to be born (Moberly 2000: 131).

In Genesis 21 three seminal events in the life of Abraham take place. Together these events harken back to the covenant promises of land, seed, and blessing that were first promised in Genesis 12:1–3.

These three events depict Abraham as having received a taste of what God had promised. Moreover, these events created stability for Abraham and his descendants. They are presented, however, in a manner that points to human, rather than divine, agency. Abraham and Sarah employ human means to secure their son's future just as they did when Abraham took Hagar as a wife in order to have an heir. They are once again presented in this chapter as trying to make God's promises come to pass on their own terms. Abraham is idolatrous of these promises to the point that he attempts to force their fulfillment at every turn (Tozer: 21–31; Hamilton: 103–04). The reader can understand, therefore, the extreme nature of Genesis 22:1.

Verses 1–2

Thus, the reader arrives at Genesis 22. The chapter begins, simply, by disclosing that the events that follow occurred after what preceded. The chapter begins, simply, by disclosing that the events that follow occurred after what preceded by an undisclosed portion of time (cf. Gen 22:20, 39:7, and 40:1). This phrase, however, serves the additional function of indicating that the events that follow are closely connected in some way to the events that precede (Westermann: 356). Thus, having a thorough understanding of this chapter's context within the life of Abraham is vital.

And so, after the birth of the promised heir and Abraham's securing of that heir's inheritance (possessions and land) “God tested Abraham.” The reader, like Abraham, learns that this test will be trying. The test consists of merely one command: “Take now your son, your only son whom you love, Isaac, and go with him to the land of Moriah and sacrifice him there as a whole burnt offering upon one of the mountains that I will disclose to you.” Thus the task is given. And the stage is set for one of the most dramatic events in the patriarchal narratives.

With regard to the location of Moriah, very little is known (Westermann: 357). The text of 2 Chronicles 3:1 states that Solomon built the Temple upon a mountain called Moriah, and although it is possible that this is the same mountain that is envisaged here—an argument that has been made by many (Moberly 2000: 111; Hamilton: 102–03; and Levenson: 111–24)—for reasons that will be expounded later it is best not to identify the mountain with any known mountain, for this would detract from an understanding of the text that arises from reading it on its own terms. What is important in the text is not the exact identity of the mountain (important for Levenson: 111–24; and Moberly 2009: 108–18) but instead the naming of the mountain and the phrase that results (v 14) (Levenson: 122). Many of these concerns, if present in original versions of this account, have faded into the background. The truth is that we do not know with certainty where this mountain is and it is evidently not important to the understanding of the text, or else an editor would have provided the reader with the information (von Rad 1972: 38). However, the issue of the naming of the mountain will be taken up below.

Excursus 1: God Tested Abraham

How is the reader to understand the plain statement of verse 1? To the modern reader, this statement of God testing Abraham is difficult enough on its own terms. This difficulty often turns to outrage over the content of the test. How can a loving God command Abraham to kill his own son? And although Abraham makes no protest, God understands the difficulty of what he is commanding. In fact, the language of the text indicates that God is deliberately making obedience difficult for Abraham: “take now your son, your only son whom you love, Isaac.” However, God's tests always have obedience as their objective (Westermann: 356).

It is perhaps best to understand this difficult text from two perspectives, namely that of the narrator/reader (world behind/in front of the text) and that of Abraham (world within the text). Each perspective brings out different realities of the narrative.

On one hand, the reader's experience of this event is quite different from Abraham's. The narrator clues the reader in from the beginning that “God tested Abraham.” As a result of this privileged information, the reader knows that God is up to something that remains unknown to Abraham. The reader may shudder at God's command, but as von Rad and Childs have pointed out, the reader should know from the outset that Isaac will not ultimately be sacrificed (von Rad 1972: 239; Childs: 327).

On the other hand, Abraham has an entirely different experience within the world of the narrative. He does not know the end of the narrative at its outset. He is not informed that this is a test that he can pass or fail. Despite this ignorance, however, he obeys without protest. There is no question that this was a difficult test for the patriarch. As Davidson has pointed out, “When he set out from Haran, Abraham had to leave his own country and kinsman (12:1) and thus break his ties with the past; now he is asked to renounce his son and thus break his ties with the future” (Davidson: 94).

Both of these claims—that the reader/narrator knows that this is a test and that the text omits any objections on the part of Abraham against the command to sacrifice his son—destabilize any moral protestations that the reader may have due to the nature of the test and at the same time indicate that this narrative is not about child sacrifice. This tale is not about the scandal (Saltzman), prohibition (Garroway: 187), or history of child sacrifice in Israel (Gunkel: 236; Westermann: 335). The irony, of course, is that this narrative is precisely about child sacrifice. However, by informing the reader that this is a test and by silencing any protestations by Abraham, the narrator uses a tale of child sacrifice to accomplish something entirely different.

Verses 3–8

So Abraham sets out in obedience to God. The narrator moves directly from cause to effect. God commands, and Abraham obeys. As Levenson has pointed out, “it surely and abundantly demonstrates his putting obedience to God ahead of every possible competitor,” including the life of his “only son” Isaac (Levenson: 126). Furthermore, Abraham does not negotiate with God, nor does he seem to include Sarah in his plans. God commanded, “so Abraham rose early in the morning” to obey that command “and goes to the place to which God had told him.”

“On the third day,” Abraham, his servants, and his son Isaac finally arrive at the mountain. The text simply says that he “saw the place from a distance, then Abraham said to his lads, ‘You remain here with the donkey and I and the lad will go up there and we will worship. Then we will return here to you.’ ” Thus, the text indicates that Abraham and Isaac set out immediately, without delay, up the mountain.

They ascend the mountain; Abraham carries the fire, and Isaac carries the wood. But Isaac notices that something is missing. “Isaac spoke to Abraham his father and he said, ‘My father, behold the fire and the wood, but where is the sheep for the burnt offering?’” Abraham simply replies, “My son, God will provide for himself the sheep for the burnt offering.” The answer seems to be satisfactory to Isaac, because “the two of them walk united” up the mountain.

Although Abraham's answer seems to assuage Isaac's concerns, it indicates that Isaac does not yet understand what is happening, for if Isaac knew of God's command to his father he would not have asked about the sheep. This short dialogue between Abraham and Isaac also raises the challenge of whether Abraham's reply was motivated by faith or deception. On the one hand, Abraham's later binding of Isaac may indicate that Isaac was struggling against Abraham, and thus Abraham was deceiving Isaac here. On the other hand, God does provide a ram for the offering. In fact, the theme of Abraham's faith and God's provision have a strong presence in this narrative, so it is possible that Abraham spoke to Isaac out of faith, expecting a sheep to be provided.

This in turn speaks volumes regarding the relationship between the two main characters of this passage, namely God and Abraham. Up to this point, the reader may think it is justified to charge God with abuse and injustice. Abraham, however, destabilizes this charge by obeying without protest and by trusting God implicitly. Abraham ascends the mountain in quiet obedience, trusting that he and Isaac will return from the mountain together.

Verses 9–14

Many commenters have noted the protracted journey (six verses) up the mountain (Gunkel: 234–35; von Rad 1972: 240–41). But once Abraham and Isaac reach the peak of the mountain, the narrative speeds up significantly; within two verses Abraham builds the altar, arranges the wood, binds Isaac, places him upon the altar, takes the knife, and lifts his hands to slay his son. This rapid progression builds immense tension in the narrative; it heightens the emotions in the text, and the reader is drawn into the drama of this event, aghast at the thought that Abraham might slay Isaac.

Just when the death of Isaac seems most certain, however, the messenger of Yhwh reveals himself and stays the hand of Abraham by calling “from heaven” and says, “Do not stretch out your hand against the boy and do not do anything to him.” Thus the Lord intervenes at the opportune time. Abraham responds immediately to the heavenly directive. It becomes clear that Abraham had a deep confidence in having understood the messenger. It might have been possible to claim that Abraham had misunderstood God in v 1, if it were not for the messenger next saying, “for now I know that you are a fearer of God since you have not withheld your son, your only son from me.” Clearly Abraham had correctly understood the divine directive in v 1. God had clearly intended Abraham to ascend the mountain for the purpose of performing a child sacrifice.

This last statement by the messenger is both a praise of Abraham's obedience and a disclosure to Abraham of the true intent of this episode. Abraham has finally learned that this was a test. He has learned too that he has passed the test.

As soon as the messenger stops speaking, Abraham “raises his eyes and looks, and behold, a ram is behind him caught in a thicket.” Without being given further instruction, Abraham understands that there is a connection between the messenger's instruction and the provision of the ram. “So he offered up the ram as a whole burnt offering instead of his son.” A sacrifice had to be made (Westermann: 362).

For this reason, “Abraham called the name of that place Yhwh-Will-Provide.” Many have argued that this is the original climax and purpose of this narrative in its ancient form, while others have chosen to downplay this element of the story. But Levenson is certainly correct that if this narrative is an etiology (a story meant to explain something important for the culture of Israel) of anything it is an etiology of a saying. For the narrator next makes a remarkable move (Levenson: 122): he turns the story directly onto his reader and notes that this event in the life of Abraham is the reason “it is said to this day, ‘On the mountain of the Lord it will be provided.’” The narrator provides for his reader the basis for a statement that was evidently common in the life of Israel at that time. But more than that, the narrator tells the reader that this story is not about child sacrifice, but about the nature and character of God as a provider. This narrative comment tells the reader that the “moral” of this story is more than God's provision, but it is certainly not less than God's provision.

Excursus 2: Abraham Fears God

The narrative climax has come to an end and finds its resolution in dialogue. After Abraham has demonstrated obedience to the command of Yhwh, the messenger of Yhwh gives a single reason for allowing Isaac to live, namely that Abraham has shown that he fears God.

Despite the language of the text (literally, “now I know that you are a fearer of God”), it is best not to enter into a discussion of divine omniscience, for God's knowledge of Abraham's fear is not the primary focus of the text, though below I will deal with the issue of whether Abraham earned God's favor, an issue that is plainly evident from the words of the messenger, “because you have done this” (22:12). Instead, the messenger of Yhwh is principally interested in the fact that Abraham was willing to obey the command. Presumably, undemonstrated fear is not what God desires. The test was whether Abraham would demonstrate his fear of God. Indeed Moberly has shown that the verb “to test” (nāsāh) in the Old Testament always has Yhwh as its subject, has Israel (or an Israelite) as its object, occurs in a significant context (with only two possible exceptions), and has obedience as the goal (Moberly 2000: 98).

The fact that Abraham passed the test is evident from the messenger's statement, “now I know that you are a fearer of God.” In James 2:18–24, this fact is taken up by the author to support his claim that faith and works are integrally related. Speaking of the believer's justification before human observers, James uses Abraham's act of obedience as his first illustration. Speaking of Abraham, he says that “his faith was working with his works and by his works his faith was completed” (James 2:22). James understands this test as both requiring faith (faith is the NT counterpart to the fear of God in the OT) and perfecting faith (Moberly 2013: 245). In other words, James sees faith and works as having a dialogical relationship whereby faith leads to works, which then confirm and strengthen faith (McKnight: 251–52; Johnson: 247; Dibelius: 163).

Furthermore, if Moberly is correct in his assessment that nasah has obedience as its objective, then it is clear that Yhwh wanted Abraham, not to fail this test (i.e., disobey) but to pass it (i.e., obey). This indicates for the reader, not the distant coldness of God, but his caring love for Abraham's well-being. A similar understanding of nāsāh is seen in Deuteronomy 8:2–3:

From this text, it is clear that nāsāh can envisage a great good for the object of the testing. Not only that, but one of the results of the testing is a closer knowledge of and relationship with Yhwh. For many contemporary interpreters of Genesis 22, this positive, relationship building nature of testing is not in view, but perhaps a theologically oriented understanding of the text demands such an understanding.

Excursus 3: Yhwh-Will-Provide

With regard to the naming of the mountain, what is the significance of this event? Many interpreters have taken for granted Gunkel's conclusion that this event is central to the narrative. As Gunkel notes, the name that Abraham gives to the mountain is not a real name at all but rather a subject/verb clause, and he theorized that this narrative originally called the name of the place “Jeruel,” comprised of the Hebrew words for “to fear” (yārā) and the common word for “god” (el) (Gunkel: 236). According to Gunkel, this account of Abraham was originally intended to tell of the foundation of the cultic site at Jeruel, a site mentioned only once (2 Chron 20:16).

Pushing back against Gunkel, von Rad later argued that although this narrative contains strong elements pertaining to tradition history, as Gunkel had theorized, the canonical text indicates that this element of the story has faded into the background and lost its significance (von Rad 1972: 38). For von Rad,

In other words, von Rad agrees with Gunkel that Genesis 22 no longer contains a true etiology—because the name for the mountain in the text is not a real name, or at least not a name that one would expect—but von Rad is not interested in reconstructing the name that might have been original.

Von Rad is correct, but the interpreter must recognize the importance of this naming ceremony within the immediate context of the narrative. As noted above, Levenson is certainly right in his assessment that if this text in its current form contains an etiology of anything, it is an etiology of a saying (Levenson: 122). A wooden translation of the Hebrew construction of 22:14 helps to make this clear:

The text makes a clear connection between the naming of the mountain and the saying that is presumably well-known to an earlier audience. This leads me to wonder at the inclusion of this connection if it is not important to the narrative structure and it is in reality the naming of the mountain that is in focus.

In recent years there has been major progress in the theological interpretation of Genesis 22 by Moberly and Levenson. Both scholars make great use of the mountain of Yhwh's provision as Jerusalem (Levenson: 111–24; Moberly 2000: 108–18). For Levenson, the importance of this naming ceremony is that it serves as an etiology for worship upon the Temple Mount in Jerusalem (Levenson: 122–23). For Moberly, the importance of Jerusalem lies, on the one hand, in the implicit connection between the Temple Mount and the “fear of Yhwh” and, on the other hand, in the connection between the Temple Mount and animal sacrifice (Moberly 2000: 116–18). He writes, “Genesis 22 stands as a foundational account of Israel's life with God, a life centered around worship in the place of divine seeing, which in the Old Testament is Jerusalem” (Moberly 2000: 117). As such, Moberly sees Abraham as a pre-Sinaitic demonstration of the obedience to the law given at Mount Sinai and later carried out “on the mountain of Yhwh” in Jerusalem.

Both of these interpretations demonstrate the meaningful ways that Jerusalem can be incorporated into a theological interpretation of Genesis 22. I remain unconvinced, however, because it is simply not a concern of Genesis 22 to identify the mountain geographically, a task that could easily have been accomplished by a redactor. Instead of identifying the mountain with a known mountain, such as Jerusalem, the text instead makes a connection between the actions of God and the character of God through the etiology of a saying. In that sense, the locus of this text is theocentric.

It is helpful to note the importance of this ceremony within the greater context of Abraham's life. As Abraham and Isaac ascend the mountain, Abraham says with faith “God will provide for himself the lamb for the whole burnt offering.” And once God does provide an animal for the sacrifice, Abraham calls the place Yhwh-Will-Provide (or more precisely “Yhwh will see,” but the context indicates that this refers to God seeing a need and providing [Brown, Driver, & Briggs: 219; Alter: 105]). This is immediately followed by an editorial explanation that this event is the source of the phrase “on the mountain of Yhwh it will be provided (yērāeh). With this narrative move, the reader is informed that this event was not for Abraham's benefit alone. Rather, this event speaks of the character of God and has implications for each Israelite's relationship with him. Not only has the narrator demonstrated that God provided for Abraham, but he has recontextualized this event to argue for God's providential care for all of Abraham's descendants (Driver: 219).

Similarly, the author of Hebrews 11 understands Abraham's actions in the land of Moriah to be instructive for Christians. In Hebrews 11:19, the author argues that Abraham's faith was rooted in his belief that God could raise Isaac from the dead. Where might Abraham have gotten this idea of resurrection? Romans 4:19 indicates a major figurative resurrection which had already taken place in the life of Abraham, namely the birth of a son despite the deadness (age related, nekrosis instead of steira) of Sarah's womb. There is no doubt that Abraham experienced firsthand the life giving power of God.

In a similar fashion, God protected Hagar and the unborn Ishmael in the wilderness when Hagar fled from Sarah (Genesis 16). Hagar signifies the importance of this event by naming the place where she sees the messenger of Yhwh. First, in Gen 16:13 Hagar calls the name of Yhwh, “You are a god of seeing (rāî)” (Clines vol. 7: 362). Then in the next verse Hagar calls the well where the messenger of Yhwh found her the “Well of the Living One who sees me (rōî)” (Clines vol. 2: 88). Hagar then returns home to Abraham as the messenger commanded.

Both Hagar's naming of the well and Abraham's naming of the mountain utilize the Hebrew root rāʾāh (to see). In both cases, Hagar and Abraham see the messenger of Yhwh and are provided for; both events develop an ambiguous relationship between “vision” and “provision.” Moreover, both events reflect the belief that God cares for his people and is moved by love to provide for them; God sees the needs of his people and provides for their needs (Moberly 2000: 107–08). Therefore, once the greater context of the life of Abraham has been considered, it is not unwarranted to conclude that he might indeed have had the faith which the author of Hebrews ascribes to him.

Verses 15-19

After the messenger of Yhwh intervenes to preserve the life of Isaac, he appears a second time. Whether or not these verses were original is beyond the purview of this essay; what is relevant is the theological depth of these verses as well as their coherence to the rest of Abraham's life.

This section simply begins by stating that “the messenger of Yhwh called to Abraham a second time from heaven.” Within the world of the text, the angel speaks once Abraham has offered up the ram provided for the burnt offering. The picture presented to the reader is that Abraham offers up the ram to Yhwh, who is moved to speak once again to Abraham. What he says this time, however, is surprisingly old news to Abraham. God once again reiterates the promises that he has been making to Abraham since Genesis 12. He once again promises to bless Abraham (“I will certainly bless you”), to make him into a great multitude (“I will certainly cause your seed to multiply as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is upon the seashore”), and to give his descendants a land (“I will give your seed the gate of their enemies”). These are the same promises that God had made before. On the one hand, nothing has changed; the promises are the same. On the other hand, everything has changed; Abraham now has experienced the reality that God must bring these promises to pass because God's character demands it.

This second dialogue of the messenger is similar in content to all of the previous covenant promises made by God to Abraham (Gen 12:1–3, 15:12–21, and 17:1–8); it contains the elements of land, seed, and blessing. However, the reaffirmation of these covenant promises crystalizes their inviolable nature. This is the only reiteration of the covenant where God swears by his own name, and this strengthens the covenant promise beyond any previous stage in Abraham's life (Walton: 511–12). Indeed, the fact that these promises are reiterated once again presents Abraham with two truths regarding the promises.

On the one hand, Abraham is powerless to make these promises come to pass. This truth brings into sharper focus the actions of Abraham and Sarah in Genesis 21 by which they attempted to secure land and blessings for Isaac, the promised son. Against that canvas, the test of 22:1 informs Abraham that God can take Isaac away with a single command. God can simply remove Isaac and all of the promises with him.

On the other hand, God's intervention on the mountain of sacrifice indicates that God must fulfill his promises. As von Rad argued, the most scandalous aspect of this narrative is not that God commanded child sacrifice, but that God's character is at stake (von Rad 1972: 244; cf. Childs: 334). God puts his own character on the line and demonstrates that he must preserve the life of the promised son. The promises which God made to Abraham in Genesis 12 are now more, not less, secure than ever. It has been demonstrated through this test that Abraham is unable to bring the promises to completion, and that God is unable to revoke his promises. Abraham is able to descend the mountain with a stronger faith in the promises of God than when he ascended.

Excursus 4: “Because You Have Done This”

This is perhaps one of the most difficult statements in the narrative. Is God's reaffirmation of the covenant promises dependent on Abraham's obedience? Indeed, did Abraham earn God's favor? The answer to these questions may prima facie appear to be “yes.” As van Ruiten has argued, “One of the purposes of the test is to find out that Abraham is someone who is God-fearing. His piety only becomes evident during the test, in that Abraham accepts what is imposed on him” (67). However, as Levenson has argued, this text may be demonstrating something entirely different.

Rather than showing that Abraham earned the favor of God through his obedience, Levenson has argued that this statement in v 15 (similarly stated in v 18, “because you obeyed my command”) instead speaks of the “fairness of [God's] choices” (Levenson: 139). From a Christian perspective, the words of James, speaking of justification before human witnesses, are once again helpful here, “Was not Abraham our father justified when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?” (James 2:21). In other words, this episode in Genesis 22 is yet one more case of Abraham's willingness to obey (cf. Gen 12:4). This track record of faithfulness in challenging times offers justification for God's election of Abraham; God's choices “are not mere whims, evidence of the arbitrariness of providence, and the proof is that those chosen, like Abraham, for exaltation, are able to pass the brutal tests to which God subjects them and thus to vindicate the grace he has shown them” (Levenson: 139).

Verses 20–24

After this event, Abraham hears that his extended family has significantly grown in size. Abraham's family, however, remains small and seemingly insignificant. His family is not now as numerous as the stars in heaven or as the sand on the seashore (15:5, 22:17). Thus, these five verses indicate that the promises of God, although certain, may not come about overnight; even though Abraham descended the mountain with greater conficence in the promises of God, he must continue to wait.

Additionally, these verses serve to introduce the reader to this extended portion of Abraham's family which will appear in the narrative of chapter 24 when Rebekah (22:23, and 24:15) is chosen as the wife for Isaac. The narrator then introduces the reader to the next matriarch in the line who will replace Sarah, who dies in chapter 23.

Abraham after This Event

This event on the mountain of sacrifice is not the end of Abraham's life. It has already been stated that one of the narrative purposes of the genealogical account of vv 20–24 is to introduce the reader to Rebekah, who will later become the bride of Isaac. This genealogy in fact functions as the bridge from God's test of Abraham to the protracted account of Abraham's servant going to the city of Nahor to choose a wife for Isaac from Abraham's relatives.

However, between the genealogy which concludes chapter 22 and the journey of the servant to find a wife for Isaac are the death of Sarah and the purchase of the burial cave at Machpelah. This chapter appears to be an aside to the narrative flow from Genesis 22:24 to Genesis 24:1. There is no question, however, that the events of this chapter are important to the larger narrative of Genesis; not only is Sarah buried in this cave but also Abraham, Isaac, Rebekah, Jacob, and Leah (Gen 25:9, 49:31, and 50:13). Thus, the cave at Machpelah not only serves a practical purpose, but becomes one more inheritance for the generations that follow.

Conclusion

Now that the parts have been interpreted within their context and key principles have been explored, it is time to ask the question that really matters: “So what?” What is the relevance of this narrative for the contemporary Christian community of faith? What does this narrative demonstrate about the character of God and believers’ relationship with him? For those within the believing community, these are the questions that matter most. Based on the foregoing interpretation of the text, there are several considerations that show this text to be enduringly relevant for believers.

Yhwh is a God who allows his servants to experience trials; indeed, sometimes God may even orchestrate these trials. God allowed his own son to experience intense trials in the Garden of Gethsemane which ultimately led down a “road out into Godforsakenness” (von Rad 1972: 244; Moberly 2009: 198–199). The road, however, does not end in God-forsakenness. No, the believer, when facing the trials of this life, shares the company of all believers—and God's own son Jesus—who have faced trials before.

Not only does this narrative speak of the reality of trials, but it demonstrates, through the example of Abraham, the nature of true faith. Abraham demonstrated that he had faith as he lived in obedience to God through the trials of the mountain. The faith that Abraham demonstrated is exemplary precisely because of the challenges that he faced.

But this narrative also displays—perhaps surprisingly to the modern reader—the faithfulness of God, for this episode shows that God's choice of Abraham is not arbitrary (Levenson: 139). God chose Abraham and his descendants after him. God's command required faith, but God not only provided Abraham with the faith that he needed to ascend the mountain, but provided him with the reassurance that enabled Abraham to descend the mountain with greater faith. For Jews, this narrative can result in greater confidence in the promises of God. The fact that God chose Israel and allowed Isaac to live causes Israel to have full assurance in the promises of God (Levenson: 139). This is no less true of Christians, for they too may say that they have been redeemed by the blood of another; they have been chosen in the beloved; they are of the seed of Abraham. And although we all may be waiting for God's promises to come to pass, all of God's promises are “yes” in Christ Jesus (2 Cor 1:20).