The Patriarchs - Eternally Self-Existent

This is the second post in a series that I am doing based on the lives of the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), the accounts of which are found in the book of Genesis.  In spite of the title of this series, the record of the experiences of the men listed above are only incidental to me.  What I find far more interesting, relevant, and important is the revelation of the character and nature of God that we can see by observing these men's lives.  Each post will coincide with a lesson being taught in a classroom.  As such, they will not be in a traditional essay format.  Rather, it will be a slightly expanded version of the notes that I hand out in class.

Introduction: The Danger of Haste

Most of what we will cover in this class, including today’s lesson, will include elements of knowledge that you already possess.  The human tendency when confronted by what is already known is to disregard it.  To use an elementary example, none of us would spend any substantial amount of time contemplating the significance of the mathematical equation 2 + 2 = 4.  The reason is because we learned this when we were in grade school and do not perceive any benefit in continuing to dwell upon it.  It merely is, we accept it, we utilize it, and we move on.

There is a tremendous danger to be found in applying this same principle of thought to questions of Biblical revelatory truth.  Psalm 119:14-16 describes a pattern of behavior in which a person painstakingly, exhaustively, and ceaselessly pours effort into considering who God is through His revealed testimonies, precepts, ways, statutes, and word.  Considering that all of scripture is a part of this revelation we hastily rush through our contemplation of any of it at our great peril.

The Genesis Account

    Gen. 22:8 – The almost offhand comment that Abraham makes to Isaac in this verse contains within it a mountain of import.  Abraham’s faith in God’s previous promises to him causes an internal realization of the self-sufficiency that characterizes God.  He is His own provider, needing and depending on nothing and no one other than Himself.  Furthermore, He has always existed in this state.

Supporting Scripture

    1 Jn. 3:20 – Here we find a seemingly innocuous little phrase that takes about one second to roll off the tongue.  But in it is bound up an astonishing level of comprehensive application relating to God’s omniscience.  To put it another way, there is nothing that God does not know.  Would that we actually lived as if we believed this was true.

    Psa. 115:3 – This is another statement of worship that is deceptive in its implications.  If we really take the time to stop and carefully consider what it means that God “does whatever He pleases” the ramifications of His omnipotence are astounding.  This is a gut punch to human pride that would seek to undermine, marginalize, or even deny God’s absolute and supreme sovereignty.  Would that we actually lived as if we believed this was true.

    Psa. 139:7-10 – David’s realization of God’s omnipresence plays a critical role in informing his understanding of his relationship with God.  He both acknowledges that God is everywhere and at the same time applies that truth to the reality that God is always where David is.  Would that we actually lived as if we believed this was true.

    Ex. 3:14 – God’s famous description of Himself is a very revealing description of His existence.  He states simply “I AM (Hebrew: exist, happen) that I AM (Hebrew: here, thus, so)”.  There is a very concrete reason that God needs to describe Himself in this way.  To do otherwise would imply a relation to time.  For example: “God has always existed” or “God has lived forever”.  Both of these use time as a reference point.  This is insufficient when it comes to the question of God’s existence because He dwells outside the scope of time.  This statement to Moses is actually the only accurate way possible to describe God.

Questions For Meditation

    I would like to conclude by considering three questions.  First, was Abraham merely placating Isaac with his answer to his son’s question?  I don't think he was.  On a human level it seems doubtful that Isaac would voluntarily go to his own execution.  But how else do we explain that Abraham was able to bind him and place him upon the altar without a fight?  One possibility is that Isaac was simply too small to fight back.  But in verse 6 of chapter 22 we read that Abraham placed the wood for the offering on Isaac (presumably his back) and the two of them walked on together.  Abraham could not have loaded his son down with the wood unless he was at least a teenager, strong enough and possessed of enough stamina to bear up under this load.  Furthermore, in the NASB translation of the Bible, Hebrews 11:19 tells that Abraham received Isaac back "as a type" after God provided a ram in Isaac's place.  What does this statement, "as a type", mean?  I believe it parallels the Apostle Paul's writings in the book of Romans.  Romans 5:14 compares Adam and Christ and says that Adam was "a type" of Him who was to come.  In the case of Adam and Christ the parallel is that through Adam sin and death entered the world but through Christ righteousness and life was granted.  In a similar way, I believe the reference to Isaac as "a type" in Hebrews is comparing him to Christ.  Christ voluntarily submitted to His own execution according to the will of His father.  So I believe Isaac submitted voluntarily to the will of his father on Mount Moriah.  

    The Hebrews to Romans connection should not be taken as conclusive however.  The Greek word used in Romans and Hebrews that is translated as "a type" is not the same. And only the NASB translators chose to render it in Hebrews as "a type".  I believe the parallel between Hebrews and Romans, although it is tenuous, is enough when combined with the oddity of Isaac being old enough to carry wood yet apparently not resisting his father, to suggest that Isaac's participation was willing.

    Therefore, I don't believe that Abraham had any need of placating his son.  I believe that instead, his statement that God would provide the means for the sacrifice was simply an outpouring of his theology.  Going back to the Hebrews passage mentioned earlier, Abraham believed that God could still fulfill His covenant even after Isaac's death by raising him back to life.  So I think that Abraham was headed to that mountain fully prepared to plunge his dagger into his son's body, accepting the resultant pain and suffering to his offspring, in light of his greater devotion to His God and his firm belief in God's ability to provide in any way he chose.

    My next question is this.  Ok, if Abraham was so convinced of God's providence, then how did he arrive at this conclusion?  The answer is that it was not based on ignorance or some sort of blind faith.  Rather, it was based on clear and convincing evidences that God had provided to him previously.  Consider the account of the "cutting of the covenant" between God and Abram in Genesis 15.  This scene may seem odd to our modern eyes.  The gruesomeness of the slaughtered animals and the blood may seem repugnant.  We may wonder what in the world God is trying to communicate here. He is really just coming down to Abraham's level to explain things in a way the man will understand.  You see, in ancient Middle Eastern society this was just the normative custom when two parties were ratifying an agreement.  They would cut animals in half, arrange the pieces opposite each other, typically with a channel of blood running down the middle, and then walk through together to the other side.  This served multiple purposes.  The slaughter of the animals represented what would happen to either party if they broke the covenant.  The arrangement of the pieces on opposite sides showed that both groups were equally responsible for enforcing the terms of the agreement.  And the requirement of walking between the carcasses, through the blood and gore, symbolized that this was not a "hands off" affair.  One did not enter into an ancient covenant without getting one's hands dirty.

    With this in mind, notice the oddity of this particular covenant here in Genesis.  In verse 17 of chapter 15 a smoking oven and flaming torch (representing The Lord) appeared to Abraham and passed between the pieces.  This was nothing less than a resounding statement that this covenant was all about God.  God was responsible for the terms of the agreement.  God was responsible for the provisions of the agreement.  God was responsible for the enforcement of the agreement.  It was all of God and none of man. This would have been a shockingly clear and direct message to Abraham that God was in control and that He would provide everything necessary to see events ordered to His satisfaction.  Is it any wonder then that Abraham, later in life, was firmly convinced of God's full capacity to provide for Himself as he climbed Mount Moriah and answered the inquiry of his son.

    My final question is really just a logical extrapolation of the first two.  What was Abraham’s faith in God based on?  The clear answer is simply that it was based on the special revelation God had given him.  It was based on who God had revealed that He was.  It was based on the evidence provided through Abraham's life experiences that God would provide.  This is no different than the way in which we are to respond to God today.  He reveals who He is through His word, the Bible.  And we are to read it, study, and seek to understand it.  It is only based on that evidence that we are to construct the parameters of our lives, rather than upon our own wisdom and understanding.  Coming full circle back to the introduction of this post, this process requires time and effort.  It cannot be done in a hasty, flippant, or casual manner.