Maybe God had another point to teach that would have been illustrated through a discussion with Abraham, maybe God was actually encouraging AbrahamвЂ™s love and devotion to Isaac. Maybe God is expecting Abraham to continue in this vein, in which case we can only speculate about the outcome. ItвЂ™s not because heвЂ™s afraid to fight back: he has argued with God in other instances, like when he questioned whether or not he and Sarah will have a child, or when he advocated on behalf of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18:16-33). ItвЂ™s clear from different parts of the story вЂ“ and absolutely expected! вЂ“ that Abraham doesnвЂ™t WANT to do whatвЂ™s been asked, but he isnвЂ™t fighting back. A well-reasoned back-and-forth is exactly NOT what happens in the story of Abraham and Isaac. So at the very least God can definitely handle push back, and we could even make the argument that God encourages or rewards a healthy dialogue. He pushes back against GodвЂ™s call to lead the Israelites, and in the course of the back-and-forth, God reveals the core of GodвЂ™s essence: God is I AM, being itself (Ex 3:14). The authors put Job and God in dialogue, and without JobвЂ™s half of the conversation, we might not have had the opportunity to witness divine revelation. God is seen reminding Job of who God is, but not as rebuking Job for having complaints and questions in the first place. In fact, his push-back leads to a dramatic revelation of GodвЂ™s character and power (Job 38-41). When calamity befalls him and he is tested, he continues to put his faith in God вЂ“ but he doesnвЂ™t take it lying down. His character is cast as being righteous and good (Job 1:1). Perhaps no tale comes to mind to better illustrate this point than the story of Job. The heroines and heroes of the Bible are frequently tested вЂ“ itвЂ™s a literary tool just like the plots in our favorite epic adventure tales: ordinary people are called into overwhelming circumstances which they manage to conquer through reliance on a divine power. What if the вЂњtestingвЂќ isnвЂ™t about AbrahamвЂ™s willingness to sacrifice Isaac, but is about his willingness to engage with God about what he knows to be right? What if AbrahamвЂ™s response isnвЂ™t the one God is looking for? What if Abraham is taking faithfulness to an ungodly conclusion? These are positions that need to be wrestled with, but what if the interpretation hinges on the fifth word of this narrative. Different modes have been used to try to make sense of this: Maybe Isaac knew God would provide a different sacrifice maybe itвЂ™s a (disturbing) lesson in priorities maybe the authors вЂ“ from their position writing at a later date and knowing the outcome вЂ“ created or read into this story the extent of GodвЂ™s involvement in order to convey themes of obedience and faithfulness to a people that was prone to wander. She has an M.Div from Union Theological Seminary in New York, a husband of 13 years, and a baby named if weвЂ™re making the wrong assumption about the вЂњtestingвЂќ happening in the story of the binding of Isaac (Gen 22:1-18)? Traditional interpretations often take this story to be about GodвЂ™s call for Abraham to be willing to sacrifice his son.

She also serves as a chaplain in the Air Force Reserves and is passionate about ministering to women in places where they are often marginalized. She teaches at Belmont University and is the founder of The Acropolis Project ( ), an organization dedicated to raising the bar of theological education in communities of faith. Women in Theology is happy to publish a guest post from Alexis James Waggoner.

The binding of isaac chaos