|
Our Torah for this week (i.e., Vayera) gives the account of the terrible test given to Abraham when God asked him to offer up his son as a sacrifice (see Gen. 22). The apostle James later said that Abraham was "justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar" (James 2:21), whereas the apostle Paul seemed to say just the opposite, that Abraham was not justified by works (see Rom. 4:1-3). So is there a contradiction here in our Bibles regarding the idea of "justification"?
To answer this first understand that when James said that Abraham was justified "by works" he was referring to the work of faith and certainly not to the works of the law (מַעֲשֵׂי הַתּוֹרָה), since the Torah explicitly prohibited human sacrifice (Gen. 9:5), and furthermore the Angel of the LORD restrained Abraham's hand during the great test of faith (Gen. 22:12) thereby indicating that it was not God's will (i.e., Torah). On the other hand, the apostle Paul's seemingly contrary statement that Abraham was not justified by works refers to Abraham's unwavering trust in God's promise that his descendants would be as numerous as the stars in the heavens (Gen. 15:1-6). There is no real contradiction, then, since the two apostles were referring to two different episodes in their discussion of justification. Faith and works are two sides of the same coin: true faith will show up in your life and character. As Yeshua said, "This is the work of God, that you believe in the One whom He has sent" (John 6:29).
The life of faith is inherently paradoxical, as Kierkegaard noted: "Ethically speaking, what Abraham planned to do was to murder Isaac; religiously, however, he was willing to sacrifice Isaac. In this contradiction lies the very anguish that can indeed make anyone sleepless. And yet without that anguish Abraham is not the one he is. Neither would faith be what it is." Although Abraham understood that God must be obeyed, he also understood that human sacrifice was immoral, and hence his struggle represented the collision between the imperative of reason and the imperative of faith. Choosing to heed the voice of reason (i.e., the "ethical," the "universal") over the personal voice of God created a state of "fear and trembling" and a sense of being unable to communicate his passion and mission to others.
"God cannot stand good works in the sense of earning merit. Yet good works are required. They shall be and yet shall not be. They are necessary and yet one ought humbly to ignore their significance or at least forget that they are supposed to be of any significance. Good works are like a child giving his parents a present, purchased, however, with what the child has received from his parents. All the pretentiousness which otherwise is associated with giving a present disappears when the child understands that he has received from his parents the gift which he gives to them." - Soren Kierkegaard (Fear and Trembling).
As Kierkegaard further commented: "Faith's conflict with the world is not a battle of thought with doubt, thought with thought. It is a battle of character. The person of faith is a person of character who does not insist upon comprehending everything. Now comes the conflict. The world insists that to believe what you cannot comprehend is not only blind obedience but obscurantism, stupidity, and so on. The world wants to alarm the believer against such foolishness. This is precisely why faith is a task for the person of character."
Hebrew Lesson
Isaiah 26:12 reading (click for audio):
Note: In the Book of Hebrews we read: "By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, of whom it was said, "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." Abraham considered that God was able even to raise Isaac from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back" (Heb. 11:17-19). The Greek text for "from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back" (i.e., ὅθεν αὐτὸν καὶ ἐν παραβολῇ ἐκομίσατο; Heb. 11:19b) seems to suggest Abraham believed (beforehand) that God would do a miracle and bring his son back from the dead after being sacrificed, though, of course, saying this does not mean it was therefore "easier" for him to go through with the sacrifice or that it required anything less than a complete surrender of his will to do God's will... The key phrase in 11:19b, however, has to do with receiving Isaac back, and the language here means that he did receive him back from the dead "symbolically" or "figuratively" (i.e., as a "parable").
|
