The intimacy of Enoch’s relationship with God calls to
question the hierarchy between humans and their creator that chapter 3
establishes. Enoch “walked with God,”
showing a level of equality between him and God, but we are not given enough
insight into Enoch’s relationship with God to explore what has caused this (5:24).
Abraham is also described as walking
with God, but in this case, it is noted that the pronoun in Hebrew literally
means “before” (72) instead of “with”, which does not imply the same level of
equality. Despite this difference, Abraham’s relationship with God also
demonstrates a break in the perceived hierarchy as Abraham’s interactions with
God show mutual consideration for each other.
At the beginning of chapter 17, God forms a “covenant” with
Abraham, promising him land and an heir (17:2). The formation of the covenant creates
an interesting dynamic between Abraham and God. While God holds a great amount
of power, as shown by his ability to destroy several cities (19:24-26), he also
has a responsibility to Abraham, resulting in a slight shift of power. Abraham
is able to barter with God and convince him to spare the city if he can find
ten innocent people there (18:24-33).
God’s acceptance of Abraham’s proposal shows an increased level of equality
between them because he is willing to consider Abraham’s idea even though it is
in opposition to his own. In addition, before destroying the cities, God
wonders whether he should “conceal from Abraham what [he was] about to do” (18:18).
God’s consideration of how his actions will affect Abraham shows a level of
respect.
Both Abraham and God show devotion to the covenant by fulfilling
their respective promises. The mutual consideration and respect established
between them creates a more relatable and reliable image of God, in contrast to
the God we are introduced to the first few chapters, who often appears to be
acting out of self-interest.
While I will agree that there is a definite convenant between God and Abraham; that there is also a familiar relationship between Abraham and God. I would like to argue that the relationship is by no means equal, rather it is closer to the relationship of an employer and employee than peers. I think disparity is less clear in situations where God is considering Abraham's opinion. For example in Genesis 18:18 as referenced by kyra, God stops to consider Abraham's reaction as free will is a defining factor of his human creation. But Abraham in return, while he does "bargain" God down in terms of the innocents, is aware of his position in regard to his Lord refusing to go below 10 as that would be too far. God ultimately has hte final word regardless of the situation, it is for that reason that Abraham would have readily sacrificed his son. But God in return recognizes that Abraham has free will and desires to use Abraham to further the creation of a good world or at the very least a good "great nation". In this light I see Abraham as God's chosen vehicle for expansion and less a role player in their relationship much less a peer.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that God's esteem for Abraham is very pronounced. I would only add that He might be reminding Abraham of His power by dragging out His promises. Most notably, God takes forever to fulfill His promise of bestowing an heir unto Abraham, leading Abraham to remark, "Look, to me you have given no seed" (15.3-4). Years pass, and still, God keeps Abraham on the edge of his seat, reminding him to retain confidence in Him despite the wait. To me, this seems like an assertion of dominance; Abraham is subject to God's whims and has to suffer the agony of anticipation. Even though God knows that Abraham's greatest desire is to have an heir, He continues to hold him off. There are probably some theological implications that I'm not getting, but I still don't understand why God does this. Is it so that He Himself can ensure that Abraham is as trusting of Him as He is of Abraham?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Morgan's idea that God and Abraham are not peers but also with Kyra's idea that Abraham is very comfortable with God. Their relationship seems to follow a pattern: God makes a command or covenant with Abraham through some sort of divine intervention, Abraham occasionally pleas or bargains with God, Abraham obeys God, God is pleased, and the covenant is renewed, on God's time.
ReplyDeleteWhile Abraham's Covenant with God are on God's terms, they, like Kyra says, require both parties to be equally involved. This covenant is a relationship between God and Abraham that grows as time passes. Abraham's increasing love of God can be witnessed in his impatience in waiting for an heir. His fear of God is symbolized by the sacrifices he makes to God starting with animals, moving its way up to foreskin of circumcision, than finally (almost) to human life when he "took out the cleaver to slaughter his son" Genesis 22:10-11. God gives Abraham two sons, Ishmael and Isaac - the first steps into fulfilling the covenant of having heirs as numerous as the stars. While God's relationship with Abraham is not equal, both God and Abraham love each other.
I believe that what Kyra is trying to say here is not that Abraham is equal to or usurping God but that he is party to a distinctly different covenant from the earlier covenant of Noah in 9:17. That first covenant between God and man was very one sided. In it God promised, out of his divine benevolence, to never destroy the whole of the earth again. In this covenant God is acting as a king in high bestowing a gift unto his loyal subject. In the second covenant between God and Abraham the situation has changed from one of bestowal to trade. In exchange for the completion of certain tasks and trials the Lord will give Abraham the rewards he has promised.
ReplyDeleteI see this holding of the reward before Abraham by God not as a God holding his power over Abraham but of God recognizing the power of human beings. Rather than simply commanding a deed be done as in the case of Noah the Lord now bargains with humans. This consideration if humanity I see as indicative of a change in the relationship between God and humanity. Rather than the cold and distant God of the flood story the lord is returning to the more involved and caring creator of life. the new covenant with Abraham then is a revival of the close relationship of God with man.
I agree with John in regards to Kyra's interpretation. While God remains vindictive (destroying Sodom rather than rewarding Lot), he appears to have gained back, or, indeed, found new respect for humans through Abraham. Abraham is very pushy on the terms of the agreement, having the nerve (or perhaps the courage) to argue down his creator from fifty pure souls to a mere ten, the lowest measure of community units in Israel (18:32).
ReplyDeleteIn regards to Kyra's last point, I find it interesting that the destruction of Sodom appears to forge a closer bond between Abraham and God, at least from God's perspective, as we are not told of Abraham's response. God refers to Abraham as his prophet for the first time in chapter twenty, just after the destruction of the cities. He also takes the time to personally appear in Abimilech to confront him about Abraham's wife (20:4), showing a great level of personal attachment.