Maimonides and Abraham

Maimonides says the 7th cause for "contradictory or contrary statements to be found in any book" is that "in speaking about very obscure matters it is necessary to conceal some parts and reveal others". Because he is a scholar of the Torah, it is no surprise that his literary arguments will apply to Biblical stories, but I think it is worthwhile to directly apply this argument to some of the commonly controversial passages in the Bible.

One of the most common speculations regarding the Genesis 22 story (The sacrifice of Isaac) is Abraham's reaction. We are consistently fascinated with how Abraham must have felt during this episode. What did Abraham think when God told him to kill his own son? How did Abraham justify his actions to himself? What did he tell Sarah? Why didn't Isaac book it about halfway through the journey up the hill? Why wasn't there more profanities after God said "JKlol. There's a ram over there, dude"?

I am not proceeding to argue that these aren't interesting and perhaps beneficial speculations. However, the shocking lack of reaction from Abraham, after the character has mistrusted Yahweh enough regarding His promises that he a) tries to have another child b) tries to convince God the inheritance promised him should come through Lot c) tries to convince God that his servant would be an okay inheritance too d) doesn't discourage his wife from bursting into laughter when someone tells her she is going to be pregnant, is hard to believe. Some pastors and other readers of the Bible have criticized the passage for this reason. It is just impossible, many say, to believe Abraham could not have been tormented by the decision.

If we were to apply Maimonides' theory, however, the story will be read in a different light, and perhaps a more proper one. While it's true that it is unbelievable (and even frightening) to think that Abraham might have felt nothing at God's command to kill his son, the story isn't really about how Abraham felt; it's about what Abraham did. We readers know how Abraham felt. The overwhelming sameness of skits and sermons on Abraham makes this clear. We know that the command from God doesn't make sense. No amount of Abraham's emotions or rationalizations will make it make sense. Indeed, we are only given rationalizations for the times Abraham disobeys God-- such as when he lies with Hagar in order to try and fulfill the prophecy on his own.

This structure seems to indicate what Maimonides theorizes. The story, which indicates Abraham's growth in faith and obedience, is not rationalizable. Justifications can be made about God's omnipotence, his potential for bringing Isaac back from the dead, and Abraham's realization of this, but they remain unsatisfactory. The troubling parts of the story are too obscure to be spoken of satisfactorily. God's and Abraham's full intentions and motivations are unfathomable, and nonsequitor. The story is about how the man who trusted God's promise too little to let it happen on its own changed to a man who trusted the promise so greatly that he was willing to behave in a way which seemed directly contrary to the outcome he was promised. This line of story would be derailed by Biblical speculations or assertions as to how Abraham or Sarah or Isaac thought or felt about the matter. The point of the story would be lost in the nebula of emotion and motivation.