Abraham binding Isaac in the Context of the Book of Job

I finally found Richard Middleton's blog where he discusses some of his interpretive moves in regards to Genesis 22. God wants Abraham to argue like Job and show a discerning faith. Abraham shows a blind allegiance in following this pagan act of child sacrifice which Abraham should have argued with God like he did concerning the Sodom incident. He also says the angel commends Abraham because even though his faith is imperfect, God's mercy always works with imperfect people (this is my short summary of his view).

I do want to say that Richard is not doing anything much different than some of the ancient Rabbi's who had problems with this story as well. I always love his provocative ways he makes me think about the biblical text in new ways. Richard is one of the best and most prolific Old Testament scholars I know of today.

After saying all that, I think this is a possible way to look at the biblical text but I am going to push back some.

1. The book of Hebrews says Abraham believed that God was going to resurrect his son (11:17-19). I have no idea where the writer of Hebrews gets this information because it is not in the Genesis text at all. After saying that, if fuller progressive Christological revelation is correct (the writer of the book of Hebrews received it from the Holy Spirit), then Abraham was silent and never pushed back because he firmly believed God would restore his son. The writer of Hebrews at least throws some doubt on the silence imagery being pushed as far as Richard may be doing here?

2. There are always exceptions to rules and Richard could be right in the end. I will say I am concerned when our interpretive moves goes contrary to how ancient Judaism and Christianity has always understood the biblical text. There would have to be excessive weight of evidence or a powerful seed idea of the Spirit moving us forward and beyond to tread a different path than the ancient Jewish-Christian tradition.

3. Lastly, by analogy, let me share where I think Richard has a great insight in one regard. Abraham believes God will let him kill his son and fulfill a pagan like child sacrifice. Ancient proclivities can be very different in their context and day but it does seem like as Richard suggests that this should have been a problem for Abraham. Why is he silent here?

Now the analogy, some Christian missionaries ask people who are converting to Christianity, are they willing to give up their multiple wives? If they answer, yes, they baptize them without making them give up their wives. If no, they don't baptize them for they are not ready yet. It is a matter of Jesus Lordship and willing to go against one's tribal traditions (in one's heart----the heart is the issue).

It seems if God never ultimately intended to force or make Abraham sacrifice his son but he wanted to see if he would hold nothing back, even his own child (anything can become an idol, even our own children) then moral problems of the text may not have to be pushed to the extent for Richard's interpretation?  I will say that I do believe God wants us to wrestle with the biblical text and that is exactly what Richard Middleton does do.  I do concur with Richard we need a deeper theology of lament.