Metaphor and Memory: Understanding God Through Narrative

My assignment this evening was easy: talk about Abraham and Isaac in literature. Unfortunately, the only literature I could think of that utilized the story of the sacrifice of Isaac were the Middle-English mystery plays entitled “Abraham and Isaac.” I say “unfortunately” not because they are poor literature – on the contrary, these medieval plays were masterful, community-created works of art that reflected the highest knowledge and sentiments of their time – no, I say “unfortunately” because they complicate the matter I will be speaking on. First, they require a bit of translation, as I will illustrate soon. But secondly, and more importantly, these plays introduce the ideas of symbolism and metaphor which impacts our theology, epistemology, and the future of theatre.

I don’t expect many of you to be avid medievalists, thespians, or Catholics so let me introduce these plays with a little historical context and then I’ll hopefully illustrate why my assignment tonight is no longer easy.

Way back in the 13th century, a Belgian nun – St. Juliana de Mont Cornillon – felt that the Blessed Sacrament (better known to Evangelicals as ‘Communion’) needed a day of celebration. She consequently presented her idea of a feast day to a bishop, a cardinal, an archdeacon, the patriarch of Jerusalem, and finally the Pope himself. Consequently, in 1264, Pope Urban IV issued a papal bull instituting the feast of Corpus Christi on the Thursday after Trinity Sunday—“Corpus Christi” means, of course, “The Body of Christ” which the Blessed Sacrament was believed to represent. However, it was not until Clement V ordered the implementation of the feast in 1311, that observances became widespread. By 1318, Corpus Christi was adopted almost universally throughout England.
In order to celebrate the feast and catechize a largely illiterate audience, priests began putting on dramatized renditions of Bible stories, commemorating the Blessed Sacrament. These soon became so popular that the Guilds within various towns began producing them instead. (what we’re doing here tonight has historical precedent!) Each year, the tailors and the bakers, the carpenters and the fishmongers, the shoemakers and the smiths (as well as dozens of other tradesmen) would present “cycles” of plays, generally presenting 20 to 50 dramas at a time. These cycles narrated the history of the world from Creation to Doomsday, with central climaxes in the Nativity and Passion of Christ. These plays have been preserved primarily in four main texts: The York, Chester, Towneley and Coventry plays.

Now here is where things get interesting. The Eucharist is a symbol by which we remember Christ, and symbols without knowledge of the thing they symbolize are ineffective. So, in order to truly partake of the Sacrament, one must know Christ. However, knowledge is dualistic by nature—there is a “knowledge of the head” and a “knowledge of the heart.” Reason directs action, but the heart inspires action. Christianity has always sought to communicate a complete (both rational and heart-felt) knowledge of Christ and His work, because it is a truth-based, life-changing religion.
So! Long before Jesus was born, God used a father and a son to tell a story that would allow all believers to understand the Passion more fully. The tale of Abraham and Isaac, since the beginning of the Church, has been viewed as a prefigurement of God surrendering His Son to be killed for our sakes.

So what do we have? We have an event (SLIDE 1) – the Passion of Christ, which stands at the cornerstone of history. On one side of the timeline (SLIDE 2) we have Abraham and Isaac looking forward towards the Passion… and on the other side of the timeline (our side of the timeline), we have the Sacrament (SLIDE 3) looking backwards to the Passion. And now we have a play (SLIDE 4) that celebrates the Sacrament (CLICK) which represents the body of Christ (CLICK) by re-enacting the story (CLICK) that prefigured the Passion.

By placing the written story on stage, in a sense, by incarnating the word, the playwrights and actors were offering sound intellectual theology in such a way that it aligned the audience’s emotions to properly respond to the Eucharist and the One who instituted it.

All extant plays of “Abraham and Isaac” are rife with Biblical teaching. However, I really like the Chester version of this play and it offers insightful, orthodox commentary on the nature of God, atonement, faith, and the sacraments.

First, the relationship between Abraham and Isaac as Father and Son is a key element which is emphasized repeatedly. After meeting with Melchisedek, Abraham asks God for a son and God says (SLIDE 5)

“Loke [look] that thou be trewe to me,
And forward here I make with thee
Thy seede to multiplie.
So much more further shalt thou be
Kingis of thie seed men shall see
And one Child of great degree
All mankind shall forbye [redeem].”

Abraham is identified by his name and this promise…he is the Father of nations. Also, Isaac is the Promised One – the Long-Awaited Only Son – who had a miraculous birth. Sound familiar?
And then, just in case the audience was completely clueless, the expositor steps on stage at the end and says (SLIDE 6)

“By Abraham I may understand
The Father of heaven that can fand [try]
With his sonnes blood to breake that band
The Devil had brought us too.
By Isaac understand I may
Ihesu that was obedient aye,
His fathers will to worke always,
His death to underfonge [endure].”

And what about the Holy Spirit? Well, he didn’t really fit into the allegory as a character, so the playwrights had to make sure their doctrine was correct in other ways. The messenger who introduced the play said that the play is done – forsooth – in worship of the Trinity. Abraham and then Isaac both pray to the Trinity. And lastly, to make sure you’re not confused about the multi-person nature of Trinity, Melchisedek says, quite randomly, “Blessed be God that is but one!”

The second theological component of the plays is the teaching of the nature of atonement. The idea that “without the shedding of blood there is no remission” is outlined more clearly in the Brome version of the play than Chester. Blood, sacrifice, and the need for a living animal is repeated at least 15 times. However, in Chester, the always-helpful expositor says (SLIDE 7):
“In the olde lawe, without leasing, [lying]
When these two good men were lyving,
Of beastes was all their offring,
And their sacramente.
But sith Christ died on the roode tree
With bread and wyne him worship we.”

This leads directly into the play’s teaching on the sacraments. While we may not agree with the Catholic understanding of the importance of the sacraments in salvation, the doctrine propounded in the play relates fairly closely to our own, Evangelical understanding. The town of Chester managed to incorporate teaching on tithing, baptism, and of course, communion.
First, Abraham offers a tithe of his wealth to Mechisedek, who represents the Church. The Expositor says he did this in signification of our own “sacrifice”, and because Abraham did so, he was well loved by God.
Second, the topic of baptism is address by linking it to the institution of circumcision. God, while promising Abraham a son, says (SLIDE 8)

“I will that from henceforth always
Each knaveschild [on] the eighth daye
(will) Be circumcised, as I saye,
And thou thy-self full soon;
And who is not circumcised
Forsaken [shallbe with me] i-wis, [indeed]
For disobedyent that man is.
Therefore look that this be done.”

Abraham agrees, and the now ever-present expositor comes on stage to explain (SLIDE 9)

This was sometyme a sacrament
In the old lawe truly taken.
As followeth now verament (verily)
So was this in the Old Testament;
But when Christ dyed, away it went,
And Baptism then began.

And lastly, in honor of Corpus Christi, the Blessed Sacrament is found imaged everywhere throughout the play—in Melchisedek’s offering of bread and wine to Abraham, in the expositor’s explanation that we take communion instead of sacrificing animals, and lastly, the blood and body of the sacrificed Isaac.
(SLIDE 9)

Alright, so the plays themselves were theological sound. But what about the way they were communicating this truth. Was it right for them to use theatre, which had originated in the Hellenistic celebration of false gods on specific feast days? Is it Biblical to communicate truth through inherently deceptive means? Do you understand what I mean? Theatre seeks to convince its audience that something is real, which isn’t. Should grown men dress up like patriarchs, or worse, fill the role of God on stage? Interestingly, it this story of Abraham and Isaac that provides the “Christian apologetic” for drama. You see, God initiated this story for two reasons. First, because it was good for Abraham’s faith that God tested him. Keep that in mind, this was for Abraham’s benefit first and foremost. But secondarily, God was putting on a play. And it’s not the first time—think of the Passover. The Jews were told to re-enact the story of their escape from Egypt as a means of remembrance. In the case of Abraham and Isaac, God was acting out a prophecy. Instead of remembrance, it was instituted to inspire hope, and after the work of Christ was completed, to inspire faith.

Now. Just because God can put on a play, doesn’t necessarily mean we’re allowed to. So let’s look at it a little bit differently. I want to remind you that although plays are intended to be acted out, they’re still considered literature. In a sense, they’re a metaphor. But what is a meta-for??
A metaphor is a poetic device by which one thing is identified with another thing in order to describe the first thing. For example, when a lover says to his beloved, “You are the world and I am the moon which encircles thee,” he is certainly not saying, “You are a spherical globe of dirt and molten rock and I am a celestial satellite stuck in your gravitational orbit.” No, he is trying, hyperbolically, to say that she is the center of his attention. Unlike similes which are used to illustrate particular similarities, “metaphor establishes an identity between diverse things.” Let me repeat that: metaphor identifies one thing as a different thing altogether. Typically when metaphor is used in literature, the author assumes that by describing one thing as another, he is not losing the identity of either, but allowing the reader to understand the first thing in a new way. This ability to associate images is crucial when working with religious ideas because it allows one to communicate what is unknown, or in God’s case, cannot be known, by what is known. Calling God ‘Father’ or ‘King’ is metaphorical, because we are describing the ineffable nature of God in earthly terms. It is not the full expression of his personhood, but it is an adequate metaphor.
Metaphor is used extensively in the Old and New Testament history of the Christian atonement. Isaac and the lamb were often referred to as ‘types’ of Christ. The Eucharist is the final, and perhaps definitive example of a metaphor that unifies two distinct identities, because it is a symbol that actually partakes of the substance of the thing symbolized.

All that to say—plays are metaphors and God likes metaphors. Metaphors allow us to understand things we wouldn’t otherwise be able to understand and when metaphors like plays become annual traditions they are useful for remembrance.

Few people are willing to listen to and learn from a sermon, particular in the 14th century, when the Mass was given in Latin and English was spoken by the masses. By incorporating theology into entertaining art, the producers of the play cycles presented Biblical truth in a way that excited and directed the audience’s emotions.
In this play, the goodness and youth of Isaac are stressed multiple times. Almost universally, childhood is understood as an image of innocence. We, as an audience member, have heard God order Isaac’s murder, we watch them walk to Moriah, and when Isaac asks, “where is the quick beast I know well must be killed?” we all cringe in recognition of Isaac’s impending doom. We hold our breath as Abraham holds the shining sword, poised to strike his son. When the angel comes, we want to jump out of our chairs in joy.
The pathos evoked moves one to react with proper horror at the injustice of the death of innocence and to rejoice when Isaac is symbolically resurrected, granted life. The only thing we don’t understand is why this had to happen. Why was Isaac symbolically killed? Well, the expositor tells us it was for our sakes. Christ’s blood was shed in order to break the devilish bonds on our soul. We recognize that an innocent man died for our sin and should respond with repentance. Finally, in Isaac’s “resurrection” we rejoice and find hope for everlasting life.