The Binding of Isaac

[Babbalanja]

How do modern believers interpret this famous episode from Genesis 22? Did Abraham do the right thing?


1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.

2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

3 And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ***, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him.

4 Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off.

5 And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ***; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.

6 And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together.

7 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?

8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

9 And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.

10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.

11 And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.

12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.

14 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.

15 And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,

16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:

17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;

18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

19 So Abraham returned unto his young men, and they rose up and went together to Beersheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beersheba.

Regards,

Istvan

[Redzeppelin]

How do modern believers interpret this famous episode from Genesis 22? Did Abraham do the right thing?



Regards,

Istvan

Abraham trusted God; as such, he did the right thing. According to the Bible, Abraham knew God - he had a relationship with him and trusted him. Just like in our lives, when we know people, we trust them - and very often we will do things that we do not always understand if we trust someone enough. As the creator of the universe, God has the right to ask us to do things that we may not understand. God did not want Isaac to be sacrificed - I say that because there seems to be no rational reason to ask for such a thing; however, there might be good reasons for God to ask Abraham to do such a thing. We, as humans, incapable of creating life as we are, get very hung up on God's "lack of ethics" in his apparent lack of respect for human life. Why should he view it like us? He can create it at will; He can restore it; it is WE who get all bent out of shape with ideas of entitlement: tell me, are we "entitled" to life? Does God "owe" us life? And, once we have it, are we entitled to have it last a certain lenght and be of a certain quality? So that - if it is cut "prematurely" short (a term that implies an entitled/expected length) or is of poor quality, that we are right to be angry at God? How does that work? As the giver of life, it is quite within His prerogative to take it away. I'd like to know where people get the idea that we deserve to live and that God is obligated to let us live a certain time frame and a certain quality. Interesting, really.

[Babbalanja]

Did Abraham do the right thing?

Would you do the same thing under those circumstances?

Regards,

Istvan

[kiki1982]

I think the question you ask in your last post is irrelevant. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to attack, but I do not think that it is relevant.

Why?

The question is not, 'did Abraham do right at blindly obeying God?', there is in fact no question. It is clear that God only wanted to see if Abraham was going to obey or not. Maybe, to contradict Eve who did not obey, however, was talked round, which is not really willingly and rationally disobey. Maybe she wouldn't have disobeyed if the serpent had not been there.

So, God tells Abraham: 'Go and sacrifice your son' because He wants to see Abraham trust Him. Abraham does, but God has no interest in Isaac or any human sacrifice for that matter. So, he tells him that he can take him home again.

Point is that Abraham trusted God and believed that, for God, it was necessary that he sacrifice his son. As such, recognising the infinite wisdom of God above man.

It is not because I, as a mortal being, think that it is not the right thing to do, that in 50 years, 100 years or 500 years this act will not seem very good. I, in my short-term mortal state cannot judge eternal wisdom.

On a mere mortal level, I find that story quite moving. Such a trust in something on has not even seen.

[Katy North]

Personally, If I believed in god in the first place, nothing could make me stop believing in him faster than having him ask me to kill my child.

While I appreciate the thought that god didn't really want human sacrifice in the first place, how was Abraham to know that? How terrified was Isaac when his father raised the knife to kill him? This story is only vaguely inspiring in retrospect, when one knows that everything turns out okay. Otherwise it reads like a horror story.

[kiki1982]

On that, I agree.

Yet, it probably never happened. The story occurs just after God has tried to ban wickedness out of the world by the Great Flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. And the chapter has as its title: God tests Abraham which clearly indicates it really was a test for Abraham, not a serious task. No, Abraham did not know it was a test, yet is that relevant? Is it relevant that Isaac knew that an angel was going to intervene or not?

In my opinion it is a stoy in order to contrast disobeying Adam and Eve with Abraham, who could also have disobeyed, but did not. And that ensured a blessing. So, essentially, part of the wickedness went out of man and God has, partly, accomplished its task until some of it creeps back into man.

In my mind, human emotion does not come into this story, because it is not about that. No matter how gruesome the thought might be.

[Babbalanja]

Point is that Abraham trusted God and believed that, for God, it was necessary that he sacrifice his son. As such, recognising the infinite wisdom of God above man. Is this good? Is this what faith should do, inspire believers to commit reprehensible acts for reasons they can't understand?

If you heard a voice telling you to do something like that, wouldn't you have every reason to assume it wasn't God's voice?


No, Abraham did not know it was a test, yet is that relevant?I'd say it's the crux of the entire issue.

What would you do?

Regards,

Istvan

[kiki1982]

That is what I am trying to say: that view I consider irrelevant, because

1. The story probably never happened

2. In hindsight certainly it is irrelevant if Abraham knew or not. Because the human sacrifice never took place.

3. Speculaton if the voice that speaks to me is God or not, i also irrelevant as these things do not happen.

As I consider that the story probably never happened and is only there to pose as a contrast, I do not consider myself in the same role as Abraham.

4. As I have learned in the meantime that God does not want human sacrifices, I would not believe it was God who was speaking to me. If I did not know, well I might have done, but then again I could not have done.

As I have said, the personal interpretation is irrelevant to the symbolic meaning of the story. As such, asking questions about it in the personal sphere, is dangerous to the real meaning of the text.

[Babbalanja]

In hindsight certainly it is irrelevant if Abraham knew or not. Because the human sacrifice never took place. But that's the exact opposite of what you said before: It is clear that God only wanted to see if Abraham was going to obey or not.

In fact, the text mentions this numerous times: I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son...because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son...because thou hast obeyed my voice.

It's the obedience that was necessary to obtain. It's as if Abraham actually killed Isaac, because he intended to. What message should we get from this?


As I have said, the personal interpretation is irrelevant to the symbolic meaning of the story. As such, asking questions about it in the personal sphere, is dangerous to the real meaning of the text.
But that's what learning from scripture is all about, isn't it? The symbolic meaning of the story is, the way you described it, recognising the infinite wisdom of God above man. That is, divine wisdom is more important than human ethics.

Regards,

Istvan

[kiki1982]

That's too fast.

As to your first point:

God was not obtaining obedience of Abraham, God was testing Abraham's faith. And fear of God, in my mind, is one of the core beliefs of the Jews. At least then. Ask a Jew if you want to know how it is now. I imagine it is the same, but I am not confident. At any rate, they have stopped sacrificing, but that's maybe down to the fact that their temple was destroyed.

Hence, my statement is not the exact opposite, because the question Abraham was going to kill his son or not does not occur, as the human sacrifice was never intended by God in the first place.

As to your second point:

Ethics is not only human, it is philosophy that looks at good and evil on a philosophical level. What may seem evil to the one is maybe not evil for the other.

I like the point Redzeppelin put forward.

But more than that, I find that the theme of the story is not the wisdom of God above man, but Abraham's trust through all hardships. Je went through Egypt and what-not. On a human level, one could say God's wisdom above human ethics, but what is human ethics? They are only temporary and are not even the same for everyone.

[Babbalanja]

God was not obtaining obedience of Abraham, God was testing Abraham's faith...

Hence, my statement is not the exact opposite, because the question Abraham was going to kill his son or not does not occur, as the human sacrifice was never intended by God in the first place.
Are we reading the same Genesis 22?

The one above explicitly states: I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son...because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son...because thou hast obeyed my voice.

The relevant point is that Abraham did not withhold Isaac, not whether Isaac was spared.

Regards,

Istvan

[kiki1982]

No, the relevant point is that Abraham trusted God. The title of the chapter is clearly God tests Abraham. God only pretended to want Isaac so as to test Abraham's faith. He was going to see what Abraham would do with such an extreme request in human terms. God was happy (if God can überhaupt be happy) that Abraham did want to sacrifice his son because He blessed him afterwards.

However, as the title makes clear, Abraham was never really required to give up his son, because that was not God's intention.

The point is not even that Isaac was spared or not withheld, the point is Abraham who trusts God's wisdom. Isaac, to me, is only a prop to show that.

And yes, we are reading the same Genesis.

But, please, keep in mind that I am only an amateur in this type of discussion. A theologian would probably be able to explain the passage better. I do my best, nonetheless.

But, I think weare arguing on a different level. I am arguing, that not the act matters (wanting to sacrifice or nt), but the concept o doing just that. In that, the whole act of sacrificing Isaac or the want for it, is only a prop. I think you are arguing that it is what it says (sacriice or no sacrific), where I believe that that should not be considered as it never happened and as the story was only of symbolic meaning.

[Katy North]

It is a pretty extreme "prop" if you ask me...:nono:

[DanielBenoit]

Read Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling.

[Virgil]

Abraham trusted God; as such, he did the right thing. According to the Bible, Abraham knew God - he had a relationship with him and trusted him. Just like in our lives, when we know people, we trust them - and very often we will do things that we do not always understand if we trust someone enough. As the creator of the universe, God has the right to ask us to do things that we may not understand. God did not want Isaac to be sacrificed - I say that because there seems to be no rational reason to ask for such a thing; however, there might be good reasons for God to ask Abraham to do such a thing. We, as humans, incapable of creating life as we are, get very hung up on God's "lack of ethics" in his apparent lack of respect for human life. Why should he view it like us? He can create it at will; He can restore it; it is WE who get all bent out of shape with ideas of entitlement: tell me, are we "entitled" to life? Does God "owe" us life? And, once we have it, are we entitled to have it last a certain lenght and be of a certain quality? So that - if it is cut "prematurely" short (a term that implies an entitled/expected length) or is of poor quality, that we are right to be angry at God? How does that work? As the giver of life, it is quite within His prerogative to take it away. I'd like to know where people get the idea that we deserve to live and that God is obligated to let us live a certain time frame and a certain quality. Interesting, really.

Red - I'm surprised you forgot to mention how this becomes a prefiguring of the sacrifice that God himself accepts with the binding and sacrifice of His son, Christ and the reconciliation that act brings. [Of course that's from a Christian point of view and would not be accepted in Judaism.] Frankly the Isaac event is actually a story of God's compassion. Sacrifice of life is the ritual that atones for man's incompatibility to meet God's requirements. What must have been a grievous duty for Abraham, is certainly understood. There is no indication of Abraham's reluctance. It is a duty. Sacrifice is required. God has asked him to sacrifice his son. Abraham obeys. God relieves Abraham of his duty. From then on, atonement is elevated as a ritual (sacrement, in Christian terms) to a level of life and death significance, the recall the potential slaughter of the Jewish patriarch's very son. So for the Jewish people, when they now slaughter animals in the ritual method that is later delineated in Leviticus, the moment of sacrifice is holy. It is raised to the significance of a life and death issue. And so too is the sacrifice of Christ. For a God-man such as Christ to die, it would not carry such an elevated significance. After all Christ knows He has eternal life. But the Abraham temptation establishes the holiness of Christ's sacrifice, the atonement of inherent sin. God needs to ask Abraham for the life of his son to establish the sacred, and then compassionately relieves him of his duty.

Side note: to those that think that this is a hideous moment for Abraham, it is not. It is only under your assumption that to be alive in this world is better than to be with God in His world.

Now what a wonderful moment for me to write this post during Lent. Christ's sacrifice has been on my mind these days. :wink5:

[Babbalanja]

Sacrifice of life is the ritual that atones for man's incompatibility to meet God's requirements. What must have been a grievous duty for Abraham, is certainly understood. There is no indication of Abraham's reluctance. It is a duty. Sacrifice is required. God has asked him to sacrifice his son. Abraham obeys.And the conventional, mainstream understanding of the tale is that unquestioning obedience is better than individual ethical action.

But is it?

Regards,

Istvan

[BienvenuJDC]

What I think is most ridiculous is a group of infidels having a discussion of theology.

[Babbalanja]

What I think is most ridiculous is a group of infidels having a discussion of theology.Thank you for your patient, helpful input.

Regards,

Istvan

[Virgil]

And the conventional, mainstream understanding of the tale is that unquestioning obedience is better than individual ethical action.

But is it?

Regards,

Istvan

To God. Yes. But God asks this of Abraham not others. I could never do it. It is God who later establishes the ethical standard of thou shall not kill. I believe if look at how Kierkegaard (as Daniel recommends) interprets the story is that Abraham is caught in a moment of dilemma (not sure if that's the best word) of bad choices, where it would drive one to paralysis. That's one way of looking at the story. I personally don't see any paralysis in Abraham. It's as if the over riding ethical choice is the sacrifice of his son. Like I said above, being in God's world may be the better of the two worlds and so the value we put on the death of the child is not Abraham's value.

[Katy North]

What I think is most ridiculous is a group of infidels having a discussion of theology.

I think it is actually quite pertinent for us infidels to discuss Christianity. Christianity, while in our opinion untrue, is nevertheless the great moral compass of most developed nations. It is as important for us to discuss it as it is important for liberals or republicans to discuss the opposing party's opinions.

Note that that I used liberals and republicans as my example. Liberals and republicans may disagree on several major points (stem cell research, marriage of homosexuals, the war in Iraq), but they are all proud members of the United States. And while Atheists and Christians disagree on some major points (the existence of god, creationism vs evolution, etc), they are all proud members of the human race, and concerned about its welfare and morality.

Personally, I think Christianity is the greatest thing to happen to morality since... well, whatever came before it :). Love your neighbor, and turn the other cheek are both worthwhile sentiments. However, there are some stories in the Bible that are, in my opinion distasteful, and the story of Abraham and Isaac is one of them. In answer to your question, Babbalanja, individual ethical action is ALWAYS more important than blind obedience.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it!:nod:

[BienvenuJDC]

I would consider having a legitimate discussion concerning Biblical matters, but I have not experienced that environment at this site yet...therefore I would not make that attempt until I am sure that such a thread isn't another chance to ridicule one's religion.

[Katy North]

the value we put on the death of the child is not Abraham's value.

A parallel to what you are saying could be "the value we put on women who are stoned by their families in Islamic nations is not the value of fundamentalist Islamics".

If you were to see Abraham on the Mount holding a knife above his son BEFORE the angel stepped in, would you have run over to him and ripped the knife from his hand? Would you have done so even if he was screaming at the top of his lungs, "BUT GOD TOLD ME I HAD TO DO IT OR HE WOULD FORSAKE ME!!"

Personally, I would have thought the guy was absolutely blinkin' nuts and grabbed his hand anyway.

The morality of 4000 years ago (or however long ago it was) is not the morality of this day and age. While some of the Bible is a timeless guide to morality, this is a blight upon it. There is no positive moral lesson that can be taken from this story that is pertinent to this day and age.

[DanielBenoit]

To God. Yes. But God asks this of Abraham not others. I could never do it. It is God who later establishes the ethical standard of thou shall not kill. I believe if look at how Kierkegaard (as Daniel recommends) interprets the story is that Abraham is caught in a moment of dilemma (not sure if that's the best word) of bad choices, where it would drive one to paralysis. That's one way of looking at the story. I personally don't see any paralysis in Abraham. It's as if the over riding ethical choice is the sacrifice of his son. Like I said above, being in God's world may be the better of the two worlds and so the value we put on the death of the child is not Abraham's value.

Yeah, I kind of didn't want to bring this up, only point out and reccomend it to anyone interested, because what Kierkegaard suggests and says is incomprehensible to rationalists (as he himself admits).

Kierkegaard's main concern, along with what Virgil said, was that Abraham's act was an act of the induvidual over the universal (that is, social norms, not theological universality or whatnot), the particular over the whole, the teleological over the ethical. Since it was an act of personal revelation (or whatever you want to call it), Abraham's act is incomprehensible, even to Kierkegaard. This comes out of his existential philosophy of absurdity, that is, going through two stages of the religious experience (I forgot Kierkegaard's jargon): becoming a knight of resignation, and then becoming a knight of faith.

The former stage is shown in the stroy of Issac and Abraham when Abraham surrenders himself to God and sacrifices the thing he loves the most in his life. Kierkegaard says that this in itself is beyond the strength of most people; to sacrifice your defining purpose to your faith.

The latter stage is one that Kierkegaard says has most likely been achieved by only the most faithful of individuals like Abraham (who was regarded as the Father of Faith) and that is becoming a knight of faith, that is; to know with all certainty that you are going to willfully sacrifice your defining purpose, and be convinced that you will never get it back. For Abraham to climb the mountain without question and prepare to sacrifice Issac. But faith comes in when all of this hopelessness is certain and undeniable, and yet, one still believes, out of the absurdity of it all, that all will be well, that because through God all things are possible, even the absurd. That is what Kierkegaard considers to be faith and how he interprets the story. In a sort of Daoist sense, Kierkegaard considers the most strongest kind of faith and hope to be able to rise out of the strongest despair and hopelessness.


Btw Bienvenu, I seem to be an "infidel" does that mean I have no understanding or conception of what faith or the religious experience is?

[Virgil]

A parallel to what you are saying could be "the value we put on women who are stoned by their families in Islamic nations is not the value of fundamentalist Islamics".

If you were to see Abraham on the Mount holding a knife above his son BEFORE the angel stepped in, would you have run over to him and ripped the knife from his hand? Would you have done so even if he was screaming at the top of his lungs, "BUT GOD TOLD ME I HAD TO DO IT OR HE WOULD FORSAKE ME!!"

Personally, I would have thought the guy was absolutely blinkin' nuts and grabbed his hand anyway.

The morality of 4000 years ago (or however long ago it was) is not the morality of this day and age. While some of the Bible is a timeless guide to morality, this is a blight upon it. There is no positive moral lesson that can be taken from this story that is pertinent to this day and age.
Did you read my previous post where I said God was in the process of establishing the holy? I hear what you're saying. But like I said, God asked this of Abraham, not anyone else, and there was a reason for it. No this is not a blight. This is a precusor to Christ's sacrifice. Christ's sacrifice would not mean what it does without the Isaac story.


"BUT GOD TOLD ME I HAD TO DO IT OR HE WOULD FORSAKE ME!!"
I completely agree with you there. Anyone uttering that is wrong or crazy. God did not tell him to.

[Katy North]

Hmmm, I reread as you asked, and pondered this some more.

Perhaps you are saying that this marks a change, or a turning point in the morality of religion. Perhaps that god realized that this was the norm for these people before, and went about changing the norm for Abraham? From there, he went on to offering his son Jesus as a sacrifice so no man or creature would have to be sacrificed again?

In that context, it is indeed a more sympathetic point of view. An atheist professor of mine once preached on the immorality of this story, which left me very biased against it... especially since I became a mom...

I still do not believe that blind faith outweighs moral choice, but that portion of the Bible is much more sympathetic in that light. Thank you for pointing it out to me.

[Virgil]

How do modern believers interpret this famous episode from Genesis 22? Did Abraham do the right thing?




And the conventional, mainstream understanding of the tale is that unquestioning obedience is better than individual ethical action.

But is it?


I guess I missed your qualification on interpreting the story in the "modern" and "conventional, mainstream understanding." I think my implied point is that one can't do so. It is a specific story of a time and place with things that subsequently occur (the whole building of Judaism and the Christ sacrifice) that hinge on that event. To place it in the modern context, stripped of its theological significance, only brings on cognitive diisonance. It doesn't make sense in the modern sense. It only makes sense in its time and place.

[Virgil]

Hmmm, I reread as you asked, and pondered this some more.

Perhaps you are saying that this marks a change, or a turning point in the morality of religion. Perhaps that god realized that this was the norm for these people before, and went about changing the norm for Abraham? From there, he went on to offering his son Jesus as a sacrifice so no man or creature would have to be sacrificed again?


Yes, on the Jesus part. As to the norm before, that crossed my mind, but i don't know if that is a fact. The Phoenicians, who were also a semitic people, did practice child sacrifice, but i don't know if the pre-Israelites did.



In that context, it is indeed a more sympathetic point of view. An atheist professor of mine once preached on the immorality of this story, which left me very biased against it... especially since I became a mom...

I still do not believe that blind faith outweighs moral choice, but that portion of the Bible is much more sympathetic in that light. Thank you for pointing it out to me.
Like I said, I couldn't do it. I think your professor pulls the story into a modern context, and that's not fair, either to the story or to the theological significance. You're welcome, by the way. :)

[DanielBenoit]

As some clarification, I do not think Kierkegaard was writing in regards to the "morality" of the story, but rather in regards to its illustration of the concept of faith. Not only that, but of the incommunicability of extreme personal experience (such as religious experience). Abraham's experience of faith is beyond words, because in a sense, hope is beyond all logic.

[Katy North]

Yes, on the Jesus part. As to the norm before, that crossed my mind, but i don't know if that is a fact.

Perhaps not the norm, but perhaps it was one of gods ways to distinguish himself from the "false idols". Interesting.

[Virgil]

It appears that many cultures of the time in the near east practiced child sacrifice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sacrifice

And put in that context, one can also see that the Isaac story (a) certainly emphasizes God's compassion and (b) serves as a identity story for the Israelites (remember Abraham is patriarch) to distinguish themselves from the surrounding cultures. It becomes a story of how "we're different from them," since the practice for the Israelites becomes to sacrifice animals.

[Drkshadow03]

It appears that many cultures of the time in the near east practiced child sacrifice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sacrifice

And put in that context, one can also see that the Isaac story (a) certainly emphasizes God's compassion and (b) serves as a identity story for the Israelites (remember Abraham is patriarch) to distinguish themselves from the surrounding cultures. It becomes a story of how "we're different from them," since the practice for the Israelites becomes to sacrifice animals.

Yeah, as one entry of the wikipedia article on The Binding of Isaac mentions: according to Rabbi J. H. Hertz (Chief Rabbi of the British Empire), child sacrifice was actually "rife among the Semitic peoples," and suggests that "in that age, it was astounding that Abraham's God should have interposed to prevent the sacrifice, not that He should have asked for it."

I've listened to multiple lectures on Genesis from a Biblical Studies (read: literary, non-theological viewpoint) and I've read Hertz footnoted version of Torah and Haf-Torah. When we consider Hertz's view, shared by many secular Biblical scholars, that the story is centrally about the contrast of the Israelite G-d to the Canaanite child sacrifice, then the story takes on new dimensions that aren't as apparent to modern readers. In fact, the story is really progressive for its time: "Our G-d doesn't demand human sacrifices like those other gods because it's abhorrent."

Nevertheless, I never think there is only one thing going on any biblical story. This a story exemplifying the laws later in the Bible against human sacrifice found in Leviticus (such as Leviticus 18:21). I think the story events in Genesis always have a relational law found later in the Bible, as if Genesis were there to provide dramatic counterpart to these rituals, laws, and customs.

Also, Abraham's silence and lack of protest contrasts sharply with his earlier challenge of G-d's decision to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gommorah, which happens only a little while before.

[mona amon]

How do modern believers interpret this famous episode from Genesis 22? Did Abraham do the right thing?



Regards,

Istvan

Are we supposed to interpret it in terms of right and wrong? It's the story of the relationship between God and Abraham, and how God decided to test that relationship. Since there's no such direct relationship between God and any modern believer, I don't think we can draw any moral from it.

[Babbalanja]

Yeah, as one entry of the wikipedia article on The Binding of Isaac mentions: according to Rabbi J. H. Hertz (Chief Rabbi of the British Empire), child sacrifice was actually "rife among the Semitic peoples," and suggests that "in that age, it was astounding that Abraham's God should have interposed to prevent the sacrifice, not that He should have asked for it."So if human sacrifice was so common, why did Isaac ask where the animal for the sacrifice was? Are there any other OT references to human sacrifices?

And the logic of this revisionism isn't particularly consistent: In fact, the story is really progressive for its time: "Our G-d doesn't demand human sacrifices like those other gods because it's abhorrent." Let's not rewrite the Scripture. The fact of the matter is that God did demand a human sacrifice, and Abraham complied. The chapter explicitly states multiple times that God was pleased with Abraham's obedience. Whether Isaac was spared or not is incidental.

Regards,

Istvan

[Virgil]

So if human sacrifice was so common, why did Isaac ask where the animal for the sacrifice was? Are there any other OT references to human sacrifices?

And the logic of this revisionism isn't particularly consistent: In fact, the story is really progressive for its time: "Our G-d doesn't demand human sacrifices like those other gods because it's abhorrent." Let's not rewrite the Scripture. The fact of the matter is that God did demand a human sacrifice, and Abraham complied. The chapter explicitly states multiple times that God was pleased with Abraham's obedience. Whether Isaac was spared or not is incidental.

You know, Babba, you proved it again. You weren't here to have an honest discussion on the subject. You were completely disengenuous. You were here to undermine people's faith. Your sole purpose in life is to weaken and debase people's faith. That is not only fundementalist, that is despicable.


I would consider having a legitimate discussion concerning Biblical matters, but I have not experienced that environment at this site yet...therefore I would not make that attempt until I am sure that such a thread isn't another chance to ridicule one's religion.

You were right my friend, but I knew I could slam his ***. He's left looking like a complete schmuck in this thread. High five buddy.

[BienvenuJDC]

You were right my friend, but I knew I could slam his ***. He's left looking like a complete schmuck in this thread. High five buddy.

There are those who have no other agenda.

[Drkshadow03]

So if human sacrifice was so common, why did Isaac ask where the animal for the sacrifice was? Are there any other OT references to human sacrifices?

Uhm, how about the one I already mentioned in my previous post: Leviticus 18:21?

Let's face it that's already not a good start to a conversation as it demonstrates you didn't read what I wrote and were already thinking about your replies before you considered what I had to say.




And the logic of this revisionism isn't particularly consistent: In fact, the story is really progressive for its time: "Our G-d doesn't demand human sacrifices like those other gods because it's abhorrent." Let's not rewrite the Scripture. The fact of the matter is that God did demand a human sacrifice, and Abraham complied. The chapter explicitly states multiple times that God was pleased with Abraham's obedience. Whether Isaac was spared or not is incidental.

I don't think it's re-writing it at all. It's an attempt to consider it in its original cultural context. It's not meant to be a literal story. The audience at the time would've known about child-sacrifice of the Canaanite population, so the idea that G-d is asking Abraham to sacrifice Isaac would be more literary device to make the connection, only for G-d to step in and say not to do it.

Nevertheless, you're correct in the text repeats multiple times that G-d is happy with Abraham's obedience, and yes, I think it's being held up as a virtue that Abraham obeys G-d (and has faith), but I think this needs to be seen in the light of the previous Sodom and Gommorah story where Abraham questions G-d's judgement, as well as the entire narrative of Genesis being about testing the limits of the relationship G-d and human beings. As I already mentioned there is never a time when a Biblical narrative is merely doing one thing. They can be doing BOTH.

As far as a moral stance of a modern reader towards Abraham attempting to sacrifice his own child, clearly killing your own child is disgusting, but since this is a fictional account serving as a partially allegorical story (and the point is the symbolism of the events rather than their literalism) I have no real problem with it.

[Babbalanja]

You were completely disengenuous...Your sole purpose in life is to weaken and debase people's faith. That is not only fundementalist, that is despicable...You were right my friend, but I knew I could slam his ***. He's left looking like a complete schmuck in this thread. High five buddy.You should learn to control your temper. And your spelling.

Regards,

Istvan

[BienvenuJDC]

There will be a day that you understand the text. But will it be too late?

[Boo Radley]

There I wrote it. Political correctness gone mad. I refer to the donkey, not the protrusion that is evidently too rude. He rode on his ***.

[Boo Radley]

Why can't you write ***? Very silly.

[Virgil]

You should learn to control your temper. And your spelling.

Regards,

Istvan

You're right. I've had some pangs of conscience since earlier. Although I don't retract my criticism of you being disingenous and your attempts to undermine people's faith, I did go over the line in my gloating. It was hubristic and nasty. I publically apologize for that. No one deserves that. I'm sorry about it.

[kiki1982]

Your explanation was impressive, Virgil. And Modestproposal: thanks for the info.

[Katy North]

It is possible to learn about and better understand the beliefs of others without rejecting or undermining your own beliefs.

It is possible to accept other beliefs as having similar merits to your own while still being proud of your own religion.

If I could convert anyone to anything, it would be that. :nod:

[Janine]

This might be deviating a little but I still find it interesting. I happen to come across a reading of this poem by Wilfred Owens, who wrote poetry about the Second WW. It's a little different take on the story.


The Parable of the Old Man and the Young
by Wilfred Owen


So Abram rose, and clave the wood, and went,
And took the fire with him, and a knife.
And as they sojourned both of them together,
Isaac the first-born spake and said, My Father,
Behold the preparations, fire and iron,
But where the lamb for this burnt-offering?
Then Abram bound the youth with belts and straps,
and builded parapets and trenches there,
And stretchèd forth the knife to slay his son.
When lo! an angel called him out of heaven,
Saying, Lay not thy hand upon the lad,
Neither do anything to him. Behold,
A ram, caught in a thicket by its horns;
Offer the Ram of Pride instead of him.

But the old man would not so, but slew his son,
And half the seed of Europe, one by one.

Obviously, this was near the end of the war and I believe he's now referring to the Nazi's and Hitler. It's an interesting use of the story and makes one think.

The story in the Bible as told, has always fascinated me and at the same time disturbed me. I have to agree that it must have caused great fear in the son and I am not sure what other lasting effect that would have on one's psyche, if this story did really happen. I also can not imagine being able to slay one's own child. That is the part that definitely disturbs me both from the son and Abraham's perspective. I can see that this is a precursor to the death of Christ but that seems a ways off, am I right. The connection of the sacrifice of lambs is often stated in the Bible in relation to God and Christ's sacrifice. You brought up some interesting ideas in your post, Virgil.

I need to read more posts, just realised there are 2 more pages I missed. Sorry about that.

[Virgil]

Your explanation was impressive, Virgil. And Modestproposal: thanks for the info.
You're quite welcome.


This might be deviating a little but I still find it interesting. I happen to come across a reading of this poem by Wilfred Owens, who wrote poetry about the Second WW. It's a little different take on the story.



Obviously, this was near the end of the war and I believe he's now referring to the Nazi's and Hitler. It's an interesting use of the story and makes one think.

While that is a well written poem, it is out of pure cynacism, though given the war perhaps justifiably cynical. It's speaking to the state of Europe, not really to the biblical passage.


The story in the Bible as told, has always fascinated me and at the same time disturbed me. I have to agree that it must have caused great fear in the son and I am not sure what other lasting effect that would have on one's psyche, if this story did really happen. I also can not imagine being able to slay one's own child. That is the part that definitely disturbs me both from the son and Abraham's perspective. I can see that this is a precursor to the death of Christ but that seems a ways off, am I right. The connection of the sacrifice of lambs is often stated in the Bible in relation to God and Christ's sacrifice. You brought up some interesting ideas in your post, Virgil.

I need to read more posts, just realised there are 2 more pages I missed. Sorry about that.
I think the other pages are interesting too. Thanks.

[Janine]

You're quite welcome.


While that is a well written poem, it is out of pure cynacism, though given the war perhaps justifiably cynical. It's speaking to the state of Europe, not really to the biblical passage.


I think the other pages are interesting too. Thanks.

Virgil, did you ever read his poetry? I will send you some readings that are posted on YT.

[Virgil]

Virgil, did you ever read his poetry? I will send you some readings that are posted on YT.

Only here and there. I forgot to add in my last post, he's not referring to Hitler at all. He wrote that before the end of WWI (1918), and Hitler didn't become Chanclor until 1933 I think.

[kilted exile]

Only here and there. I forgot to add in my last post, he's not referring to Hitler at all. He wrote that before the end of WWI (1918), and Hitler didn't become Chanclor until 1933 I think.

Quite right Owen was one of the trench poets of the first world war

[Janine]

Only here and there. I forgot to add in my last post, he's not referring to Hitler at all. He wrote that before the end of WWI (1918), and Hitler didn't become Chanclor until 1933 I think.

Oh yeah, you are right. I got it confused because I have been watching "Band of Brothers" which deals with WWII. Owen was from the first WW. Well, that was a hellish war and I think it was only a week or two before the end of it that Owen died at a very young age. His poetry is pretty amazing. I will send the links when I can. I have really banned myself today from Litnet and have to go and rest again to get better.

[Lynne Fees]

Oh, wow, I am so glad you asked this. This was my absolutely least favorite Bible story as a child; it just did not fit into my view of God's character.
After I grew up and had kids, I understood it better. When my son was headed for West Point Military Academy, I went to a Bible study on this very chapter. I ended up a sobbing mess, after I go the true meaning of the passage. If Abraham could be faithful to the point of being willing to sacrifice his only son, I could let Chris go to war, or do anything else God required of me.
(My son didn't like West Point; he came back, but that's not the point.)
If you read the Old Testatment, over and over you will see that God criticized the other religions of the time which espoused child sacrifice. He would say, through His prophets, "This is something I did not require, nor did it ever even come to my mind."
Therefore, since Scripture does not contradict itself, we can see that God never really intended Abraham to go through with the murder of Isaac. It was only a test, and it was something know in Abraham's culture and would not have been considered nearly as horrible as we consider it now.

[sparechange]

Back to the original point of the thread, I think you must consider what has happened previously in Abraham's life. God has already supplied him with the groundwork for trust (faith) by supplying him with his hearts desire in his old age. A son. In this way God is the author as well as the finisher of Abrahams trust. Abraham is chosen for these moments by God.
A kingdom is the area under the authority of the king, no? In this story God's kingdom is established in Abrahams heart. It is a beautiful thing, don't you think? Abraham's faith is shown to be complete. God obviously knew what Abraham was going to do, even if Abraham didn't until the moment was at hand.