Did Abraham Know

[inquiringmind]

Did Abraham know that God wouldn't really let him kill Isaac?

Did he know that if God did let him kill Isaac, He would have to turn right around and bring him back to life?

Is that the meaning of Hebrews 11:17-19?

By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:

Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

[volgadon]

Did Abraham know? Absolutely not, that is the point of Hebrews 11:17-19. Abrahamhad faith that although he'd have to slay his son, God could restore him.

[Monster]

Maybe he failed the test. Maybe God was looking for his ability to say no to a blatant disregard for common sense and earlier commandments. Maybe God was just testing him to see if he was just a yes man. So Abraham was going to go through with it and God said OK I will give you a pat on the back for simple obedience but I was really looking for some backbone.

[Cobalt-70]

I think the statement in Hebrews is both (1) an attempt to shoehorn into the Abraham story a Jesus analogy, and (2) a post hoc rationalization of what Abraham did. Abraham was as zealous in trying to murder his son as any other religious zealot who thinks he can commit murder in God's name. His attempt at cold-blooded murder was perfectly acceptable in an Old Testament context in which gods command genocide and torture mortals on a wager. But since that is not the kind of God portrayed in the New Testament, the author of Hebrews had motive to make up a justification for Abraham's actions. It is not really murder, the author apparently thought, if you believe that God will resurrect the victim.

[zerinus]

Did Abraham know that God wouldn't really let him kill Isaac?

Did he know that if God did let him kill Isaac, He would have to turn right around and bring him back to life?

Is that the meaning of Hebrews 11:17-19?

By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:

Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

I think it means that he had faith in God that everything would be alright in the end, although he didn't know how.

[volgadon]

Abraham was as zealous in trying to murder his son as any other religious zealot who thinks he can commit murder in God's name.

You must have missed all the plodding verbs.

[Rivers]

Maybe he failed the test. Maybe God was looking for his ability to say no to a blatant disregard for common sense and earlier commandments. Maybe God was just testing him to see if he was just a yes man. So Abraham was going to go through with it and God said OK I will give you a pat on the back for simple obedience but I was really looking for some backbone.

If this is the case, Nephi also failed a test when he killed Laban.

[Grundelwalken]

I think the statement in Hebrews is both (1) an attempt to shoehorn into the Abraham story a Jesus analogy, and (2) a post hoc rationalization of what Abraham did. Abraham was as zealous in trying to murder his son as any other religious zealot who thinks he can commit murder in God's name. His attempt at cold-blooded murder was perfectly acceptable in an Old Testament context in which gods command genocide and torture mortals on a wager. But since that is not the kind of God portrayed in the New Testament, the author of Hebrews had motive to make up a justification for Abraham's actions. It is not really murder, the author apparently thought, if you believe that God will resurrect the victim.

Oh, ye of lacking faith! MW

[phaedrus ut]

There is nothing ethical about agreeing to kill a child. I don't admire Abraham for agreeing to murder his son. I admire people who stand up and protect the innocent especially children. Blind faith and a unwillingness to protect the innocent because of fear of authority is exactly why we are all repulsed by the Penn State abuse stories or Josh Powell murdering his innocent sons.

Should we admire Abraham's willingness to perform a child sacrifice in order to please his god? No

Phaedrus

[Kevin Christensen]

Relevant to any discussion of Abraham's willingness to obey the command to "offer" Isaac, from Genesis 22:

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.

That leaves the question of whether Abraham had any basis for saying that he and Isaac would return and that God would provide an offering. Nibley pointed out in the Sacrifice of Sarah that the theme of substitute sacrifice runs through Abraham's entire life. When he was a child, he was saved in that manner. Abraham 1 and Pseudo Philo tell of Abraham himself on the Altar. Twice Sarah has been on the lion couch, with her life in danger. So if there was one thing that Abraham ought to be able to figure out, it would be that in the course of his life, God provided substitutes in respect of the offering.

On the other hand, you could, I suppose, assume that here, Abraham is lying to facilitate the process of killing his son, and that with respect to the numerous experiences that we went through with God providing substitutes, that he was particularly dense.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Cobalt-70]

Oh, ye of lacking faith! MW

If the anonymous author Hebrews is right that it is a good thing to have sufficient faith to commit murder in the name of God, then I'm happy not to have that kind of faith. That's the last kind of faith that we need in this post-9/11 society.

[Cobalt-70]

Relevant to any discussion of Abraham's willingness to obey the command to "offer" Isaac, from Genesis 22:

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.

That leaves the question of whether Abraham had any basis for saying that he and Isaac would return and that God would provide an offering. Nibley pointed out in the Sacrifice of Sarah that the theme of substitute sacrifice runs through Abraham's entire life. When he was a child, he was saved in that manner. Abraham 1 and Pseudo Philo tell of Abraham himself on the Altar. Twice Sarah has been on the lion couch, with her life in danger. So if there was one thing that Abraham ought to be able to figure out, it would be that in the course of his life, God provided substitutes in respect of the offering.

On the other hand, you could, I suppose, assume that here, Abraham is lying to facilitate the process of killing his son, and that with respect to the numerous experiences that we went through with God providing substitutes, that he was particularly dense.

The idea that Abraham might have known or suspected that God was being disingenuous when he commanded Abraham to commit a human sacrifice works against what the author of Hebrews was saying. If Abraham knew of God's deception, then he would not have had to exercise faith.

[Glenn101]

If the anonymous author Hebrews is right that it is a good thing to have sufficient faith to commit murder in the name of God, then I'm happy not to have that kind of faith. That's the last kind of faith that we need in this post-9/11 society.

Please share with us the last time that God spoke to you.

Glenn

[altersteve]

If the anonymous author Hebrews is right that it is a good thing to have sufficient faith to commit murder in the name of God, then I'm happy not to have that kind of faith. That's the last kind of faith that we need in this post-9/11 society.

If God commands it, then it's not murder. God was teaching Abraham about the Atonement (what it would be like to see it from the Father's perspective), and Abraham also learned other principles regarding this when he was almost sacrificed (from the Son's perspective). There are a lot of deep theological allegories here.

[Kevin Christensen]

The idea that Abraham might have known or suspected that God was being disingenuous when he commanded Abraham to commit a human sacrifice works against what the author of Hebrews was saying. If Abraham knew of God's deception, then he would not have had to exercise faith.

A command to "offer" is not the same as a command to "rip his beating heart from his chest and take a bite, and then, and only then, will I be satisfied." A command to offer, understood as a command to offer received in light of Abraham's and Sarah's many personal experiences with making such real offerings, does not strike me as disingenuous. Given Abraham's direct comments about what was about to happen, as we have them in Gen 22, it seems to me like the communication was received and understood.

But to take an Olympic metaphor, just because an athlete has successfully done a balance beam routine before, and has faith in the outcome, does not mean that the outcome is certain. Any step taken towards the future necessarily involves faith, which the author of Hebrews famously describes as "the evidence of things not seen."

It happens that a lot of the interpretation of the story of Abraham and Isaac involves personal projection into the text rather than close reading and broad contextualization.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[USU78]

If this is the case, Nephi also failed a test when he killed Laban.

And JSJr when he married all those other women.

[Cobalt-70]

If God commands it, then it's not murder. God was teaching Abraham about the Atonement (what it would be like to see it from the Father's perspective), and Abraham also learned other principles regarding this when he was almost sacrificed (from the Son's perspective). There are a lot of deep theological allegories here.

It's still murder, just murder that was justified by the Old Testament's whacked-out ethical theology. There are many great and religiously-meaningful parts of the Abraham myth, including the parts added by Joseph Smith, but this is the one part that I think that Mormonism can do without. Every Mormon should agree that if you think God has commanded you to kill somebody in cold blood as a human sacrifice, you're wrong. And even if you are right, God is wrong, and maybe you should stop being such a "yes man" when God gives you an unconscionable order.

Edited August 8, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[USU78]

It's still murder, just murder that was justified by the Old Testament's whacked-out ethical theology. There are many great and religiously-meaningful parts of the Abraham myth, including the parts added by Joseph Smith, but this is the one part that I think that Mormonism can do without. Every Mormon should agree that if you think God has commanded you to kill somebody in cold blood as a human sacrifice, you're wrong.

Presentism: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/presentism

It's not bad to be guilty of it unknowing, since sometimes we don't know how unfairly we judge the unfamiliar . . . once we become educated on the subject, however, it is incumbent upon us to adjust our thinking.

[Cobalt-70]

A command to "offer" is not the same as a command to "rip his beating heart from his chest and take a bite, and then, and only then, will I be satisfied." A command to offer, understood as a command to offer received in light of Abraham's and Sarah's many personal experiences with making such real offerings, does not strike me as disingenuous. Given Abraham's direct comments about what was about to happen, as we have them in Gen 22, it seems to me like the communication was received and understood.

I don't think it's correct to shoehorn in the English connotations of the word "offer" into this originally-Hebrew text. The word "offer" was the choice of the KJV people, but the word (עָלָה) translated as "offer" literally means "ascend." I like Young's Literal Translation the best, which says, "and cause him to ascend there for a burnt-offering...." In a burnt offering, it was imagined that the sacrificial animal ascended up to God via the smoke. So God was commanding Abraham to actually burn his son as a sacrifice.

[Cobalt-70]

Presentism: http://www.merriam-w...ary/presentism

It's not bad to be guilty of it unknowing, since sometimes we don't know how unfairly we judge the unfamiliar . . . once we become educated on the subject, however, it is incumbent upon us to adjust our thinking.

My problem is not with Abraham. The myth of Isaac's sacrifice was not that shocking in the context of Bronze age Hebrew philosophy. My problem is with anyone today who thinks that the ethical solution promoted by Genesis 22 and Hebrews 11 has any relevance in modern times, other than as an example of which parts of the bible we should ignore.

Edited August 8, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[USU78]

My problem is not with Abraham. The myth of Isaac's sacrifice was not that shocking in the context of Bronze age Hebrew philosophy. My problem is with anyone today who thinks that the ethical solution promoted by Genesis 22 and Hebrews 11 has any relevance in modern times, other than as an example of which parts of the bible we should ignore.

Couldn't disagree more. Sometimes life presents us with insoluble problems . . . things whose solutions are, indeed, so horrible, given what we that we always knew, that to pursue solutions we come to see as being right in a particular instance breaks our hearts and makes us question everything about ourselves and our existence. In such times, we put ourselves entirely in G-d's hands, trusting that He knows better than we . . . Nephi's solution to the Laban problem was one such . . . it broke his heart and changed him forever, yet he knew G-d expected from him acts abhorrent to him.

He sees things differently than we do.

We cannot always assume that our moral sense makes sense in such times.

Trusting Him, casting aside our egos, is all that we can do.

You find this to be irrelevant to XXIst Century lives?

Couldn't disagree more, having lived through some tough, tough times.

[volgadon]

Couldn't disagree more. Sometimes life presents us with insoluble problems . . . things whose solutions are, indeed, so horrible, given what we that we always knew, that to pursue solutions we come to see as being right in a particular instance breaks our hearts and makes us question everything about ourselves and our existence. In such times, we put ourselves entirely in G-d's hands, trusting that He knows better than we . . . Nephi's solution to the Laban problem was one such . . . it broke his heart and changed him forever, yet he knew G-d expected from him acts abhorrent to him.

My kid brother shared an experience from a few weeks ago. As part of a youth program he is in, he got to see a high-ranking military official speak to the group. The officer posed a dillema, based on real-life situations. A rocket has hit a military post. There are three people critically wounded, but with a chance to survive. The post's commanding officer, with a wife and three young children; his secretary, who got married to her husband about a month ago; a young medic, single. The helicopter can only evacuate two people. You are the officer in charge of the evacuation operation, who do you save? If you save the officer and secretary, should the medic die because he is an unmarried male? If you save the officer and the medic, is the secretary's life woth less because her role isn't as important as those of the other two? If you save the secretary and the medic, you've made three orphans and placed an intolerable burden on a mother.

My brother said that the officer explained that no answers here are right, no answers are wrong either. No matter what choice you make, you've effectively sentenced a person to death. It becomes worse if one of the people you've saved dies enroute to the hospital.

This is one of the "nicer" dillemas out there.

[Monster]

My problem is not with Abraham. The myth of Isaac's sacrifice was not that shocking in the context of Bronze age Hebrew philosophy. My problem is with anyone today who thinks that the ethical solution promoted by Genesis 22 and Hebrews 11 has any relevance in modern times, other than as an example of which parts of the bible we should ignore.

Well said. To use this as an example of obedience in todays world is immoral.

[Cobalt-70]

My kid brother shared an experience from a few weeks ago. As part of a youth program he is in, he got to see a high-ranking military official speak to the group. The officer posed a dillema, based on real-life situations. A rocket has hit a military post. There are three people critically wounded, but with a chance to survive. The post's commanding officer, with a wife and three young children; his secretary, who got married to her husband about a month ago; a young medic, single. The helicopter can only evacuate two people. You are the officer in charge of the evacuation operation, who do you save? If you save the officer and secretary, should the medic die because he is an unmarried male? If you save the officer and the medic, is the secretary's life woth less because her role isn't as important as those of the other two? If you save the secretary and the medic, you've made three orphans and placed an intolerable burden on a mother.

My brother said that the officer explained that no answers here are right, no answers are wrong either. No matter what choice you make, you've effectively sentenced a person to death. It becomes worse if one of the people you've saved dies enroute to the hospital.

This is one of the "nicer" dillemas out there.

But this is apples an oranges. It's one thing to choose who to save among limited options. It's quite another to put an innocent child on an altar, slit his throat, and burn his body because you think that God told you to do so. Nobody's life would have been saved had Abraham followed through with his human sacrifice.

[Cobalt-70]

Couldn't disagree more. Sometimes life presents us with insoluble problems . . . things whose solutions are, indeed, so horrible, given what we that we always knew, that to pursue solutions we come to see as being right in a particular instance breaks our hearts and makes us question everything about ourselves and our existence. In such times, we put ourselves entirely in G-d's hands, trusting that He knows better than we . . . Nephi's solution to the Laban problem was one such . . . it broke his heart and changed him forever, yet he knew G-d expected from him acts abhorrent to him.

If you "put yourself in God's hands" by committing an atrocity you are not really trusting so much in God, as you are trusting in your own ability to interpret God's will.

He sees things differently than we do.

We cannot always assume that our moral sense makes sense in such times.

Trusting Him, casting aside our egos, is all that we can do.

You find this to be irrelevant to XXIst Century lives?

Absolutely. Abraham's kind of thinking is what gave us the Mountain Meadows massacre, the Lafferty brothers, and 9/11. In modern society, there is no situation where a person should feel justified in performing a cold-blooded killing, even if they think that God commanded it.