Did Abraham Know

[altersteve]

Cobalt, I see so many flaws with your point of view that I'm not even going to point them out. So let's just agree to disagree.

[Ron Beron]

While such an action today would be considered murder and heinous murder at that there are several points that mitigate Abraham's actions:

• The assumption made here is that Isaac acted with his father out of sheer ignorance, but a Jewish Midrash states that Isaac was not a boy, but a young man in his twenties or thirties and did so willingly. Like his father Isaac believed that God would provide his escape:

  Rabbi Isaac said: At the moment that Abraham sought to bind his son Isaac, he said to him, "Father, I am a young man and I am fearful that my body will tremble out of fear of the knife and I cause you sorrow, so that the slaughter will be rendered unfit and this will not be accredited to you as a sacrifice. Therefore, bind me very tightly." Immediately he bound his son Isaac . Can one bind a man thirty seven years old without his consent (Gen. Rabbah. 56:

• The historical context of the time accepted the sacrifice of a first born child. Whilst unusual the Hebrew people were commanded to sacrifice their first born. " Exodus 22:29 “Do not hold back offerings from your granaries or your vats.You must give me the firstborn of your sons. 22:30 You must also do this for your oxen and for your sheep; seven days they may remain with their mothers, but give them to me on the eighth day." Ezekiel later discusses where the Lord gave laws that were at one time unjust. "20:25 I also gavethem decreeswhich were not good and regulations by which they could not live. 20:26 I declared them to be defiled because of their sacrifices – they caused all their first born to pass through the fire – so that I would devastate them, so that they will know that I am the Lord.’^"
  
• God also gave an "out". In Exodus 34:20 God states, "Now the firstling⁴¹ of a donkey you may redeem with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, then break its neck. You must redeem all the firstborn of your sons." and Exodus 13, "The Lord spoketo Moses: 13:2 “Set apart to me every firstborn male – the first offspring of every wombamong the Israelites, whether human or animal; it is mine.”
  
• Abraham knew that he and Isaac would walk away from this through prophecy. 22:5 So hesaid to his servants, “You two stayhere with the donkey whilethe boy and I go up there. We will worship and then return to you.”The medieval commentator Rashi stated that Abraham, "...prophesied that both of them would return."
  
• Jon Levenson states in his book, "The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity", that

  "Abraham does not give up his son through sacrifice, he gives him nonetheless--to the God who gave Isaac life, ordered him slaughtered, and finally grants him his exalted role in the divine plan. The aqedah (sacrifice) is not only about the aversion a a child sacrifice. It is also about the profound and sublime meaning the cultic norm that the beloved son belongs to God: 'You shall give Me the first-born among your sons'. Ex. 22:28

EDIT...I want to mention a further insight that delves into the mythic dimensions of the beginnings of religion. All religions have begun with a sacrifice. It cements the living with the cosmic nature of deity. While it doesn't let the gruesome nature of the origins of Judaism off the hook it does explain it through a mythic archetype.

Edited August 9, 2012 by Ron Beron

[Kevin Christensen]

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.

This is a valid observation. However, if Abraham understood the command at face value (in spite of his many personal experiences with substitutes being provided), it still does not account for what Abraham says in Gen. 22.

And saying that Abraham was engaged in either fanaticism or blind obedience overlooks another key story about Abraham. Far from demonstrating blind obedience to whatever God asked, Abraham was one who asked "Why?" And not just rhetorically to a silent heaven, but to a God that spoke directly to him. His attempt at understanding the judgement against Sodom being a case in point. He pleads for Sodom. Why not for his own own son, unless, as Gen. 22 depicts, he did actually understand what would happen?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited August 13, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[USU78]

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.

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.

Why do I hear the echoes of the feet of the armies of Antiochus Epiphanes? Knowing, as they did, that the defilement of the body via circumcision was a bad thing, any notion of personal liberty had to give way to the ultimate good of a sound mind in a sound body for every subject of the Hellenistic State.

Yet every Jew knew, and knows today, that G-d's covenant with His people is conditioned upon the circumcision of every male child at 8 days old throughout all generations.

These two antithetical notions led to bloody impositions by the state and bloody revolution from state control.

Life sometimes requires hard, occasionally terrible, things from us, as volgadon has so beautifully demonstrated.

Sometimes you have to kill Laban, though it breaks your heart and scars you forever. 99.99999% of your life is lived within the safe bounds of "normal," where G-d's law as understood by most if not all of us holds. In that 0.00001% of our lives, extraordinary and terrible TRVTHs are revealed at times and in circumstances where the stakes are enormous and the risks unimaginable.

In the movie, Troy, Achilles tells Briseis that the g-ds actually envy man the brevity of his life and the intensity of his experiences. If normal life is so precious, how much more precious the 0.00001%?

That's what makes Nephi's choice to follow G-d's will against his own such a transcendent thing.

And Abraham's near-sacrifice of Isaac.

[Cobalt-70]

This is a valid observation. However, if Abraham understood the command at face value (in spite of his many personal experiences with substitutes being provided), it still does not account for what Abraham says in Gen. 22.

And saying that Abraham was engaged in either fanaticism or blind obedience overlooks another key story about Abraham. Far from demonstrating blind obedience to whatever God asked, Abraham was one who asked "Why?" And not just rhetorically to a silent heaven, but to a God that spoke directly to him. His attempt at understanding the judgement against Sodom being a case in point. He pleads for Sodom. Why not for his own own son, unless, as Gen. 22 depicts, he did actually understand what would happen.

Where does Abraham say "Why?" in Genesis 22? In verse 2, Elohim tells him to take his son to the land of Moriah and burn him as an offering. Abraham's only response, in verse 3, is load his *** up with chopped wood and head off with his son and his slaves to Moriah. Abraham doesn't seem to push back at all as to Elohim's diabolical order. So that makes all the more contrast to his bargaining with YHWH on the issue of how many righteous people in Sodom and Gomorrah it would take before YHWH would save those cities. Clearly the god of Abraham, though sometimes cruel, malevolent, and devious, was capable of being reasoned with. So why didn't Abraham try to change the mind of Elohim when Elohim commanded Abraham to commit a human sacrifice.

Perhaps it is because Elohim, the God that commanded Abraham to commit a human sacrifice, was technically a slightly different god from YHWH, the God who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. These two stories are from different Hebrew denominations, and are in the same bible, and part of the same religion, only because some priests in the Josiah era blended them together into the same book. Actually, a lot of modern scholars think that in the sacrifice story as originally told (as recorded by the Elohist), Isaac was actually successfully sacrificed. However, later editors invented the "way out" in order to harmonize the sacrifice story with the writings of the Jahwist, who had already recounted myths involving Isaac as a Hebrew ancestor. So they had to find a way to make him survive in the storyline.

[Ron Beron]

'Cobalt-70'

In verse 2, Elohim tells him to take his son to the land of Moriah and burn him as an offering. Abraham's only response, in verse 3, is load his *** up with chopped wood and head off with his son and his slaves to Moriah. Abraham doesn't seem to push back at all as to Elohim's diabolical order.

You are missing the subtext in the chapter. Abraham took three days to travel to Mt. Moriah while normally in should have taken only an afternoon. The scriptures show he was delaying the inevitable. Since Beer Sheba was about 46 miles from Jerusalem and an average man could walk at least 40 miles in a day it would seem that Abraham took his time.

Actually, a lot of modern scholars think that in the sacrifice story as originally told (as recorded by the Elohist), Isaac was actually successfully sacrificed. However, later editors invented the "way out" in order to harmonize the sacrifice story with the writings of the Jahwist, who had already recounted myths involving Isaac as a Hebrew ancestor. So they had to find a way to make him survive in the storyline.

Not so much modern scholars or theorists, but medieval rabbinic academics who felt that Isaac was variously sacrificed and restored or wounded and healed in Eden.

[rodheadlee]

ok i'll try and mumble through this. God was testing Abraham's faith regarding the promise that through Issac his seed would be called. That through Issac his seed should be numbered as the sand on the shore or thb stars in the sky. In Genisis 21 God says:

12 ¶ And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in ^aIsaac shall thy ^bseed be called.

This is long before God tells Abraham to take Issac up the mountain. So Abraham already has the promise that Issac will be fruitful and multiply so he figures God will supply the sacrifice or raise Issac from the dead to fullfil promises already made.

I could look up more of those promises but i'm doing the dishes. One of you scholar types can prolly rip them off from memory..

[wenglund]

I can't read Abraham's mind. Sorry.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[volgadon]

USU, I can't think of a more poignant and compelling retelling of the Binding of Isaac than the piyut "Et Shaarei Ratzon" (When the Gates of Acceptance). Sung during the Days of Awe by the Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews, the song was written by the 12th c. poet, Yehudah ibn Abbas. The deeply personal note reflects the author's own tragedy- his son converted to Islam.

Ibn Abbas used "the Binder, the Bound, and the Altar," a recurring refrain at the end of each verse to reinforce in the worshippers the centrality of three things in this drama, Abraha, Isaac and the worship of God. This is tied to the penitent's request for God's mercy to remember the "Binder, the Bound, and the Altar," to save his children both as individuals and as a nation, but it is interesting that the poet actually pushes God's involvment to the background, focusing on Abraham's response to God's call and his love for Isaac. One of the verses contains the line, "That son which Sarah bore you/ IF your soul has become deeply attached to him/ Arise, and offer him up unto me a pure burnt offering..." The key here is the word "if." Abraham is not some stern, wild-eyed zealot rushing to shed blood at the first whisperings of his deranged mind, he is a man deeply attached to his son with all the fiber of his being, faced with a parent and spouse's worst possible nightmare. One of the verses is an incredibly powerful portrayal of the conflicting emotions Abraham and Isaac faced. "He prepared wood for the burnt offering in might and strength/ Binding Isaac as he would bind a ram/ And the light of day was darkness in their eyes/ And the multitude of his tears flowed mightily/ An eye bitterly weeping and a joyous heart/ The Binder, the Bound, and the Altar." After Isaac movingly worries about the fate of his mother, the angels are in a tumult of emotion, pleading with God to provide a substitute, "let not the world be without its moon." This is the moment when Abraham and Isaac have transcended their own selves, being transformed into men of cosmic magnitude. God stops the trial, and dismisses the angels, saying, "This is a day of merit for the children of Jerusalem/ In it I open the gates of compassion..." The piyut closes with a plea from the worshippers. "For your covenant's sake, Dweller in the Zebul, and for the oath/ Remember this for a tempest-tossed and afflicted congregation/ And hear the Tekiah, Tokeah, and Teruah/ And tell Zion that the time of redemption has come/ Yinon and Elias I am sending/ The Binder, the Bound and the Altar." Tekiah, Tokeah, and Teruah are the various blasts sounded on the shofar, which is meant to commemorate the horn of the substitute ram. Yinon is one of the Messiah's names, but it is by virtue of both Abraham and Isaac's act, and the way their descendants cherish it that helps hasten redemption. Among many of the Berber Jewish communities in Morocco, this piyut was sung when a woman went into labour. Women even called the pains of childbirth their Akedah. Can't blame them, modern medicine, including painkillers, hadn't made its way into the harsh, rugged Atlas mountains, and mortality rates were high, but of all things, why pick the Akedah to identify with? Apart from imagery of labour pains found in Jewish descriptions of the Messiah's advent, the story is about finding the faith to become more than yourself in times of the worst hardship, also it tells of how the ancestor's merit will aid their descendants in time of need, and that God will provide blessings beyond their wildest dreams to those that overcome trials.

All incredibly immoral in this enlightened day and age, right?

[USU78]

All incredibly immoral in this enlightened day and age, right?

I'm sorry . . . I can't read this last line of yours with these tears blocking my sight.

[volgadon]

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.

One of the nicer dilemmas, as I've said. Nobody'slife would have been saved, hmm, have you read Philo of Byblos?

[volgadon]

other than as an example of which parts of the bible we should ignore.

I never cease to be amazed by such a narrow outlook.

[Cobalt-70]

One of the nicer dilemmas, as I've said. Nobody'slife would have been saved, hmm, have you read Philo of Byblos?

Are you talking about his description of child sacrifices by the Phoenicians? I still don't see how the fact that the Phoenicians did it makes Abraham a role model for 21st century Mormon morality. Do you really think that human sacrifices by the Phoenicians saved Phoenician lives? And even if they did, I personally could not be a part of any ethical system that justifies the ritual sacrifice of a human child. Let my kingdom perish--I will not slit the throat of an innocent child. How anyone could, and feel like it's the right thing to do, is unfathomable to me.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Ron Beron]

Are you talking about his description of child sacrifices by the Phoenicians? I still don't see how the fact that the Phoenicians did it makes Abraham a role model for 21st century Mormon morality. Do you really think that human sacrifices by the Phoenicians saved Phoenician lives? And even if they did, I personally could not be a part of any ethical system that justifies the ritual sacrifice of a human child. Let my kingdom perish--I will not slit the throat of an innocent child. How anyone could, and feel like it's the right thing to do, is unfathomable to me.

It amazes me that we can take this so literally. Why can't we read it in the obverse. Abraham didn't want to sacrifice Isaac, but he felt he was commanded by God and probably felt let down because he believed God had commanded to not sacrifice our children, yet the Bible is full of paradoxes. At one point we are commanded to give our first-born children, but in another passage we are commanded to offer another in proxy for the first. If we are seeking for examples of God's commands in allegorical action then we should look no further than this chapter.

[Cobalt-70]

It amazes me that we can take this so literally. Why can't we read it in the obverse. Abraham didn't want to sacrifice Isaac, but he felt he was commanded by God and probably felt let down because he believed God had commanded to not sacrifice our children, yet the Bible is full of paradoxes. At one point we are commanded to give our first-born children, but in another passage we are commanded to offer another in proxy for the first. If we are seeking for examples of God's commands in allegorical action then we should look no further than this chapter.

There's no reason to think that the bronze age Palestinians alive when the Abraham myth was formulated, or their Hebrew descendants, would have taken it any way other than literally. As volgadon mentioned, it was customary for these people to perform human sacrifices to El, so why should the mythical Abraham have thought that commandment unusual? There was no Ten Commandments. It was just pure and simple a commandment of God to commit a human sacrifice. There's no moral or ethical lesson to be learned, because nobody in the Western world actually worships the murderous pagan god of Abraham.

[USU78]

There's no reason to think that the bronze age Palestinians alive when the Abraham myth was formulated, or their Hebrew descendants, would have taken it any way other than literally. As volgadon mentioned, it was customary for these people to perform human sacrifices to El, so why should the mythical Abraham have thought that commandment unusual? There was no Ten Commandments. It was just pure and simple a commandment of God to commit a human sacrifice. There's no moral or ethical lesson to be learned, because nobody in the Western world actually worships the murderous pagan god of Abraham.

Presentist trendylefty anachronistic yet highly revelatory.

[Ron Beron]

'Cobalt-70'

There's no reason to think that the bronze age Palestinians alive when the Abraham myth was formulated, or their Hebrew descendants, would have taken it any way other than literally.

First of all, the term Palestine is a 20th century construct and doesn't reflect the world scene of Abraham. More probably there were only proto-Israelites and Levantine peoples. And what was history? Did the Greeks believe their myths? To some degree they did, but primarily they saw them as allegorical. Paul Veyne in "Did the Greeks Believe in their Myths?" writes that truth is not found, but created. Myths and legends, while historically untrue still teach truth regardless of the reprehensibility to our modern mind. I personally don't believe they found the stories historically literal, but literally truthful in their construct, but in their historical substance. In much the same way the Greeks saw the story of Theseus and the Minotaur as a legend which had been elaborately rationalized as is illustrated in the story of Balaam and his donkey.

As volgadon mentioned, it was customary for these people to perform human sacrifices to El, so why should the mythical Abraham have thought that commandment unusual?

While there were sacrifices, as was common among all peoples, the inclusion of the Abraham/Isaac story was, I believe, more cautionary than historical. It comes down to what, at least in the eyes of ancient Jew, what was historical or not. Wm Dever in "What Did the Biblical Writers Know & When Did they Know It?" writes,

"Literature isthe product of the creative, intellectual imagination of a very few,.... Literature if largely fiction, even if it is sometime 'historicized,' as in much of the biblical narrative.... Despite the fact that literature is not a direct refection of reality, it is deliberately 'intentional.' It is (a) written for a specific audience, however limited; and (b) intended to communicate a certain vision of reality, primarily the 'inner reality' of the author's experience, but inevitably reflecting at least something oft he external world. It both reflects and refracts a vision of reality, perhaps transcending history, but not thereby obliterating it."

There was no Ten Commandments. It was just pure and simple a commandment of God to commit a human sacrifice. There's no moral or ethical lesson to be learned, because nobody in the Western world actually worships the murderous pagan god of Abraham.

Of course, there was a lesson to be learned.

One, God forbids human sacrifice in preference to a substitute redemption of chattel.

Second, the moral lesson is quite clear. In Søren Kierkegaard's book, Fear and Trembling, "Infinite resignation is the last stage before faith, so anyone who has not made this movement does not have faith, for only in infinite resignation does an individual become conscious of his eternal validity, and only then can one speak of grasping existence by virtue of faith." Abraham's challenge whether historical or not was the ultimate test of his faith and as such reflects on the strength of our own faith. Mere faith is not enough one must be willing to resign oneself to God's commands and be willing to sacrifice everything for their love of God.

Third, Christians saw this allegory as archetype of Jesus' death and helped them rationalize the ultimate love of God. In Melvin Ballard's 1949 talk, "The Sacramental Covenant" he writes of this love of God for his children in the sacrifice of his son.

Our Father in Heaven went through all that and more, for in his case the hand was not stayed. He loved his Son, Jesus Christ, better than Abraham ever loved Isaac, for our Father had with him his Son, our Redeemer, in the eternal worlds, faithful and true for ages, standing in a place of trust and honor, and the Father loved him dearly, and yet he allowed this well-beloved Son to descend from his place of glory and honor, where millions did him homage, down to the earth, a condescension that is not within the power of man to conceive. He came to receive the insult, the abuse, and the crown of thorns. God heard the cry of his Son in that moment of great grief and agony, in the garden when, it is said, the pores of his body opened and drops of blood stood upon him, and he cried out: “Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me.”

I ask you, what father and mother could stand by and listen to the cry of their children in distress, in this world, and not render aid and assistance? I have heard of mothers throwing themselves into raging streams when they could not swim a stroke to save their drowning children, rushing into burning buildings, to rescue those whom they loved.

We cannot stand by and listen to those cries without its touching our hearts. The Lord has not given us the power to save our own. He has given us faith, and we submit to the inevitable, but he had the power to save, and he loved his Son, and he could have saved him. He might have rescued him from the insult of the crowds. He might have rescued him when the crown of thorns was placed upon his head. He might have rescued him when the Son, hanging between the two thieves, was mocked with, “Save thyself, and come down from the cross. He saved others; himself he cannot save.” He listened to all this. He saw that Son condemned; he saw him drag the cross through the streets of Jerusalem and faint under its load. He saw that Son finally upon Calvary; he saw his body stretched out upon the wooden cross; he saw the cruel nails driven through hands and feet, and the blows that broke the skin, tore the flesh, and let out the life’s blood of his Son. He looked upon that.

In the case of our Father, the knife was not stayed, but it fell, and the life’s blood of his Beloved Son went out. His Father looked on with great grief and agony over his Beloved Son, until there seems to have come a moment when even our Savior cried out in despair: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

In that hour I think I can see our dear Father behind the veil looking upon these dying struggles until even he could not endure it any longer; and, like the mother who bids farewell to her dying child, has to be taken out of the room, so as not to look upon the last struggles, so he bowed his head, and hid in some part of his universe, his great heart almost breaking for the love that he had for his Son. Oh, in that moment when he might have saved his Son, I thank him and praise him that he did not fail us, for he had not only the love of his Son in mind, but he also had love for us. I rejoice that he did not interfere, and that his love for us made it possible for him to endure to look upon the sufferings of his Son and give him finally to us, our Savior and our Redeemer. Without him, without his sacrifice, we would have remained, and we would never have come glorified into his presence. And so this is what it cost, in part, for our Father in Heaven to give the gift of his Son unto men.

Fourth, God forgives his children. In the Jewish Encyclopedia it states that the sacrifice is a "remembrance of the incident by God is believed to be a sure guaranty of His forgiveness of the sins of Israel"

Edited August 14, 2012 by Ron Beron

[KevinG]

When God asks you if you trust him enough to place your most beloved treasures or relationships in the alter of His hands what will you do?

This is the point of Abraham's sacrifice and story.

[Cobalt-70]

First of all, the term Palestine is a 20th century construct and doesn't reflect the world scene of Abraham.

I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I was just referring to the people who were living in what we now call Palestine, which included several different cultures. I don't think we really know for sure which culture(s) from that era were the ancestors of the Hebrews, or which cultures invented the Abraham myth, or if that myth was based on a real tribal leader.

Of course, there was a lesson to be learned.

One, God forbids human sacrifice in preference to a substitute redemption of chattel.

Second, the moral lesson is quite clear. In Søren Kierkegaard's book, Fear and Trembling, "Infinite resignation is the last stage before faith, so anyone who has not made this movement does not have faith, for only in infinite resignation does an individual become conscious of his eternal validity, and only then can one speak of grasping existence by virtue of faith." Abraham's challenge whether historical or not was the ultimate test of his faith and as such reflects on the strength of our own faith. Mere faith is not enough one must be willing to resign oneself to God's commands and be willing to sacrifice everything for their love of God.

Third, Christians saw this allegory as archetype of Jesus' death and helped them rationalize the ultimate love of God. In Melvin Ballard's 1949 talk, "The Sacramental Covenant" he writes of this love of God for his children in the sacrifice of his son.

That is a very de-contextualized and de-historicized lesson, cobbled from multiple time periods and glossed with a modern Christian sensibility. When the Abraham myth was created, the Hebrew/Caanite king god did not forbid human sacrifice. In fact, he and his pantheon commanded human sacrifice among the Phoenicians and other cultures who worshiped them, including the Hebrews themselves down until at least the time of Josiah. Thus, the lesson you have suggested would have been lost on a pre-Captivity Levantine. To the Elohist-era Hebrews, the myth was just an explanation for why Abraham merited his status as the father of the Hebrew nation: because he was willing to slit the throat of his only heir and offer his smoke as a gift to the Hebrew king god.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Ron Beron]

'Cobalt-70'

I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I was just referring to the people who were living in what we now call Palestine, which included several different cultures. I don't think we really know for sure which culture(s) from that era were the ancestors of the Hebrews, or which cultures invented the Abraham myth, or if that myth was based on a real tribal leader.

Dever suggest that they were, in fact, Canaanite peoples mixed with a Hyksos type people immigrating back from Egypt. We know that they were Semitic and were related to what are now the Syrians.

When the Abraham myth was created, the Hebrew/Caanite king god did not forbid human sacrifice. In fact, he and his pantheon commanded human sacrifice among the Phoenicians and other cultures who worshiped them, including the Hebrews themselves down until at least the time of Josiah.

I will agree that child sacrifice did exist it existed not by commandment, but by individuals who were apostate from the dictates of the laws of God and perceived sacrifice through the lens of the other cultures that surrounded Israel, aka the Greeks, etc. Exodus specifically calls for the sacrifice of the first born, but allows for a substitute creature to be used. It is easy to see that many non-Hebrew cultures engaged in human sacrifice, but there is little if any evidence of child sacrifice among the Hebrews. Can you show where God in the OT commanded such sacrifice?

Thus, the lesson you have suggested would have been lost on a pre-Captivity Levantine. To the Elohist-era Hebrews, the myth was just an explanation for why Abraham merited his status as the father of the Hebrew nation: because he was willing to slit the throat of his only heir and offer his smoke as a gift to the Hebrew king god.

I am really confused by your usage of the god-king. God-king and God are not synonymous and mean entirely different things. Also, I think that your explanation of why Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son was other than a obedience to God and not as a symbol of patriarchy of the Hebrew people. Can you explain some evidence other than your own opinion?

[Cobalt-70]

I will agree that child sacrifice did exist it existed not by commandment, but by individuals who were apostate from the dictates of the laws of God and perceived sacrifice through the lens of the other cultures that surrounded Israel, aka the Greeks, etc. Exodus specifically calls for the sacrifice of the first born, but allows for a substitute creature to be used. It is easy to see that many non-Hebrew cultures engaged in human sacrifice, but there is little if any evidence of child sacrifice among the Hebrews. Can you show where God in the OT commanded such sacrifice?

In addition to the attempted sacrifice of Isaac, there are several references to human sacrifices to El/YHWH in the Old Testament. For example, Numbers 31:25-31 describes the human sacrifice to YHWH of prisoners of war. The "righteous" (according to official LDS publications) King Josiah performed human sacrifices to YHWH in 2 Kings 23:20. In fact, it's kind of ironic. The victims of Josiah's human sacrifices were chosen because they had performed sacrifices to gods other than YHWH. Apparently, human sacrifice was okay, as long as it was to YHWH and not to other Hebrew gods like Asherah.

Other examples include Leviticus 27:28-29, which states that people who have been designated as human sacrifices must not be freed or sold as slaves--they must be put to death. See also Judges 11:31, where Jephthah covenanted with YHWH that if the Israelites would prevail over the Ammonites, then "whoever comes out from the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the Ammonites shall be YHWH's, and I will offer him up for a burnt offering." Apparently, it worked, because YHWH was with him (Judges 11:32) and he won the battle. When he returned home, his daughter, his only child, came out the door. As per his covenant, Jephthah sacrificed his daughter to YHWH (Judges 11:39).

I could go on with at least a few other examples. There are also other examples of human sacrifices to Hebrew gods other than YHWH, such as Molek. However, the Deuteronomists disapproved of these sacrifices. It wasn't because they necessarily disapproved of human sacrifice in general, but because the sacrifices were to gods other than YHWH.

I am really confused by your usage of the god-king. God-king and God are not synonymous and mean entirely different things. Also, I think that your explanation of why Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son was other than a obedience to God and not as a symbol of patriarchy of the Hebrew people. Can you explain some evidence other than your own opinion?

By "god-king," I am referring to the "most high God" of the Hebrew pantheon--who was the equivalent of Zeus, and later became the monotheistic YHWH referred to in the Old Testament. In the era when the Abraham stories would have been formulated, he was probably known by the name El--the same god that the Phoenicians sacrificed their children to.

As evidence for the meaning of the sacrifice story, that can be found in the text itself: In Genesis 22, the Elohist source says, "And it came to pass after these things, that Elohim did try (נָסַה) Abraham and said [take your only son to Moriah and burn him as a sacrifice]." Then after it was complete, the Elohist has an angel stating from heaven that "now I know that you fear Elohim, seeing that you have not withheld your only son from me." So the Elohists saw this story as a trial of Abraham's loyalty. As a reward for Abraham's loyalty to Elohim, Abraham became the progenitor of several Semitic nations. Like many myths, it is an explanation of the way things are--why there seemed to be many nations related to the Israelites in culture, religion, and language.

[Ron Beron]

Cobalt...

Numbers 31:25-31 describes the human sacrifice to YHWH of prisoners of war.

Your reading of this is entirely wrong. There is no mention of a sacrifice of prisoners, but rather a portioning of the spoils of the war. Each one who fought received an equal portion and YHWH was given a contribution as well.

The "righteous" (according to official LDS publications) King Josiah performed human sacrifices to YHWH in

2 Kings 23:20.

Again there isn't a mention of sacrifice, but there is a striking account of the killing of the priests who worshiped pagan gods. As to his righteousness the Bible states it all, "23:25 No king before or after repented before the Lord as he did, with his whole heart, soul, and being in accordance with the whole law of Moses." and was strictly following God's prohibition against worshiping false gods...Ex:22:20 “Whoever sacrifices to a god other than the Lord alone must be utterly destroyed." In the Interpreters Bible it states,

"While Josiah is busy making havoc of the altar and shrine at Bethel, he sees the burial caves in the distance and commands that dead men's bones be brought so that he can effectually desecrate the altar and put it out of commission permanently as a holy place. He sees one particular monument and is informed that it marks the grave of the man of God who years ago prophesied the destruction of the altar. So Josiah commands that his bones be left alone, thus fulfilling the ancient prophecy. Josiah continues on to Samaria, destroys all the idolatrous objects there, slaying the priests over their own altars. These verses are a later addition and belong to the same stratum as I Kings 12:32-13:34. The prophet who had protested against Jeroboam's original infamies has his bones left in peace, a just and fitting reward to the dead for faithfulness to the Deuteronomic ideals."

Leviticus 27:28-29, which states that people who have been designated as human sacrifices must not be freed or sold as slaves--they must be put to death.

It doesn't state what you suggested, but "Any human being who is permanently dedicated must not be ransomed; such a person must be put to death."

Again the Interpreters Bible, :A thing (or person) devoted cannot be redeemed; e.g., the booty taken at Jericho (.Josh. 6:19) and later Achan himself were devoted (Josh. 7:1, 13). So too a relic of a Canaanite god and anyone who kept it in his house were to be devoted (Deut. 7:26). Things so devoted were "most holy" in the nonethical sense of being wholly withdrawn from human use.31. If a man did not wish to pay his tithe in kind, he might pay the priest its value with one fifth added.

There wasn't a sacrifice to God, but rather a killing.

Judges 11:31, where Jephthah covenanted with YHWH that if the Israelites would prevail over the Ammonites, then "whoever comes out from the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the Ammonites shall be YHWH's, and I will offer him up for a burnt offering." Apparently, it worked, because YHWH was with him (Judges 11:32) and he won the battle. When he returned home, his daughter, his only child, came out the door. As per his covenant, Jephthah sacrificed his daughter to YHWH (Judges 11:39).

This passage is highly contested. Because of the wording of the passage some (read Did Jephthah Kill His Daughter? By Solomon Landers Bible Review 7:04, Aug 1991) have suggested that it reflected a dedication of daughter to perpetual virginity.

Others, such as the Catholic Encyclopedia state that Israel was in a barbaric decline and his daughter was, in fact, sacrificed to fulfill his vow to God. For this act Jephthah was condemned by future prophets and commentators. He did not do God's will and was ultimately punished for it.

It wasn't because they necessarily disapproved of human sacrifice in general, but because the sacrifices were to gods other than YHWH.

Then you would have had to thrown out the entire rule of God regarding human sacrifice.

By "god-king," I am referring to the "most high God" of the Hebrew pantheon--who was the equivalent of Zeus, and later became the monotheistic YHWH referred to in the Old Testament. In the era when the Abraham stories would have been formulated, he was probably known by the name El--the same god that the Phoenicians sacrificed their children to.

God-Kings were actual kings who were considered gods such as Noah who was later made a king of Shuruppak. As to your comparison of Zeus to YHWH it would be more correct to say that Zeus was an imitation of Levantine gods and not the other way around. YHWH was worshiped by southern Hebrew tribes, esp, the Midianites and were ostensibly introduced into a El dominated culture. Further, I think you are mistaken in assuming that sacrifices were made to Baal, a son of Dagon who did accept human sacrifices. El was a generic word that would have referenced any god including Dagon, Molek, Baal, etc. http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/otesources/20-proverbs/Text/Articles/Smith-ANEGods-TJ.pdf

Edited August 16, 2012 by Ron Beron

[Cobalt-70]

Your reading of this is entirely wrong. There is no mention of a sacrifice of prisoners, but rather a portioning of the spoils of the war. Each one who fought received an equal portion and YHWH was given a contribution as well.

It says that YHWH told Moses to "take the sum of the prey that was taken, both of man and of beast...And levy a tribute unto YHWH of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, [both] of the persons, and of the oxen, of the asses, and of the flocks, of all, manner of beasts, and give them unto the Levites which keep the charge of the tabernacle of YHWH...." Clearly, YHWH was requiring the sacrifice of both humans and beasts.

Again there isn't a mention of sacrifice, but there is a striking account of the killing of the priests who worshiped pagan gods. As to his righteousness the Bible states it all, "23:25 No king before or after repented before the Lord as he did, with his whole heart, soul, and being in accordance with the whole law of Moses." and was strictly following God's prohibition against worshiping false gods...Ex:22:20 “Whoever sacrifices to a god other than the Lord alone must be utterly destroyed." In the Interpreters Bible it states,

2 Kings 23:19-20 clearly refers to a human sacrifice by Josiah. It says that Josiah "slaughtered all the priests of those high places on the altars and burned human bones on them." That's a ritual human sacrifice. Even in the Interpreter's Bible commentary that you quote, it says that Josiah was "slaying the priests over their own altars."

I don't doubt that Josiah was seen as "righteous." It's just that the only reason he was "righteous" was because his human sacrifices were to YHWH, whereas the "bad" priests' human sacrifices were to other gods in the Hebrew pantheon.

It doesn't state what you suggested, but "Any human being who is permanently dedicated must not be ransomed; such a person must be put to death."

Again the Interpreters Bible, :A thing (or person) devoted cannot be redeemed; e.g., the booty taken at Jericho (.Josh. 6:19) and later Achan himself were devoted (Josh. 7:1, 13). So too a relic of a Canaanite god and anyone who kept it in his house were to be devoted (Deut. 7:26). Things so devoted were "most holy" in the nonethical sense of being wholly withdrawn from human use.31. If a man did not wish to pay his tithe in kind, he might pay the priest its value with one fifth added.

There wasn't a sacrifice to God, but rather a killing.

When animals that were "set apart to YHWH" and "devoted to destruction" were killed, they were killed on the altar. There was no distinction made between the "persons" so killed, and the animals so killed. They were sacrifices. Killing a person as an offering to God is by definition a human sacrifice.

This passage is highly contested. Because of the wording of the passage some (read Did Jephthah Kill His Daughter? By Solomon Landers Bible Review 7:04, Aug 1991) have suggested that it reflected a dedication of daughter to perpetual virginity.

Others, such as the Catholic Encyclopedia state that Israel was in a barbaric decline and his daughter was, in fact, sacrificed to fulfill his vow to God. For this act Jephthah was condemned by future prophets and commentators. He did not do God's will and was ultimately punished for it.

That's a pretty contorted and strained interpretation of the passage. It says that Jephthan vowed to YHWH that whoever from his house first greeted him when returned "he shall be YHWH's, and I will offer him up as a burnt offering." That was his vow, and verse 29 says that he "did to her according to the vow which he had made." In fact, his daughter herself told him to "do to me as you have said"--which was, to offer her as a burnt offering. She and her friends were mourning because, as a virgin, she had no children or posterity.

Then you would have had to thrown out the entire rule of God regarding human sacrifice.

YHWH was only concerned that human sacrifices be to him, and not to some lesser god like Molek. YHWH was a jealous god, and he could stand to have no other gods before him.

God-Kings were actual kings who were considered gods such as Noah who was later made a king of Shuruppak. As to your comparison of Zeus to YHWH it would be more correct to say that Zeus was an imitation of Levantine gods and not the other way around. YHWH was worshiped by southern Hebrew tribes, esp, the Midianites and were ostensibly introduced into a El dominated culture. Further, I think you are mistaken in assuming that sacrifices were made to Baal, a son of Dagon who did accept human sacrifices. El was a generic word that would have referenced any god including Dagon, Molek, Baal, etc. http://faculty.gordo...-ANEGods-TJ.pdf

I disagree that El was a generic word, and the article you cite doesn't say otherwise as far as I can tell. Elohim was generic, but El was a specific Caananite/Hebrew god. It is true that El was sometimes identified with other gods, much like Zeus was identified with Jupiter and they became the same. The Hebrews did this with El (a northern god borrowed from the Caananites) and YHWH (a southern god worshipped, perhaps, by the Jethro/Moses cult).

[Ron Beron]

Cobalt writes...

It says that YHWH told Moses to "take the sum of the prey that was taken, both of man and of beast...And levy a tribute unto YHWH of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, [both] of the persons, and of the oxen, of the asses, and of the flocks, of all, manner of beasts, and give them unto the Levites which keep the charge of the tabernacle of YHWH...." Clearly, YHWH was requiring the sacrifice of both humans and beasts.

Where is there any mention of a sacrifice? It is simply a census and a partitioning of the spoils of war. Israelites did take slaves, but sacrifice? No.

2 Kings 23:19-20 clearly refers to a human sacrifice by Josiah. It says that Josiah "slaughtered all the priests of those high places on the altars and burned human bones on them." That's a ritual human sacrifice. Even in the Interpreter's Bible commentary that you quote, it says that Josiah was "slaying the priests over their own altars."

I took some time looking at this passage and looked at various translations of zabach or sacrifice and was primarily interested in what kind of sacrifice they were referring to. First, the term can be mean more than just sacrifice, but slaughter, kill, or slay, but slay, slaughter or kill is not the same as a ritual sacrifice which is what you imply, but doesn’t seem to be the case here. You would not say that Cain sacrificed Abel (or at least I hope you wouldn’t). He killed him. God orders death at times. This is a slaughter of divine judgment (Ezekiel 39:17) and not one of ritual offering. Secondly, Josiah would not have made a ritual sacrifice over a pagan altar.

That's a pretty contorted and strained interpretation of the passage. It says that Jephthan vowed to YHWH that whoever from his house first greeted him when returned "he shall be YHWH's, and I will offer him up as a burnt offering." That was his vow, and verse 29 says that he "did to her according to the vow which he had made." In fact, his daughter herself told him to "do to me as you have said"--which was, to offer her as a burnt offering. She and her friends were mourning because, as a virgin, she had no children or posterity.

I said it was a contested passage, yes? Jephthah obviously felt that an animal would have come out to greet him, possibly a dog and not a person and certainly not his daughter. Personally I agree that Jephthah was foolish in making his oath to God, but having made it felt compelled to comply with it as did his daughter. Making the vow does not mean that God coerced him in any way to have made it, therefore, as the many rabbis have mentioned the sin is upon Jephthah head and not on God. Compare this story with the legend of Agamemnon sacrificing his daughter on the eve of his campaign against Troy.

[Carborendum]

IThat's the last kind of faith that we need in this post-9/11 society.

I'd say that is exactly the type of faith we need in this post 9-11 society.