Was Isaac a Son of God?

[Ron Beron]

An interesting tidbit...

Philo of Alexandria writing early in the Christian century and certainly from a Gnostic viewpoint writes a "most sacred mystery", i.e., that Isaac the son of Abraham was actually begotten by God and not Abraham. Within six of his texts he writes of this very unconventional interpretation, but points to the passage in Gen. 21:6 where it states, "And Sarah said, "God has made me laugh, and all who hear will laugh with me." Philo interprets "has made me" as begotten or "Laughter God has made for me." hence the name Isaac or "laughter". In a now lost book by Philo called De Isaaco Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough states that "De Isaaco developed as its central theme the fact that Isaac was so completely at one with the power behind the cosmos that he typified joy." (By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Heleniistic Judaism, pp. 156-166.)

As Christians, of course, this reminds us of Jesus, also a Son of God, who underwent the same sacrifice that almost befell Isaac and in roughly the same location.

Interestingly, Philo doesn't equate the supposition with any reality instead rendering it an allegory by describing God as "perfect in nature, sowing and begetting happiness in the soul."

[Ron Beron]

bump

[e=mc2]

An interesting tidbit...

Philo of Alexandria writing early in the Christian century and certainly from a Gnostic viewpoint writes a "most sacred mystery", i.e., that Isaac the son of Abraham was actually begotten by God and not Abraham. Within six of his texts he writes of this very unconventional interpretation, but points to the passage in Gen. 21:6 where it states, "And Sarah said, "God has made me laugh, and all who hear will laugh with me." Philo interprets "has made me" as begotten or "Laughter God has made for me." hence the name Isaac or "laughter". In a now lost book by Philo called De Isaaco Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough states that "De Isaaco developed as its central theme the fact that Isaac was so completely at one with the power behind the cosmos that he typified joy." (By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Heleniistic Judaism, pp. 156-166.)

As Christians, of course, this reminds us of Jesus, also a Son of God, who underwent the same sacrifice that almost befell Isaac and in roughly the same location.

Interestingly, Philo doesn't equate the supposition with any reality instead rendering it an allegory by describing God as "perfect in nature, sowing and begetting happiness in the soul."

Fascinating! Tonight I shall look into this a bit more. You have certainly piqued my curiousity on this one Ron!

[katherine the great]

Philo of Alexandria obviously never went through menopause if he thinks Sarah didn't already have a good reason to laugh.

[CMZ]

The Doctrine and Covenants states that Isaac IS a god.

[David Bokovoy]

Very interesting tidbit indeed, Enemy Ace.

The ancient tradition of God procreating a man with mortal woman is not foreign to the Hebrew Bible. Genesis 4:1 seems to create a play upon the traditional notion and in so doing, presents the biblical God as a literal father/procreator:

"Now the man knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, 'I have created a man with Yahweh'" (Genesis 4:1).

[Ron Beron]

Very interesting tidbit indeed, Enemy Ace.

The ancient tradition of God procreating a man with mortal woman is not foreign to the Hebrew Bible. Genesis 4:1 seems to create a play upon the traditional notion and in so doing, presents the biblical God as a literal father/procreator:

"Now the man knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, 'I have created a man with Yahweh'" (Genesis 4:1).

There is a nasty little interpretation of this in the Talmud (B. Shab. 146a) which states, "When the serpent consorted with Eve, he cast impurity into her." Also, (take note, Kerry) in the Zohar:"From the impurity with which the serpent infected Eve emerged Cain."

Later in Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer it states that the true father of Cain was Samael (Satan) in the guise of the serpent.

Also in the Zohar there is a part that echoes a passage from Steinbeck's East of Eden when both Samael and Adam approaches Eve and she becomes pregnant by both of them. One, Abel, by Adam. The other, Cain, by Samael. In Ziv ha-Zohar it identifies Cain as having the image of an ape and Abel in the image of God.

Eve doesn't get away free from sin. She is portrayed as satanic and certainly forms a basis for misogynistic bias throughout Jewish as well as other Asian texts. Hindu texts portray all women as essentially Kali-like because they represent a death/life dichotomy. Eve is another example of this. From her we gain life, from her sin we lose mortal life.

Therefore, according to Jewish myth there exists among us today the good represented by Seth and those that are evil represented by Cain.

As a final note it is interesting God tells Cain that he can master or rule sin (mashal) among the earliest example of free agency.

[Ron Beron]

Philo of Alexandria obviously never went through menopause if he thinks Sarah didn't already have a good reason to laugh.

My good wife would agree, but there is another funny part about this. Sarai wasn't laughing because she was going to be pregnant but because this pregnancy would bring laughter and joy into the world much as Jesus' birth as done to countless billions. She wasn't mocking God but glorying in the prospect.

[e=mc2]

My good wife would agree, but there is another funny part about this. Sarai wasn't laughing because she was going to be pregnant but because this pregnancy would bring laughter and joy into the world much as Jesus' birth as done to countless billions. She wasn't mocking God but glorying in the prospect.

I dunno about that. I did a research paper lo those many years ago, and If'n I remember correctly, the laughter was laughter of doubt, skepticism, and disbelief. I mean, true enough, it turned out to end up being joyous, of course, but not in the original setting. I shall see if I can cast about my papers and locate that silly diatribe I went on .....

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

As Christians, of course, this reminds us of Jesus, also a Son of God, who underwent the same sacrifice that almost befell Isaac and in roughly the same location.

[...]

The parallel between Christ and Isaac is an interesting one. The scene of Jesusâ?? arrest seems to have a little bit of an inversion of themes (or characters, rather). In one, we have Abraham (the epitome of righteousness and obedience) binding his son and offering him up as a sacrifice. In the other, we have sinners taking Jesus and binding him to offer him up to essentially a tyrant for execution. Although the individuals involved are seemingly inversions of one another, both emphasize G-dâ??s will for the events. One is an account of the final act of the Abrahamic drama wherein he is prepared to be the father of a multitude of nations. The other is essentially the final act in the Jesus drama wherein he becomes the father of righteousness (and the transition from death to life).

On another note: IIRC, R. Ephraim ben Jacob (in his poetic rendition of the Akedah story) says that Isaac was resurrected (and also eludes that thereâ??s scriptural support for the claim).

Essentially, Abraham either missed the first angelic call, or ignored it. He then killed Isaac, and Isaac was resurrected (I think he says that the â??resurrecting dew rested on himâ?). Abraham was about to kill Isaac a second time when the second angelic call (and alternative sacrifice) intervened.

[Hannah Rebekah]

An interesting tidbit...

Philo of Alexandria writing early in the Christian century and certainly from a Gnostic viewpoint writes a "most sacred mystery", i.e., that Isaac the son of Abraham was actually begotten by God and not Abraham. Within six of his texts he writes of this very unconventional interpretation, but points to the passage in Gen. 21:6 where it states, "And Sarah said, "God has made me laugh, and all who hear will laugh with me." Philo interprets "has made me" as begotten or "Laughter God has made for me." hence the name Isaac or "laughter". In a now lost book by Philo called De Isaaco Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough states that "De Isaaco developed as its central theme the fact that Isaac was so completely at one with the power behind the cosmos that he typified joy." (By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Heleniistic Judaism, pp. 156-166.)

As Christians, of course, this reminds us of Jesus, also a Son of God, who underwent the same sacrifice that almost befell Isaac and in roughly the same location.

Interestingly, Philo doesn't equate the supposition with any reality instead rendering it an allegory by describing God as "perfect in nature, sowing and begetting happiness in the soul."

Could it be possible that Abraham is the 'God' or (god) here because he had already received his exaltation (deification, theosis...) and therefore Isaac would technically be begotten by 'God' (god) in that sense?

[Ron Beron]

I dunno about that. I did a research paper lo those many years ago, and If'n I remember correctly, the laughter was laughter of doubt, skepticism, and disbelief. I mean, true enough, it turned out to end up being joyous, of course, but not in the original setting. I shall see if I can cast about my papers and locate that silly diatribe I went on .....

I feel a bit overwhelmed engaging you on your home turf, but Philo interpreted Gen. 21:6, "Sarah said, â??God has made me laugh.Everyone who hears about thiswill laughwith me.â? in a very literal manner, meaning Isaac aka Laughter and that Isaac will in turn bring everyone joy or laughter. Certainly, he was probably being very allegorical and not literal, but still interesting. That being said, if I was in my nineties and someone told me I was going to have a kid I would have a chuckle or two in doubt. Then I would call the National Enquirer and be called Octogenarian Mom.

[Ron Beron]

Could it be possible that Abraham is the 'God' or (god) here because he had already received his exaltation (deification, theosis...) and therefore Isaac would technically be begotten by 'God' (god) in that sense?

Ah...great answer. I hadn't thought of that one. And certainly without Isaac there wouldn't have been a continuation of the Abraham's seed, therefore, his enthronement would've been moot.

[Hannah Rebekah]

Ah...great answer. I hadn't thought of that one. And certainly without Isaac there wouldn't have been a continuation of the Abraham's seed, therefore, his enthronement would've been moot.

Since Isaac was a type and the foreshadow of Christ it only makes sense that Abraham was deified so he in a literal sense was a type of God the Father.

[katherine the great]

My good wife would agree, but there is another funny part about this. Sarai wasn't laughing because she was going to be pregnant but because this pregnancy would bring laughter and joy into the world much as Jesus' birth as done to countless billions. She wasn't mocking God but glorying in the prospect.

That isn't what I gather from the account in Genesis. Sarai overheard the conversation and laughed, then she denied laughing because she realized that the Lord heard her laughing. It seems really clear that she laughed originally because she just couldn't wrap her mind around the idea of conceiving a baby at the age of 90. Maybe she thought she was imagining it. It seems incredibly human to me!

[oMtonic]

In Ziv ha-Zohar it identifies Cain as having the image of an ape and Abel in the image of God.

All right, so who's thinking what I'm thinking?

[e=mc2]

Since Isaac was a type and the foreshadow of Christ it only makes sense that Abraham was deified so he in a literal sense was a type of God the Father.

This is the wonderful Christian interpretation of this, but it's not the Jewish view. They say Isaac signified Israel. Interestingly, they also ascribe Israel to the Suffering Servant of the Isaiah servant passages. And I can see their point in some respects, but some of the servant passages also demonstrate an individual. I am seriously contemplating either a. a huge paper on thisb. a huge bookc. insane laughter!

All right, so who's thinking what I'm thinking?

LOLOL! Those damned evolutionists!

[volgadon]

Some say that Isaiah was signifying Israel through his own self. I think they are right, up to a point. That point being that Isaiah was signifying something, or rather, someone.

[Calm]

That isn't what I gather from the account in Genesis.

Having just finished a reading of Ginzberg's Legends of the Jews, Vol 1, it has again (second time through) underscored that the context that scriptures are placed into, including the assumptions and needs the reader brings to the task, is going to have a huge impact on what is received from the reading...at times it seems to me the context is even more important than the actual verse as what is 'understood' from the verses can end up being the opposite of what appears to be stated...at least to me (the particular edition I have has an intro discussing this very thing in the example of the story of Lamech and the legend surrounding his killing of Cain.)

On topic, IIRC, one interpretation of "all that hear will laugh with me" was that all women (or maybe just the barren ones) of that time gave birth as Sarah did.

[katherine the great]

Having just finished a reading of Ginzberg's Legends of the Jews, Vol 1, it has again (second time through) underscored that the context that scriptures are placed into, including the assumptions and needs the reader brings to the task, is going to have a huge impact on what is received from the reading...at times it seems to me the context is even more important than the actual verse as what is 'understood' from the verses can end up being the opposite of what appears to be stated...at least to me (the particular edition I have has an intro discussing this very thing in the example of the story of Lamech and the legend surrounding his killing of Cain.)

On topic, IIRC, one interpretation of "all that hear will laugh with me" was that all women (or maybe just the barren ones) of that time gave birth as Sarah did.

I totally agree that context is key in understanding. There are many people out there with far more understanding of the culture of the time than I have. My view of the context is that Sarai had already shown a (completely understandable) lack of faith when she passed menopause and proceeded to assign her slave Hagar to become Abraham's concubine. Maybe it wasn't so much a matter of lack of faith, since the promise was made to Abraham and not herself at that time. Her practical side seemed to kick in thinking, "Well, I obviously can't provide the heir, but my young servant can." I think it was about thirteen years after that that she overheard the Lord tell Abraham that the promised child would be born to Sarai. She would have been around 90 years old. As a woman, I can't think of any other way to see it than that Sarah laughed out of momentary disbelief--especially since she immediately denied laughing. Another reason I think she laughed is that it isn't at all clear that she even really knew that it was the Lord, himself speaking. There were three men who were treated as honored guests. Abraham perhaps recognized Him, but the scripture doesn't state that Sarai did. Those are my thoughts anyway.

[Ron Beron]

This is the wonderful Christian interpretation of this, but it's not the Jewish view. They say Isaac signified Israel. Interestingly, they also ascribe Israel to the Suffering Servant of the Isaiah servant passages. And I can see their point in some respects, but some of the servant passages also demonstrate an individual. I am seriously contemplating either a. a huge paper on thisb. a huge bookc.

Or at least a YouTube video.

[e=mc2]

Or at least a YouTube video.

LOL! Well, I *still* haven't figured out how to cram 113 hours into ten minutes yet......