Source Criticism And The Story Of Isaac's Sacrifice

[David T]

For a long time, I have been deeply troubled by the example of Abraham's willingness to kill his son at God's command being applauded as an exemplary form of obedience and faith. It is understandable that others seeking to make sense of the story would need to find this meaning there. But would God actually do such a thing? Did God command Abraham to kill his son as a test? Does God give 'Abrahamic Tests'?

 

It also is often used as an allegory, type, or shadow to show God willing to sacrifice his obedient and innocent son. Yet it breaks down when it shows that Abraham only did it out of obedience to God's command, not knowing the reason. Do we then suggest that God faithfully killed his son because he was commanded to?

 

The example of Abraham being commanded to kill his son becomes more complicated when you look at what Biblical scholarship has presented as the different traditions/sources that have come together to form the fleshed out story in Genesis. In what is identified as the earliest 'J' (or Yahwist) source, the story of the commanded sacrifice doesn't even appear. and this sources stories go from Isaac being born, to Isaac as an adult obtaining a wife. (for those not familiar with the JEDP or Documentary Hypothesis of the construction of the Pentateuch, here's a decent primer on Wikipedia)

 

In the later northern E (Elohist) tradition/strain of the story of Abraham, we find the story of Abraham being commanded to sacrifice Isaac - and then Abraham descends from the mountain alone, and Isaac doesn't show up again in any more of the E material. What is especially interesting is that the portion of the text describing Isaac's salvation by an angel is characteristically different from the E material surrounding it, and there are plausible suggestions that it was a later attempt to harmonize and explain the two versions - the earlier J version where Isaac clearly was alive as an adult, and the E story where God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, expressed pleasure for Abraham's obedience for not withholding his son from God ... and then we never see Isaac again.

 

Later prophetic and apostolic commentary are based on interpreting the received text, and making sense of it in light of the doctrinal concepts present before us.

 

I find it very interesting that according to the prevailing scholarship on the matter, the earliest strain of the story does not involve the idea of Isaac's sacrifice, the later Northern tradition that does include the story does not include the salvation of Isaac and implies that Isaac was indeed actually sacrificed, and that it is only the later redactor's attempt to harmonize that includes the last minute Salvation of Isaac by presenting the ram in the thicket.

 

Any thoughts on what assumed theological implications are based on the received idea of the story, and what might need to be adjusted if this is indeed the case that God didn't do that? Would it matter to you? Would there still be a basis for your accepting the precedence of God directly imposing 'Abrahamic challenges' or tests to individuals?

Edited August 20, 2013 by David T

[Tacenda]

Even in my TBM days, I never accepted that God did this. I dislike the test. It seems beneath God.

[Buckeye]

David,

 

I'm not much of a biblical scholar so I had no knowledge of these textual differences prior to your post.  With that caveat, here are my thoughts. 

 

1) It does seem odd that the E tradition would imply Isaac's death.  I'm curious, how does that affect Isaac fathering Jacob?  Does Jacob exist?  If so, this suggests that Isaac was an adult at the time of the sacrifice.

 

2) I think many members struggle with this theme.  I know I do.  We have so very little information about it.  Just a few verses.  But the story is quite important to the entire gospel narrative.  As you point out, it is commonly viewed as the closest parallel to Christ's sacrifice that we know of.  Even Abraham's wondering in the wilderness for 3 days is a parallel.  What would happen if it turned out to be just a story?  Probably the same thing if the BOM turned out to be just a story.  There are ways to maintain the full gospel narrative even if this part is not true.  For instance, D/C's reference to an "abrahamic sacrifice" would be just as valid, IMO.  But the minute that key parts of the narrative fall away we are confronted with the possibility of "what next?"  If the abrahamic sacrific story is just a story, what of the resurrection of Christ?

 

3) For my part, I can only accept the morality of the story if Isaac is understood to be an adult with complete agency.  In other words, the sacrifice must be as much his decision as Abraham's.  I simply cannot accept the story if Isaac is a young child ignorant of his pending doom.

 

4) I find this story more meaningful when the story of Ishmael's sacrifice is laid beside it.  Right after the Issac story we read of the jealousy of Sariah towards Hagar.  Because of Sariah Abraham reluctantly sacrifices both Hagar and Ishmael to die in the wilderness.  But they are also miraculously saved.  Perhaps I'm reading too much here.  I've never read anything to confirm my suspicions.  But it seems to me that these two stories are meant to be read together.  In other OT world, one form of expiratory sacrifice was the burnt offering (i.e., Isaac).  But another valid sacrifice was the scape-goat - sending a goat to die in the wilderness as an act of atonement (i.e., Ishmael). 

Edited August 20, 2013 by Buckeye

[CV75]

Would there still be a basis for your accepting the precedence of God directly imposing 'Abrahamic challenges' or tests to individuals?

Where the whole purpose of life is to have our obedience proven, and the sacrifice of His Son was known from the beginning, I think it is clear that God tries and tests His people to see if they will obey Him, and not all of those tests have immediately perceivable "happy" endings. Sometimes we hear of such tests as "our Gethsemane" or "our Goliath."

 

I think His commands to Adam and Eve are another example of such a trial.

[Buckeye]

Another interesting comparison is the women and children killed in Alma Chapter 14.  If God could stay Abraham's hand at the final moment and still judge him righteous for his intent to comply, why couldn't God have saved Amulek's people from death and still judged their executioners for their intended acts?

Edited August 20, 2013 by Buckeye

[David T]

David,

 

I'm not much of a biblical scholar so I had no knowledge of these textual differences prior to your post.  With that caveat, here are my thoughts. 

 

1) It does seem odd that the E tradition would imply Isaac's death.  I'm curious, how does that affect Isaac fathering Jacob?  Does Jacob exist?  If so, this suggests that Isaac was an adult at the time of the sacrifice.

 

Jacob does exist in the E sources. I understand that E is by far the most confusing and incomplete of the sources. But it should be be noted that not only does Isaac no longer appear in E, but at the end of the E story of the sacrifice, Abraham descends the mountain apparantly without Isaac! ("So Abraham returned unto his young men [the servants], and they rose up and went together to Beer-sheba;", Genesis 22:19).

 

I am not sure exactly where Jacob fits into all this. Perhaps Maklelan, if he's around, could correct or clarify any statements I've made in regards to the development of these traditions.

 

 

 

2) I think many members struggle with this theme.  I know I do.  We have so very little information about it.  Just a few verses.  But the story is quite important to the entire gospel narrative.  As you point out, it is commonly viewed as the closest parallel to Christ's sacrifice that we know of.  Even Abraham's wondering in the wilderness for 3 days is a parallel.  What would happen if it turned out to be just a story?

 

There are many places where the NT writers tried too hard, I think, to find parallels and links in the earlier scriptures. Even if the events seen as shadows or prophesies of Christ either did not happen, nor were intended to be such, it doesn't change the actuality of the later event. Lack of validity of proof-texts do not negate the event they are interpreted and used to bolster.

 

 

 

But the minute that key parts of the narrative fall away we are confronted with the possibility of "what next?"  If the abrahamic sacrific story is just a story, what of the resurrection of Christ?

 

I think this is a bit of a fallacy. Like I said before, if an event or story used to add emphasis to a present day event ended up not correlating properly, it doesn't mean the present day event didn't happen. It just means the example used wasn't intended to foreshadow or predict it.

 

I see why gospel writers past and present see the power in a cohesive, seamless thread of progression moving forward, and see a need to correlate all previous religious stories pointing into the presently understood narrative. That narrative - or way of constructing the sacred story - is what is often expressed as the 'myth' - not in terms of being not true, but in terms of the vehicles used for delivering the Truths.

 

Historically, it's quite conclusive that Jesus certainly lived, and he certainly died, and his disciples certainly had reason to believe he rose again, and spread that message. The acceptance of that testimony of theirs is one from faith.

 

The Genesis stories in their forms we have them were not written by eyewitnesses at all, or even people reporting from within that generation. We have a patchwork of traditional narratives dating in written form from the Judean Monarchy, later traditions tacked on to those, redaction by Deuteronomists, additions of the Priestly Strand and Code, and further redactors. All repurposing or reclaiming the texts to explain the circumstances in which they found themselves. Perhaps all were inspired. Perhaps only some were. Perhaps the final redactor and editor was. And then Joseph Smith comes along, and thorugh inspiration doctrinally updates key aspects of some of the messages expressed by the stories. It's complicated, but fascinating, and beautiful in its messiness.

Edited August 20, 2013 by David T

[Kate]

I have always had a hard time with this until I studied Hebrews 11:17-19:

17 By ^afaith Abraham, when he was ^btried, ^coffered up Isaac: and he that had received the ^dpromises offered up his only begotten son,

 18 Of whom it was said, That in ^aIsaac shall thy ^bseed be called:

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

 

It seemed to me, that Abraham knew that whatever happened, that he had received the promises and knew that God would raise Isaac up...even from the dead to fulfill "that in Isaac shall they seed be called."  Also, I remember watching this on LDS.org so realized that Isaac was an adult. 

[cinepro]

3) For my part, I can only accept the morality of the story if Isaac is understood to be an adult with complete agency.  In other words, the sacrifice must be as much his decision as Abraham's.  I simply cannot accept the story if Isaac is a young child ignorant of his pending doom.

 

 

Well, we know Isaac wasn't a teenager, because if he was, there wouldn't have been enough time for the angel to stop Abraham...

 

   

[cinepro]

I suspect there would be very, very strong resistance to any reinterpretation of the Abraham/Isaac story in light of this and other "connections" with the Book of Abraham:

 

We learn that the two great actions that brought the covenant to Abraham were his active search for it (see Abr. 1:2) and his faithfulness in the face of apostasy around him, even as evil priests tried to take his life upon a pagan altar (see Abr. 1:5–15). As a result of his dramatic rescue by the hand of the Lord (see Abr. 1:15–16, 20), he became well schooled in trusting the Lord. But in what has to be one of history’s supreme ironies and contradictions, this faithful patriarch would later be commanded to offer his own son upon an altar (see Gen. 22:1–19) by the very same God who had rescued Abraham years before. The earlier test on Pharaoh’s altar, recounted in chapter 1 of Abraham’s personal record and found nowhere else, helps us fully appreciate the significance of his later test—the commanded sacrifice of Isaac. We can better understand what Abraham must have been thinking and feeling when he went to Mount Moriah, because the information provided by Abraham 1 helps give full meaning to Genesis 22.

 

 

The Book of Abraham: A Most Remarkable Book                             

[David T]

I suspect there would be very, very strong resistance to any reinterpretation of the Abraham/Isaac story in light of this and other "connections" with the Book of Abraham:

 

I'm not expecting nor advocating for an institutional re-evaluation of this story. There's much bigger and far more low-hanging fruit I'd rather be taken care of *grin*. The Church currently, institutionally, doesn't touch the DH, or much modern Biblical research at all.

 

Right now, it's focusing on getting its approaches and understandings of Modern Church History up to date, and where it should be. They're doing beyond awesome with that, and I'm glad that the resources are being placed there. I think the nature of modern revelation needs to be processed, dealt with, and evaluated with the general membership (such as the nature of the JST, Abraham, etc) before approaching biblical criticism institutionally is anywhere near feasable. As long as the majority of membership views The Book of Moses as representing an older, more reliable Ur-text of Genesis from the pen of Moses, the insights we receive from the DH would be cast off as incomprehensible.

 

That doesn't mean individual members can't pioneer thoughts and approaches. We just can't expect the Church to instantly implement them, nor should we feel authorized to present them as settled fact in official Church settings.

Edited August 20, 2013 by David T

[DJBrown]

What about this passage from the Book of Mormon:

 

"Behold, they believed in Christ and worshiped the Father in his name, and also we worship the Father in his name. And for this intent we keep the law of Moses, it pointing our souls to him; and for this cause it is sanctified unto us for righteousness, even as it was accounted unto Abraham in the wilderness to be obedient unto the commands of God in offering up his son Isaac, which is a similitude of God and his Only Begotten Son."  Jacob 4:5

 

So as of 600 B.C., Israel believed in this story of Abraham and Isaac.  

 

It seems to me that if one believes in the Book of Mormon, he or she would of necessity believe in this story.

 

What individual has ever been promised the things that were promised to Abraham?  None.  (I suppose all of us through the temple).  But consider the pre-eminence of the Abrahamic covenant in God's great plan.  Does the foundational role of Abraham and the blessings placed upon him not suggest there was a reason and justification for such treatment?  

 

What about the fact that Abraham himself had been placed upon an alter by his own father in his youth?  Does that add depth and power to the faith of Abraham?

 

I think that the modern day commandment to "do the works of Abraham" is no accident and that the story really took place.  At least, if one believes in the modern revelations, one must accept the reality of the story of Abraham being commanded to offer Isaac.  

[David T]

What about this passage from the Book of Mormon:

 

"Behold, they believed in Christ and worshiped the Father in his name, and also we worship the Father in his name. And for this intent we keep the law of Moses, it pointing our souls to him; and for this cause it is sanctified unto us for righteousness, even as it was accounted unto Abraham in the wilderness to be obedient unto the commands of God in offering up his son Isaac, which is a similitude of God and his Only Begotten Son."  Jacob 4:5

 

So as of 600 B.C., Israel believed in this story of Abraham and Isaac.  

 

The DH suggests that by that point the JE tradition would already have been combined. From the WIkipedia page:

 

the Yahwist source ( J ) : hypothetically written c. 950 BCE in the southern Kingdom of Judah.

the Elohist source ( E ) : hypothetically written c. 850 BCE in the northern Kingdom of Israel.

the Deuteronomist ( D ) : hypothetically written c. 600 BCE in Jerusalem during a period of religious reform.

the Priestly source ( P ) : hypothetically written c. 500 BCE by Kohanim (Jewish priests) in exile in Babylon.

Edited August 20, 2013 by David T

[volgadon]

David, I would highly recommend John D. Levenson's The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son. This is simply the best book that I have ever read on not only the binding of Isaac, but on biblical child-sacrifice in general, and how these themes became a foundational aspect of Christianity. Just ask Walker. I had suggested it to him a while ago, as it really helped me understand the historical aspect of the atonement a lot better.

[David T]

Thanks for the recommendation, Volgadon. I will definitely look into it.

[CV75]

Another interesting comparison is the women and children killed in Alma Chapter 14.  If God could stay Abraham's hand at the final moment and still judge him righteous for his intent to comply, why couldn't God have saved Amulek's people from death and still judged their executioners for their intended acts?

I see these as two difefrent types of tests. Also, the circumstances were entirely different. The executioners of Amulek's people were not being tested as was Abraham in sacrificing Isaac. There was no sacrifice in their execution, and the act was in rejection of the word of God, and not having faith in it. Isaac's seed had practical and symbolic purposes in relation to the covenant; the seed of the martyrs did not. The Lord's servants were not complicit in the executions, and Abraham was innocent of wrongdoing in the sacrifice of Isaac.

[CV75]

 

The DH suggests that by that point the JE tradition would already have been combined. From the WIkipedia page:

 

the Yahwist source ( J ) : hypothetically written c. 950 BCE in the southern Kingdom of Judah.

the Elohist source ( E ) : hypothetically written c. 850 BCE in the northern Kingdom of Israel.

the Deuteronomist ( D ) : hypothetically written c. 600 BCE in Jerusalem during a period of religious reform.

the Priestly source ( P ) : hypothetically written c. 500 BCE by Kohanim (Jewish priests) in exile in Babylon.

 

Is the "chain of custody" the same, and if so, fairly unbroken, between the various sources? Could any of them have arisen from different sources and chains and could they have been corrupted to varying degrees to leave out the command to sacrifice, ad the endangerment, rescue and survival of Isaac?

[Stroopwafel]

For a long time, I have been deeply troubled by the example of Abraham's willingness to kill his son at God's command being applauded as an exemplary form of obedience and faith. It is understandable that others seeking to make sense of the story would need to find this meaning there. But would God actually do such a thing? Did God command Abraham to kill his son as a test? Does God give 'Abrahamic Tests'?

 

*ATCHOO*

 

Any thoughts on what assumed theological implications are based on the received idea of the story, and what might need to be adjusted if this is indeed the case that God didn't do that? Would it matter to you? Would there still be a basis for your accepting the precedence of God directly imposing 'Abrahamic challenges' or tests to individuals?

 

Since you seem to have given the story of Abraham some serious thoughts, I will strongly suggest you read Fear and Trembling by Søren Kierkegaard. You may begin here to get the highlights if you wish, but reading the whole work is definitely worth the effort.

[Maidservant]

I made a decision a while back in my revelatory journey not to "touch" the Isaac sacrifice story with a ten foot pole.  This in and of itself was a revelatory suggestion, with the implication that I did not and could not possibly have the paradigm and spiritual tools to approach understanding.  So I let it be for a long, long time and studied and questioned other things.  I did not put forward any theory or accept any theory, unlike most other stories and issues I engaged with in the scriptures.

 

Oddly enough, in later years, here and there, even though I have not lifted this 'understanding' ban on myself, I have received a few bits that I felt were nice pieces. So that is what I have--a collection of a few, precious pieces and I still have not nor will yet attempt a weaving of those pieces into any whole.

 

Let me start off by saying that I am a person who finds it important to know exactly what the text is--that is, where it came from, who it came from, and why.  I do not give myself the necessity of having 'faith' in any particular story or book or text in order to maintain my religion. So I am certainly interested what can be learned on this front.

 

Nor am I ever satisfied with what has been initially said about a given story, especially when it comes to the Old Testament (i.e. in the case of Isaac's sacrifice, a metaphor for Christ's sacrifice).

 

However, having said that, I also find that trying to find truth on the axis of "Would God do that?" or "Is this really historical?" is sometimes a barrier to the power of the image, and I suspect in my own personal opinion that these images were created deliberately by incredibly understanding persons in possession of deep revelatory, even temple, knowledge, but that the meaning and keys of these images are not known to us anymore, at least not in general.  And so we get mired in "Why would God and Abraham kill a KID!!!!?"

 

I will share my two pieces.  Again, I do not make these my conclusions, but they swirl in my head and maybe they will join up with other pieces eventually, God willing, and I will see a different picture than either separately.

 

The first I did not make up, I read it in a good article, but I do not know who by anymore; although likely I am putting my own spin on it.  But the gist of it, or conclusion of it, was that God was showing Abraham once and for all that people were NEVER to sacrifice other people.  Almost like, yes, God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son, but this was to reveal to Abraham that Abraham was still a person who was willing to shed blood. (God hoped he would say No, but Abraham said Yes.) And when Abraham got to the mountain with his son, God said, NO! I am NOT a God who wants this! Never!!!!!!!!!  (subtext: WHEN will you people stop sacrificing each other!  in the name of a God!)  So the exercise is not an exercise of sacrificing your son, but an exercise of NOT sacrificing your son.

 

The second revelation piece I have had and that is my own thinking is that the sacrifice of Isaac is the story of each and all of us.  (This is why we cannot discard this story, this image.  We must know it.  Because it is us.)

 

We have ALL been bound upon the altar and sacrificed by our Father.

 

So WE are Isaac--the willing sacrifice.  We are the heirs of all that our Father has; we are the anointed sons and daughters.  And yet we permit our Father to bind us to the altar (earth).  We (the Father and the Son--us) perform the sacrifice (the Father officiating, and the Son--us--submitting).

 

WHY WOULD WE DO THIS?  What is the purpose of this sacrifice?  What is the gift of this sacrifice that can be obtained in no other way?

 

And the rest of the story is about how Isaac is delivered from the altar, his bonds broken.  This is also the story of us.

 

It is an essential story.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Maidservant

[David T]

 

Let me start off by saying that I am a person who finds it important to know exactly what the text is--that is, where it came from, who it came from, and why.  I do not give myself the necessity of having 'faith' in any particular story or book or text in order to maintain my religion. So I am certainly interested what can be learned on this front.

 

Nor am I ever satisfied with what has been initially said about a given story, especially when it comes to the Old Testament (i.e. in the case of Isaac's sacrifice, a metaphor for Christ's sacrifice).

 

I think we are very similar on that front.

 

However, having said that, I also find that trying to find truth on the axis of "Would God do that?" or "Is this really historical?" is sometimes a barrier to the power of the image, and I suspect in my own personal opinion that these images were created deliberately by incredibly understanding persons in possession of deep revelatory, even temple, knowledge, but that the meaning and keys of these images are not known to us anymore, at least not in general.  And so we get mired in "Why would God and Abraham kill a KID!!!!?"

 

I think this also shows that we approach things in perhaps a very similar way. I am often interested in stripping down the story to its historical roots. Finding the earliest, most original version of the story. Place it into its context, and then seek to determine what those who crafted or first heard the story would have taken from it.

 

But then I am willing to step back, and determine why my context, my experiences can bring to the story. I do believe that by the very nature of canonizing a sacred story for all time, it becomes a story that should be worked through, dealt with, and owned by each succeeding generation. And sometimes, the lesson I learned is an opposite one that the original context would have taught or learned.

 

I am quite stubborn in differentiating "what the story originally meant", and "what we can learn from it today." I get (probably overly) frustrated when individuals assert that what we get from it today was the consistent, all-time story understood yesterday, today, and forever.

 

I find great power in stories, but, like you, I like to know the root. I actually find it easier to adapt and mythologize and lesson-ize a story if I'm aware that I'm doing it *grin*.

 

One of the absolute best books I've read is called Options on Atonement in Christian Thought. It explores many of the signs and symbols used to express the idea of atonement - ransom, sacrifice, penal substitution, etc. It discusses why those symbols had relevance for their audience, and why they did not have as much relevance or power with today's people. It discusses a concept of 'evolutionary revelation', and proposes new symbols for Atonement, including one of the Family. The Mormon application and potential found in many of these thoughts were beautiful startling, and refreshing to me. They, side by side with some of the Rene Girard material, substantially changed my approach to Atonement, and also how I read ancient scripture. My paradigm shifted, and I was, and remain, edified by this.

 

I will share my two pieces.  Again, I do not make these my conclusions, but they swirl in my head and maybe they will join up with other pieces eventually, God willing, and I will see a different picture than either separately.

 

The first I did not make up, I read it in a good article, but I do not know who by anymore; although likely I am putting my own spin on it.  But the gist of it, or conclusion of it, was that God was showing Abraham once and for all that people were NEVER to sacrifice other people.  Almost like, yes, God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son, but this was to reveal to Abraham that Abraham was still a person who was willing to shed blood. (God hoped he would say No, but Abraham said Yes.) And when Abraham got to the mountain with his son, God said, NO! I am NOT a God who wants this! Never!!!!!!!!!  (subtext: WHEN will you people stop sacrificing each other!  in the name of a God!)  So the exercise is not an exercise of sacrificing your son, but an exercise of NOT sacrificing your son.

 

This sounds almost Girardian - that the revelation of Jesus' death was that it was not God that commands and enforces violence on a guilty mankind, it is mankind that imposes violence on an innocent God. The Revelation is that sacrificial scapegoats (whether the animal, or members of community) are truly innocent, and that it is the mob killing them that is truly guilty. This deeply resonates.

 

The second revelation piece I have had and that is my own thinking is that the sacrifice of Isaac is the story of each and all of us.  (This is why we cannot discard this story, this image.  We must know it.  Because it is us.)

 

We have ALL been bound upon the altar and sacrificed by our Father.

 

So WE are Isaac--the willing sacrifice.  We are the heirs of all that our Father has; we are the anointed sons and daughters.  And yet we permit our Father to bind us to the altar (earth).  We (the Father and the Son--us) perform the sacrifice (the Father officiating, and the Son--us--submitting).

 

WHY WOULD WE DO THIS?  What is the purpose of this sacrifice?  What is the gift of this sacrifice that can be obtained in no other way?

 

And the rest of the story is about how Isaac is delivered from the altar, his bonds broken.  This is also the story of us.

 

I think this is a powerful way of owning, and of appropriating the story. Thank you for it.

 

It is an essential story.

 

I want to make clear that much of my questions on this front are from the 'phase 1' approach - the historical approach. I readily acknowledge that I approach scriptural interpretation on my anchors concerning the nature of God, with the concepts A) God deeply loves his children. B) God is the ideal parent being the ultimate lens by which I approach whether I feel God would indeed have acted in a way. Is it a flawed methodology? I'm sure it is, and won't defend it any more than to say it's been extremely helpful for my progression, and for keeping my faith kindling, and for deepening my appreciation for the scriptures.

 

I'm a parent of a 3 year old. I know in the past, people have beaten, whipped, etc their children with the excuse, "Well, if this behavior is good enough as a way for God to have treated his children, it's good enough for me." - I go the other way. I use the way I feel for my daughter to reveal to me the nature of God's love and behavior as Father. It's a powerful learning experience.

 

I do believe in progressive, and evolutionary revelation. I do believe peoples of the past do need to be forgiven for the blood and sins of their generation - but also with the acknowledgement that God kept working with them in spite of that blood and those generational paradigms and sins. He taught them using whatever he could, baby steps at a time when necessary. I get that, and I acknowledge that.

 

This is a bit of a ramble, but I wanted to respond to your post, and note that I acknowledge them as being very, very good insights and approaches.

[Ron Beron]

Like many topics this has come up before.  My answer in 2012

 

Posted 09 August 2012 - 08:41 AM

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:

  Quote

  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 apartto 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
  

  Quote

  "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.

 

[volgadon]

Since you seem to have given the story of Abraham some serious thoughts, I will strongly suggest you read Fear and Trembling by Søren Kierkegaard. You may begin here to get the highlights if you wish, but reading the whole work is definitely worth the effort.

 

As important as Fear and Trembling is in Western thought (and it is a fine work), Levenson points out several instances where a Kierkegaardian reading doesn't do the biblical text justice.

[Maidservant]

it was not God that commands and enforces violence on a guilty mankind, it is mankind that imposes violence on an innocent God.

 

Wow .

[Tacenda]

Wow .

I'm glad you quoted David T on that, I hadn't seen it. He nailed it! Hurrah for him!!! Edited August 21, 2013 by Tacenda

[Stroopwafel]

As important as Fear and Trembling is in Western thought (and it is a fine work), Levenson points out several instances where a Kierkegaardian reading doesn't do the biblical text justice.

 

Of course, I can imagine that Kierkegaard's work is not perfect and may have missed points that would be considered critical by other experts. Being versed in a tradition which I assume our Danish philosopher was unfamiliar with, and hence could not really find its way in his work, I guess it's to be expected that Levenson would not entirely agree with Fear and Trembling.

 

I was wondering, since I don't have the book you refer to and you probably have it handy, could you give one or two of these instances given by Levenson? I'd be really interested to know where he thinks Kierkegaard missed important elements. Thank you!

[volgadon]

Of course, I can imagine that Kierkegaard's work is not perfect and may have missed points that would be considered critical by other experts. Being versed in a tradition which I assume our Danish philosopher was unfamiliar with, and hence could not really find its way in his work, I guess it's to be expected that Levenson would not entirely agree with Fear and Trembling.

 

I was wondering, since I don't have the book you refer to and you probably have it handy, could you give one or two of these instances given by Levenson? I'd be really interested to know where he thinks Kierkegaard missed important elements. Thank you!

 

Here is an example from p. 126.

 

The aqedah, in short, tests whether Abraham is prepared to surrender his son to the God who gave him. to say, with Kierkegaard and von Rad, that he is prepared so to do because through faith he expects to receive Isaac anew (as indeed happens) is to minimize the frightfulness of what Abraham is commanded to do. It is also, I hope to show, to miss one of they ambiguities and energizing tensions of the story.