"God Would Never Command Human Sacrifice": Abraham, and Isaac as a Type of Christ

[Kenngo1969]

In @Nofear's  "Moral Foundations and Latter-day Saints" thread, linked below ...

... @Peacefully said:

Quote

 

Very interesting! I fall somewhere between all-in and selective according to this survey. 

One interesting conclusion by the author “If someone says, “Fairness is the most important thing in the world to me, and avoiding harm is the most important thing in the world to me,” a God that asks Abraham to sacrifice his son isn’t going to make sense to them. It just says, “Wow, that’s a messed-up God. I don’t really want to have anything to do with that God.” “

Not necessarily. One can also believe that a loving God would not do that so therefore it must be allegorical. 

 

I responded:

Quote

 

Don't misunderstand: I get, completely, why any notion of sacrifice as it is recorded or reported in the Old Testament (or, for that matter, in the New) makes us enlightened moderns uncomfortable. But, that squeamishness notwithstanding, if we say that a loving God would not allow someone to sacrifice his son, as allegedly happened with Abraham and Isaac, and when, reportedly, Isaac was a type of Christ, what do we do, then, with the fact that perhaps the foundational, fundamental, principal, central, sin qua non tenet, not just of the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints but of all of Christianity, is that, nonetheless, a[n allegedly?] "loving" god allowed his own son (who in no way deserved it) to be sacrificed?

If we're going to say—moistened fingers planted firmly in our ears and eyes shut tight—"Nope!  Sorry!  I can't deal with a god who would allow anyone to be sacrificed!" ... if we're going to say, because we can't deal with actual sacrifices, that the [story of] the first sacrifice is allegorical, don't we, then, have to say that the [story of] the second  sacrifice is merely purely allegorical, and, if so, doesn't that lay waste to all of Christianity?  And if (whether we understand it, or whether we understand exactly how it works or not) we're going to say that there is no saving power in Christ(ianity), what, exactly, is the point?   Of course the Sacrifice of Christ was not "fair"!  That was kind of the whole point, wasn't it?

Please understand, I'm not indicting anybody here, but I do think that these are fair questions.

 

@Peacefully responded:

Quote

I don’t agree that if the first sacrifice is allegorical then Christ’s sacrifice must be, also. Christ agreed to the plan. Isaac had no such forewarning ( as far as I know) so not apples to apples, imo. 

@Calm responded:

Quote

 

Assuming the portrayal of the Council is more historical than not….****

I have seen it pointed out that Isaac would have been able to physically overpower his father, possibly easily, but did not do so and allowed himself to be bound (he was not a child as sometimes is portrayed), so while Isaac may not have been part of the intended sacrifice from the beginning, by the end he would have been.  He did not volunteer, but accepted when chosen by his father.  That is a significant difference imo, but we also don’t have enough info to know if there was tradition or even an inherent need that focused the choice on Christ before the council (I am thinking of what the title Firstborn might imply, did it go to the one who volunteered and was chosen to be the sacrifice or did the Firstborn know much earlier that would be his role he would grow up to, inherited through the timing of his spirit birth so to speak).  Maybe Christ knew it was expected of him, maybe he had even been trained or prepared in some way prior to the Council where he was officially chosen and it was more accepting of the role than pure volunteering.

****It would not surprise me if, for example, there was no actual Council, but that godly communication allowed us all to be fully aware of our future as soon as we were capable of understanding it or even before…maybe such knowledge is part of our spirit ‘DNA’ or whatever functions similarly if there is such as thing.  Perhaps we mortals are given the Council as part of our temple ritual perhaps only because that makes more sense to us since we are not born with such seamless communication of knowledge plus it is analogous to what happens in many of our cultures.

 

After quoting part of my first paragraph above (starting with "... what do we do, then ..."), @MrShorty said:

Quote

 

I don't know if this is intended to just be rhetorical, nor how far down this tangential rabbit hole we might want to go, but I sometimes find this question among those who deconstruct their Christian faith and don't get it back. Why does an omni-everything God require a sacrifice of some kind in order to forgive sin? Why can't He simply forgive sin?

Even among those who accept that Christ's death and resurrection was important for our redemption, many have serious concerns about a "penal-substitution" type of model of the atonement, and might prefer other views of the atonement that decentralize the suffering/sacrifice aspects of penal-substitution.

As a non-rhetorical question, it is an interesting tangent.

 

I should note that I did not originate the idea of Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac making Isaac a type of Christ.  That was Paul's idea (see Hebrews 11:17-19).

Thoughts?

 

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

In @Nofear's  "Moral Foundations and Latter-day Saints" thread, linked below ...

... @Peacefully said:

I responded:

@Peacefully responded:

@Calm responded:

After quoting part of my first paragraph above (starting with "... what do we do, then ..."), @MrShorty said:

I should note that I did not originate the idea of Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac making Isaac a type of Christ.  That was Paul's idea (see Hebrews 11:17-19).

Thoughts?

 

In fact, God’s commandment to Abraham to offer his son Isaac’s life as a sacrifice would indeed have been an evil thing to command Abraham to do if it weren’t for the fact that God, an infinite and eternal being of truth who cannot lie, had previously promised Abraham that Isaac’s loins would produce offspring while in the flesh. Because Abraham knew for certain that God cannot lie, he was willing to follow through with the commandment to sacrifice Isaac because he had a sure knowledge that God would keep his promise that through the loins of Isaac all the world would be blessed with offspring born under the Abrahamic covenant.

Without doubt, Abraham reasoned within his heart and mind that if he did sacrifice Isaac’s life God would have no choice in righteousness but to raise Isaac from the dead that he might remain a God of truth. It was this perfect faith and confidence in God that caused subsequent prophets to honor Abraham with the magnificent title of “the Father of the faithful.” Abraham was justified because his unshakable faith gave him a sure and certain knowledge that Issac would live in the flesh to become the father of earthly children. And thanks to Abraham and Isaac’s great faith in God, the love and trust they both shared as father and son remained strong and intact in spite of the great trial of faith the both endured. The gospel of Jesus Christ is all about trust and faith that God is righteous and that he will keep his promises. 

17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:

19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure. (Hebrews 11)

Edited January 17, 2025 by teddyaware

[Pyreaux]

Despite claims otherwise, human blood was apparently accepted for the Covenant to be satisfied (Numbers 25:7-13). The Lord did accept Judge Jephthah's sacrifice of his daughter to the Lord (Judges 11). And IIRC, Abraham may have sacrificed Isaac, that the Lord saved him by raising him up again (Hebrews 11:19).

The Testament of Isaac suggests that Isaac was actually sacrificed, but then miraculously brought back to life. Early Christians really liked this Jewish tradition, and interpreted the sacrifice was indeed completed in some sense, but that God miraculously intervened to effectively raise Isaac from the dead, as a type of foreshadowing of the resurrection of Christ.

As Orthodox Jews argue, if God would never accept human sacrifices, then Jesus could never have done it.

Edited January 18, 2025 by Pyreaux

[blackstrap]

Life is sacrifice .

[manol]

I take this to be your core question:

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

if we're going to say, because we can't deal with actual sacrifices, that the [story of] the first sacrifice is allegorical, don't we, then, have to say that the [story of] the second  sacrifice is merely purely allegorical, and, if so, doesn't that lay waste to all of Christianity?  And if (whether we understand it, or whether we understand exactly how it works or not) we're going to say that there is no saving power in Christ(ianity), what, exactly, is the point?   Of course the Sacrifice of Christ was not "fair"!  That was kind of the whole point, wasn't it?

 

I don't really have any insights or commentary on the story of Abraham and Isaac. 

However, given that I'm blessed to live in an age and in a society were heresy is not punishable by death, I will take a shot at presenting an alternative to the traditional Christian paradigm.  Just to be clear, I absolutely DO believe in the saving and exalting power of Christ, in a very literal but unorthodox sense. 

Let me start out by making note of one particular characteristic of human nature:

We can conceive of a God who is the best version of ourselves, but we cannot wrap our heads around a God who is too radically different from us.

So here is a hypothetical and highly oversimplified version of the situation at the first coming of Christ:

We (in this context meaning, I suppose, "the Jews") believe in a God who requires punishment.  Now (still in our hypothetical), let us suppose that God is actually NOT in the eternal punishment/vengeance/debts-must-be-paid business, but WE ARE, and therefore we cannot begin to wrap our heads around the idea of a God who is radically different from us in this respect. 

So into this setting Christ comes to earth and does two things:

1. Christ teaches a new paradigm which is radically different: He teaches us to love our enemies; to forgive without keeping score; to give to anyone who asks; to freely forgive debts; to not take offense over anything; and we are to perceive the very least among us as the King – the Christ – in disguise. Imo this higher paradigm is the truth that will set us free. And (again imo) in teaching us this higher paradigm, Christ is shifting our concept of what "the best version of ourselves" might look like, and thereby introducing us to what his Father is actually like.  (I suspect this shift may play a part in @MrShorty asking in that other thread, "Why does an omni-everything God require a sacrifice of some kind in order to forgive sin?") 

2. Christ goes through with fulfilling the expectations/requirements of the old paradigm ANYWAY, as an act of loving service. This way, all those who believe in a God who is in the eternal punishment/vengeance/debts-must-be-paid business NOW have a logical reason for HOPE, because Christ has paid the price for their sins if they do what their religion tells them to do.

So imo Christ came to TEACH us this new paradigm which opens the way for us to PERCEIVE his Father through a very different lens: If WE have no need for vengeance; no need for looking down on or condemning anyone; no need for even perceiving ourselves as having been wronged in the first place; or for holding grievances of any kind... if WE are making this shift, NOW the stage is set for us to wrap our heads around a Father who has these attributes in perfection. NOW we can legitimately cast out fear and choose perfect love. NOW the stage is set for us to embody the First Great Commandment, and to love God with all our being, and without reservation.

So... seen through the lens of the old paradigm, Christ fulfilled The Law and we are saved, or may be saved, by his sacrifice and by our obedience.

And, seen through the lens of what I'm calling the “new paradigm”, Christ gave us great teachings on how to actually BE the same manner of men and women as he is, and then he walked the walk: He did not take offense at those who were crucifying him, nor at those whose burdens he experienced in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Through either lens, imo, Christ is our Savior.

And, I believe we are to be active participants, rather than audience members, in the Second Coming of Christ.

Edited January 17, 2025 by manol

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

............

I should note that I did not originate the idea of Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac making Isaac a type of Christ.  That was Paul's idea (see Hebrews 11:17-19).

Thoughts?

Don't forget that Jesus asked all of us to be cannibals, to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

[Benjamin McGuire]

There is a long-standing Jewish tradition that this was a test that Abraham failed - that God did not want blind obedience. I tend to agree with this idea.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

In @Nofear's  "Moral Foundations and Latter-day Saints" thread, linked below ...

... @Peacefully said:

I responded:

@Peacefully responded:

@Calm responded:

After quoting part of my first paragraph above (starting with "... what do we do, then ..."), @MrShorty said:

I should note that I did not originate the idea of Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac making Isaac a type of Christ.  That was Paul's idea (see Hebrews 11:17-19).

Thoughts?

 

To deconstruct, or get to to fundamental object (and its interpretation) of faith, is not to destroy faith or lose it. It is well to examine ourselves and our internal assumptions and contradictions, not with the intent to subvert ourselves or undermine our faith in Christ, but to get to the pure, distilled root of it.

We can make many things of this account, and I think that as long as they help us become more Christlike, that is the object of the lesson. Evidence of that is the attitude of not contending over these interpretations. That covers those who think this didn't really happen, those who think it did, and those who think it is a faith-promoting story.

[Doctor Steuss]

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

There is a long-standing Jewish tradition that this was a test that Abraham failed - that God did not want blind obedience. I tend to agree with this idea.

Thank you so much for sharing this.

[Pyreaux]

The Virgin Seila

Jephthah's Royal Status

Jephthah the Gileadite, was the Judge from the tribe of Manasseh, and hero of the battle against the Ammorites (Heb 11:32). He was cast out by his brothers because he was conceived by a foreign harlot and became the leader of a band of outlaws in the land of Tob, known for being a "mighty man of valor" (Jdg 11:1-5; Ps-Philo 39:3). Until the Ammorites invaded, his people sought him out and offered to make him their ruler, "be our captain [(H#7101) or ruler, prince]" (Jdg 11:6) to be "ruler over the people" (Ps-Philo 39:3). He says "[I shall] be your head" (Jdg 11:9).

Pseudo Philo portrays the people saying "Let the dove... teach you... her young are taken from her, still she does not depart from her place", (Ps-Philo 37:5) here they mean the Virgin Daughter, the Holy Spirit, depart from Jerusalem, the Spirit of Wisdom is portrayed as a feminine patron of the city, they referring to here as a female dove (Ps-Philo 23:7; 39:5; 4 Ezra 5:26; Mt 3:16). Jephthah say's "Lord the Judge be judge", the judge is a royal figure become the embodiment of the Lord, while Judges are the regal rulers, and the Lord is also Judge. In the days of Kings, the Lord is the King, the identity of the King and the Lord can become blurred, when enthroned they "worshipped the Lord, and the King" (1 Chr 29:20).

Jephthah's Priestly Vow

This is when he makes an infamous vow, that if the Lord delivers the Ammorites into his hands, "that what so ever cometh forth from my house to meet me... shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering" (Jdg 11:31). This would mean that Jephthan is a priest, but being not a Levite, he is not a priest in the Levitical Order, he would be a Priest in the Melchizedek Order. "The Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah" and he has the power to be victorious against the Ammorites (Jdg 11:29; Ps-Philo 39:8).

Afterwards, when he come home is when "his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances; and she was his only child" (Jdg 11:34). This is how the Spirit of Wisdom is portrayed, as dancing and "rejoicing always before him" (Prov 8:30) or like "Miriam the prophetess... took a timbrel in he hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances" (Ex 15:20). Jephthah, remembering his vow, rent his clothes and regrets making the vow (Jdg 11:34).

Seila's Self Sacrifice

Until "she said unto him, My father, if thou has opened thy mouth unto the Lord, do unto me according to that which proceeded out of thy mouth" (Jdg 11:36). Her father seems to heed this as wisdom from her. She requests "let me alone two months, that I may go up and down the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows" (Jdg 11:37). Jephthah, as a priest, offers up his own daughter as a sacrificial burnt offering to the Lord (Jdg 11:39).

Pseudo Philo lends us other details, for instance, which mountain she observed at as being "Mount Stelac" (Ps-Philo 40:4) This is possibly the Hebrew "Selag (H#7950) snow]" which probably is meant to be Mount Hermon, the mountain of snow "Sirion [(H#8303)]" (Dt 3:9; 4:48; Eze 27:5). Philo says the "women all came out with song and dance, but his daughter was first." Jephthah says "Rightly was your name called Seila [Hebrew : the one asked for]" (Ps-Philo 40:1).

She replies "who is there who would be sad in death, seeing the people free?" (Ps-Philo 40:2; Josephus, Ant 5:7:10 [265]). She compares their own siduation with Abraham and Issac "do you no remember what happened in the days of our fathers when the fathers placed the son as a holocaust, and he did not refuse him but gladly gave consent to him, and the one being offered was ready and the one who was offering was rejoicing?... carry it out" (Ps-Philo 40:2).

Now, Philo speaks of Issac being sacrificed (Ps-Philo 18:5; 32:2-4) freely (Ps-Philo 40:2) a sacrifice for men's sins and a benefit to people in the future (Ps-Philo 18:5). The Christians seem to be familiar with a version of Issac's story in which Isaac was sacrificed (S. Spiegel, The Last Trial [1967]). "Abraham... offered Issac" (Heb 11:17; Jas 2:21) with confidence that he could raise men from the dead. Issac "was sacrificed on the alter" (Letter of Barnabus 7) with confidence "that stretched him on the alter with a light heart" (1 Clement 31). They may simply mean it figuratively, by the angel's interferance perhaps Issac was considered practically sacrificed and raised back up.

She says "before I give back my soul", she wants to go to the mountains with her fellow virgins to confess the sadness of her youth. "I am not sad because I am to die nor does it pain me to give back my soul. If I did not offer myself willingly... my death would not be acceptable" (Ps-Philo 40:3) and she tells this to the "wisemen of the people, and no one could respond to her word." (Ps-Philo 40:4) The Lord is portrayed as saying "her death will be precious before me and she will go away and fall into the bosom of her mothers" (Ps-Philo 40:4) a feminine version of the Bosom of the Fathers, or the "bosom of Abraham" (Lk 16:22), the place Jews also called "paradise" a portion of Sheol/Hades where righteous spirits await a resurrection and judgement.

Seila's Lamentation

What is of interest to me here is references to the marriage endowments in Seila's Lamentation, "not in vain will my life be taken away", "a ruler granted that his only daughter be promised for sacrifice, But I have not made good on my wedding chamber, and I have not received my wedding garlands. For I have not been clothed in splendor while sitting in my woman's chamber. And may the blend of oil that you have prepared for me be poured out, and the white robe that my mother has woven, the moth eat it. And the crown of flowers that my nurse plaited for me for the festival, may it wither up; and the coverlet that she wove of hyacinth and purple in my woman's chamber, may the worm devour it." (Ps-Philo 40:5-7).

The Bible provides little about the ancient Israelite marriage rites, usually a brief reference or a metaphor for something else. That she is washed and anointed (Eze 16:9; Ruth 3:3) endowed in white robes (Eze 16:10-13) and a crown garland (Eze 16:12; SoS 3:11). The wedding chamber was an enclosed room with a veil (Ps 19:5; Joel 2:16). These white robes are the same a temple priest, at the dedication of the Temple of Solomon, "let thy priests, O Lord God, be clothed with salvation" (2 Chr 6:41), "Let ty priests be clothed wit rightiousness... O will also clothe her priests with salvation" (Ps 132:9, 16) are the same as the bridegroom and bride "for he hath clothed me with garments of salvation, he hath clothed me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments [pe'er (H#6287) head-dress], and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels." (Isa 61:16) even the "[pe'er]" are like those of temple priests (Ex 39:28).

According to Philo of Alexandria, of a priestly family, these are initiatory robes for 2 different initiatory rites. The "Lesser" rite for the priests of Aaron that enabled the High Priest to "approach God", but only once a year, with the ark veiled by incense, and he couldn't share what he saw with his brethren, and a "Greater" rite that allows Moses to approach God constantly that enables people other than Levites to "approach God". The Greater initiation rite included a sacred marriage (Philo, Cher., 49; Abr., 122; Gig. 52-55). For the King-Priest and Queen, the coronation rite ended in a marriage in the temple (The Temple Wedding Psalm, Psalm 45).

Philo says a man in white robe symbolizes a man entering the holy of holies, and to put on a white robe is to "put on immortality" and one partaking in a "Sacred Marriage"[hierosgamos]" with Wisdom "[Sophia]", thus a true priest, like Moses, is someone married to a virgin and has children (Philo, Som. 2:183-186). The Book of Zohar calls it Sacred Copulation "[zivvug ha-Kodesh]", the deepest of all mysteries. The Marriages took place "in a special room on top of the temple building" (Patai, On Jewish Folklore p123), called the "sacred hut" and "bridal chamber" (Johnson, Hebrew Conceptions of Kingship, p226-227). Texts in the discovered Nag Hammadi library, contain Christian books referencing Christian marriages as a Temple rite. The Gospel of Philip tells of the "sacrament of the bridal chamber" being one of the highest ritual preformed in the "Holy of Holies" of the Temple, bringing about "perfection" which transcended earthly life (Gospel of Philip 65, 102).

Because Death is not the End

Like Selia, not all women will have the opportunity for a covenant marriage and covenant motherhood, but the blessings of the covenant can still be fulfilled even if you die, if you are still alive in the spirit. Abraham did not shy away from death because he had faith that the promises of the covenant, the innumerable royal posterity, would still be fulfilled through Issac, even if Issac died (Heb 11:17-19). Because as Peter says, even after death, Seila can rest in bosom of Sarah, who's daughter she is, and is an heir to the promise, but a husband and wife are to be "heirs together" (Pt 3:5-7) to bring them "before God", where there is always hope, as Christ could preach to the dead (1 Pt 3:19) by reason though it might be too late in the flesh, if their spirit is alive, it is not too late for Christ to salvage them that are dead (1 Pt 4:6).

Edited January 17, 2025 by Pyreaux

[MrShorty]

I will say up front that this is an active deconstruction/reconstruction work zone for me, so I'm not optimistic that I can piece thoughts together into one great whole. Individual thoughts on the matter:

1) I recently saw a videos with Teryl Givens (Mormonism with the Murph on youtube) where Givens said that he believed that God ought to inhabit the same moral universe that we inhabit. In my moral universe, child/human sacrifice to appease some "god" is about as evil as evil gets. Accepting that God did indeed command Abraham suggests that somewhere above my ability to comprehend is an ethical/moral dilemma where God weighed all of the possible evils and decided that the least evil course of action was to command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. It certainly could be due to my own mortal limitations, but I have a really hard time accepting that.

2) We are fond of talking about God as a "test proctor," and this is one of the most common scenarios to fall back on when we want to talk about God's testing. The biggest challenge I see with these "tests" is wondering if we truly understand the nature of the test. Most of the time, when we speak of this particular test, we treat the test as an "obedience test." Would Abraham really do what God told him to do even though it went against everything Abraham valued? As @Benjamin McGuire has already pointed out, there is a minority who suggest that perhaps the nature of the test was to see if Abraham would choose what is right even if that meant telling God that he would not comply. I find God as test proctor troubling -- not because I don't believe that God might test us to see what we will do in certain situations -- because I'm not sure we are very good at accurately discerning the nature of these tests.

3) The OP talks about the parallels between the account of Abraham and the atonement. I mentioned in my quoted comment that the parallels seem particularly pertinent to a "penal-substitution" model of atonement. One possible rabbit trail that my thoughts go down is into different atonement theories, some of which might be more easily paired with a "fictional" reading of Abraham's experience. Perhaps in this respect, it is similar to the parallels made between Jonah and Christ. I don't feel a need to force Jonah to be 100% non-fiction in order to accept and marvel at the parallels between the two. I believe that Christ really did do something (I'm okay with the details being incorrect) that provides some kind of redemptive power for myself and the rest of humankind. I'm comfortable (for now) with any foreshadowing of this atonement in the Hebrew Bible being fictional/allegorical.

Those are my thoughts, as incomplete and unfinished as they are.

[longview]

10 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

There is a long-standing Jewish tradition that this was a test that Abraham failed - that God did not want blind obedience. I tend to agree with this idea.

Why would you agree when Genesis 22 makes an unambiguous statement that God fully intended to place Abraham under a very serious test:

1. And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
2. And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
10. And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.
11. And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
12. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
13. And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.
15. And the angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,
16. And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:
17. That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;

Verse 1 has a footnote for the word tempt:

Doctrine and Covenants 136:31

My people must be tried in all things, that they may be prepared to receive the glory that I have for them, even the glory of Zion; and he that will not bear chastisement is not worthy of my kingdom.

Test, Try, Prove - Topical Guide

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I will say up front that this is an active deconstruction/reconstruction work zone for me, so I'm not optimistic that I can piece thoughts together into one great whole. Individual thoughts on the matter:

1) I recently saw a videos with Teryl Givens (Mormonism with the Murph on youtube) where Givens said that he believed that God ought to inhabit the same moral universe that we inhabit. In my moral universe, child/human sacrifice to appease some "god" is about as evil as evil gets. Accepting that God did indeed command Abraham suggests that somewhere above my ability to comprehend is an ethical/moral dilemma where God weighed all of the possible evils and decided that the least evil course of action was to command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. It certainly could be due to my own mortal limitations, but I have a really hard time accepting that.

2) We are fond of talking about God as a "test proctor," and this is one of the most common scenarios to fall back on when we want to talk about God's testing. The biggest challenge I see with these "tests" is wondering if we truly understand the nature of the test. Most of the time, when we speak of this particular test, we treat the test as an "obedience test." Would Abraham really do what God told him to do even though it went against everything Abraham valued? As @Benjamin McGuire has already pointed out, there is a minority who suggest that perhaps the nature of the test was to see if Abraham would choose what is right even if that meant telling God that he would not comply. I find God as test proctor troubling -- not because I don't believe that God might test us to see what we will do in certain situations -- because I'm not sure we are very good at accurately discerning the nature of these tests.

3) The OP talks about the parallels between the account of Abraham and the atonement. I mentioned in my quoted comment that the parallels seem particularly pertinent to a "penal-substitution" model of atonement. One possible rabbit trail that my thoughts go down is into different atonement theories, some of which might be more easily paired with a "fictional" reading of Abraham's experience. Perhaps in this respect, it is similar to the parallels made between Jonah and Christ. I don't feel a need to force Jonah to be 100% non-fiction in order to accept and marvel at the parallels between the two. I believe that Christ really did do something (I'm okay with the details being incorrect) that provides some kind of redemptive power for myself and the rest of humankind. I'm comfortable (for now) with any foreshadowing of this atonement in the Hebrew Bible being fictional/allegorical.

Those are my thoughts, as incomplete and unfinished as they are.

1. Conversely, I think we ought to inhabit the same moral universe as God does. Where do we find ourselves in that same moral universe, and how can we better find it – what seems to work along the covenant path? This question presupposes faith in Christ and how that might be obtained. But is it more important (a greater testament to salvation) to accept that God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, or that He provided a compelling way for Abraham to not have to follow through?

2. Discerning the nature of these tests is part of the test, and part of passing the test which requires many other fundamental attributes before a cultivated talent to discern (Mosiah 3:18, 19: “become as little children …submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father"). That way, that which we may perceive as “inflict” is more properly discerned as “bestow.” The child may misperceive the benevolent intention, but learns along the way as they remain true to the childlike qualities (those inherent in them by virtue of the light of Christ).

3. A more pertinent parallel might be a “work” model of the Lord’s atonement. The Lord did all the work necessary to successfully prevent Abraham from sacrificing Isaac, while preserving Abraham’s agency. This was to benefit their (and our) understanding of the Lord’s atoning capacity, power and trustworthiness in using it. This understanding is spiritual growth, and anyone can try, try again, even after some of the light of Christ has been taken or lost from us.

Edited January 17, 2025 by CV75

[Kenngo1969]

Is there any relationship possible, perhaps, between Abraham [purportedly] being commanded to sacrifice Isaac and the sacrifice that we [potentially] could be asked to make, consecrating even our lives, if necessary, for the building up of God's Kingdom on the Earth?  (And there are people in this dispensation who have, indeed, given their very lives for the Kingdom.  As much as I understand the squeamishness of 21st-century moderns with the idea of humans being actual ritual sacrifices, is it really all that much different?)  I don't know whether it is or not.

Edited January 18, 2025 by Kenngo1969

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

And there are people in this dispensation who have, indeed, given their very lives for the Kingdom. 

I don’t think the issue is being asked to sacrifice one’s own life, but to sacrifice someone else’s, especially if one personally benefits from it.

Would it be moral for a parent to harvest the heart of their child so they could harvest their child’s heart if they needed it to live?  I think quite a few people look on it like that.

Edited January 18, 2025 by Calm

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, longview said:

Why would you agree when Genesis 22 makes an unambiguous statement that God fully intended to place Abraham under a very serious test:

1. And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
2. And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
10. And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.
11. And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
12. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
13. And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.
15. And the angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,
16. And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:
17. That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;

Verse 1 has a footnote for the word tempt:

Doctrine and Covenants 136:31

My people must be tried in all things, that they may be prepared to receive the glory that I have for them, even the glory of Zion; and he that will not bear chastisement is not worthy of my kingdom.

Test, Try, Prove - Topical Guide

Who wrote that in Genesis? Did they have insight into what God intended and wanted?

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Who wrote that in Genesis? Did they have insight into what God intended and wanted?

I really had to chuckle at this one! Can you imagine, the nerve of a believing Latter-Day Saint to quote the words of an angel from the Bible as a reliable means to determine the mind and will of God on a subject of great spiritual importance?! Who’da thunk it! It’s amazing how it’s possible for a mind to become so hardened in unbelief that it’s impossible for that mind to imagine how anyone could possibly be foolish enough to trust in the Bible for enlightening answers to gospel questions! I can only conclude that it must be some form of masochism that could cause an unbeliever to want to spend the lion’s share of each day grating against the ‘naive’ and ‘deluded’ minds of ‘unsophisticated fools’ who believe it’s actually possible to receive light and knowledge from God.

Edited January 18, 2025 by teddyaware

[The Nehor]

44 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

I really had to chuckle at this one! Can you imagine, the nerve of a believing Latter-Day Saint to quote the words of an angel from the Bible as a reliable means to determine the mind and will of God on a subject of great spiritual importance?! Who’da thunk it! It’s amazing how it’s possible for a mind to become so hardened in unbelief that it’s impossible for that mind to imagine how anyone could possibly be foolish enough to trust in the Bible for enlightening answers to gospel questions! I can only conclude that it must be some form of masochism that could cause an unbeliever to want to spend the lion’s share of each day grating against the ‘naive’ and ‘deluded’ minds of ‘unsophisticated fools’ who believe it’s actually possible to receive light and knowledge from God.

The corrupt Bible that has been desecrated by apostates? Yes, definitely a source of absolute truth!

Can’t have it both ways friend.

[Kenngo1969]

All of us must make our own decision about whether each of us believes God really did command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and, if He did, whether we really can believe Him, can believe in Him, can trust Him, and so on.  Since, one way or another, all of us probably have made that decision, this is "old news" and probably not something anyone in the thread believes is worth revisiting, but I do think it's interesting.  It's a Book of Mormon KnoWhy video about Jacob 4:5.

For what it's worth ... (  Kevin Christensen ... ) 
P.S.: See also here, additional print commentary on Abraham's [near] sacrifice of Isaac.

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/how-abrahams-sacrifice-of-isaac-illuminates-the-atonement

Edited January 18, 2025 by Kenngo1969

[CV75]

11 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Is there any relationship possible, perhaps, between Abraham [purportedly] being commanded to sacrifice Isaac and the sacrifice that we [potentially] could be asked to make, consecrating even our lives, if necessary, for the building up of God's Kingdom on the Earth?  (And there are people in this dispensation who have, indeed, given their very lives for the Kingdom.  As much as I understand the squeamishness of 21st-century moderns with the idea of humans being actual ritual sacrifices, is it really all that much different?)  I don't know whether it is or not.

I think the relationship is the willingness to obey (manifesting faith by offering up our works in the present), sacrifice (manifesting faith by offering up all the past/prior works) and consecrate (manifesting faith by offering up any works to come). This gets to the "work" model of the atonement of Christ, which I find very useful. It takes work to possess something to sacrifice or consecrate, and obedience to work, sacrifice and consecrate in the right way. The willingness, which is a key Gospel principle as indicated in our sacrament prayers (and emphasized in the baptism covenant as described in Mosiah 18 and D&C 20), is not that much different in any of it. 

Edited January 18, 2025 by CV75

[Benjamin McGuire]

5 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I really had to chuckle at this one!

I know right?

[CV75]

5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

All of us must make our own decision about whether God really did command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and, if He did, whether we really can believe Him, can believe in Him, can trust Him, and so on.  Since, one way or another, all of us probably have made that decision, this is "old news" and probably not something anyone in the thread believes is worth revisiting, but I do think it's interesting.  It's a Book of Mormon KnoWhy video about Jacob 4:5.

For what it's worth ... (  Kevin Christensen ... ) 
P.S.: See also here, additional print commentary on Abraham's [near] sacrifice of Isaac.

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/how-abrahams-sacrifice-of-isaac-illuminates-the-atonement

I think in a case like this ("it was accounted unto Abraham in the wilderness to be obedient unto the commands of God in offering up his son Isaac, which [in retrospect, now that we know better] is a similitude of God and his Only Begotten Son"), one can be obedient to the commands of God even though they may fail at the greater commands. This was the situation in which Adam and Eve found themselves in Eden: while abstaining from the forbidden fruit in good-faith obedience, they failed to obey the greater command to multiply and replenish the earth (become even more like God, who as the Father had also became mortal, and as the Son must yet become mortal). We do not know what would have happened had Abraham not proceeded to sacrifice Isaac in "passing" the test, but to pass in this way, he would have had to demonstrate a willingness to obey some higher commandment which I'm not sure we are privy to. I am not sophisticated enough to imagine what that might be (give me a minute  ! ), so I accept Jacob 4:5 at face value.

ETA: 

We cannot disobey one command to obey a higher command without a Savior to rescue us from the consequences of disobeying the lesser command. We still have to face the consequences, since obedience to a higher command cannot absolve any degree of disobedience no matter the rationale (D&C 1:31). Someone has to pay the full price for disobedience and obedience (i.e., perform the work to offset the cosmic effects of disobedience), and given the full stature is that of Christ, only He can accomplish that.

Perhaps Abraham was thinking (though the record does not state this), “I won’t sacrifice my son Isaac, but I will turn this blade upon myself in the last instant,” and passing that willingness test, God rescued him with the ram. Now whether that is a better or worse cosmic choice is a matter of our moral foundations which we can hardly help! but the lesson is the same.

Edited January 18, 2025 by CV75

[Rain]

6 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I really had to chuckle at this one! Can you imagine, the nerve of a believing Latter-Day Saint to quote the words of an angel from the Bible as a reliable means to determine the mind and will of God on a subject of great spiritual importance?! Who’da thunk it! It’s amazing how it’s possible for a mind to become so hardened in unbelief that it’s impossible for that mind to imagine how anyone could possibly be foolish enough to trust in the Bible for enlightening answers to gospel questions! I can only conclude that it must be some form of masochism that could cause an unbeliever to want to spend the lion’s share of each day grating against the ‘naive’ and ‘deluded’ minds of ‘unsophisticated fools’ who believe it’s actually possible to receive light and knowledge from God.

You neglect the idea of people doing what the church and book of mormon ask - to ask if the things they read in scripture are true. 

[Rain]

10 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

All of us must make our own decision about whether God really did command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and, if He did, whether we really can believe Him, can believe in Him, can trust Him, and so on. 

Are people making their own decisions about whether God commanded that when they are asking God with a sincere heart if he commanded it?

10 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Since, one way or another, all of us probably have made that decision, this is "old news" and probably not something anyone in the thread believes is worth revisiting, but I do think it's interesting.  It's a Book of Mormon KnoWhy video about Jacob 4:5.

For what it's worth ... (  Kevin Christensen ... ) 
P.S.: See also here, additional print commentary on Abraham's [near] sacrifice of Isaac.

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/how-abrahams-sacrifice-of-isaac-illuminates-the-atonement

 

Edited January 18, 2025 by Rain

[Benjamin McGuire]

16 hours ago, longview said:

Why would you agree when Genesis 22 makes an unambiguous statement that God fully intended to place Abraham under a very serious test:

And the scriptures also say that God commands us not to kill. How do you resolve conflicting commandments?

There is sometimes a problem with treating these stories as being simplistic in nature. There is no lesson here in the idea that God wants Abraham to sacrifice his son. There isn't even any value in the lesson that God wants Abraham to understand that God was willing to sacrifice His son (whatever that may mean for you). There is a fascinating lesson for us in the story of the flood. In everything that happens in the story, God is always telling Noah what to do - and he just does it. Only once does Noah do something he isn't told to do - and that is the sacrifice that he offers at the end of the story - the sacrifice that convinces God not to curse the earth again (despite the wickedness of mankind), the sacrifice that convinces God not to wipe out humanity again. It is this willful decision to worship that God wants - not the blind obedience that Noah displays up to that point, or that Abraham displays.

The Book of Mormon tells me that in our experience of mortality, much of what happens is beyond our control. We do not have absolute agency. We are not "free to act and not be acted upon." It is only in those moments when we are able to exercise agency that we become truly culpable for our actions.

Genesis 22 does say that God is going to temp (test) Abraham. But it doesn't tell us what the nature of that test is, or how to know if Abraham is successful or if he fails. Mortality cannot be simply a place where we learn to do what we are told to do. That sort of outcome doesn't yield perfection in any sense (and it's the reason why, in LDS thought, Satan's plan of guaranteeing that no one would fail is a problem). This perspective simply changes the notion of what is being tested, not that there is a test. We have created this myth of the Abrahamic test. We have even given it a sort of permanent legitimacy in our scriptures. But a real Abrahamic test (on the assumption that God intended for Abraham to be completely willing to sacrifice his son Issac) is one where we are expected on the surface to fail - because it isn't our success at achieving what we are told that is being tested - just our willingness to do something so horrific. And in light of what we know about God as our Father, that seems to me to be a position that is inconsistent with itself. Or, as Jesus said:

Quote

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?

We prove our faithfulness to God by being willing to ask. God doesn't expect us to be willing to kill our children. And perhaps the test is the question of whether or not Abraham can tell that something is morally abhorrent. This is always a great object lesson if we are wanting to teach about obedience - but it is only a good object lesson for those who are the authority figures. Traditionally, that is a sort of masculine-centric reading. Imagine being the good little Jewish boy and wondering if (or when) your father might take you up the mountain. There are two poems I like about the binding of Isaac, that have given me something to think about. The first is by the Israeli poet Yehuda Amichai. He wrote this:
 

Quote

 

The true hero of the binding is the ram
Who didn't know about the other people's conspiracy.
He sort of volunteered to die in Isaac's place.
I want to sing a song in his memory,

About the curly fleece and the human eyes
About the horns that were so quiet in his living head.
And after he was slaughtered, they made shofars out of them
To sound the fanfare for their war
Or the fanfare of their coarse rejoicing.

I want to remember the last scene
Like a pretty picture in a tasteful fashion magazine:
The tanned, spoiled youth in his natty clothes
And by his side the angel in a long silk gown
At an official reception
And both of them with empty eyes
Looking at two empty places.
And behind them, in the colorful background, the ram,
Caught in the thicket before the slaughter.
And the thicket is his last friend.

The angel went home.
Isaac went home.
And Abraham and God have long since gone.

But the true hero of the binding
Is the ram.

 

The second is by Benjamin Galai, and mixes biblical language with Mishnaic language:

Quote

And the life
Of Sara was
A hundred years. Twenty years. Seven years.

And she died-
She departed from the world in the Mount of Hebron.
To the pattering of the servants' feet.
Whose names she even forgot.
All the friends of the family came to the funeral.
They shouldered her coffin.
To the place of her last rest.
Its planks, a rumor fell there, were the thinnest of thin
The lightest of light.

And the life
Of Sara was
A hundred years. Twenty years. Seven years.
The years of Sara's life.

And she died -
But really,
The candle of her light went out many days, many before
Her last resting place was dust.

And the coffin she lay in was made of all the years,
The memory of wood broken on another mount,
On another mount, in the Land of Moriah.

I think that our insistence that this sort of obedience is the best - the truest way to express our worship of God - is really problematic.

Ben McGuire