Abraham's Sacrifice of Isaac

[liamconnor]

The story of Abraham called upon to sacrifice Isaac is a popular one for impugning the Jewish and Christian god. One asks, how could a good God require something like this?

When we immerse ourselves in ancient literature, we discover the context requires some nuance.

Abraham lived in a world where a deity, though not often, yet still might require human sacrifice. Abraham was only recently acquainted with this new god, and probably regarded him as he might any god; which means the demand for human sacrifice was not completely out of the blue when it was given.

The situation provided God with two opportunities: to test Abraham's devotion by imposing a recognizable litmus for obedience; and to distinguish himself from other gods by interrupting the process.

Does this interpretation resolve the specifically moral problem of the story?

[William]

[Replying to post 8 by ttruscott]

Sometimes a little discernment about background and context is valuable.

Marco is correct with his reply to you post, but I would like to add that you should take your own advice re discernment, background and context.

The two stories are simply not reconcilable with the one idea of GOD.

Even so, it is Solomon's decree alone and we have clear indication that he was never going to command the baby actually be sliced in two.

We can understand that the King had no way of telling which woman was telling him the truth.

Apparently the GOD can tell, so there was no need to order Abraham to sacrifice his son, and if one wishes to argue that it was not a case of GOD needing to know how loyal Abe was, but a case of Abe needing to know how far he was willing to take that loyalty, Abe missed the mark by thinking a GOD would require such a thing of him. The consequences are staggering.

Background.
Context.
Discernment.

Yes.

[TSGracchus]

I think it went something like this: Humans started to get smart. They noticed that when they ganged up on the bullies and drove them out they had a more pleasant environment. And they noticed that those dumb bullies showed up in childhood. They decided to become pro-active.
When the boy children reached puberty, and they had had a chance to pick out the bad apples they would take the boys out into the forest and give them some definitive tests: Endure pain, control anger and impulse, and show an ability to reason If they boy passed the test, he was a man. If not, he did not come back from the testing, and his name was not spoken again. He had failed at humanity.
After a while though they forgot why they were doing this horrible thing, humanizing the ape in us. Or perhaps they just decided that not every boy had to be tested. But they would still pick out the worst ones to be sacrifices to the god(s).
At some point the Hebrews (or those who would become Hebrews) decided that they had become human enough to do away with the sacrifices altogether. But he still had to be able to cite or read the LAW. They would still kill offenders, but it was fairly rare and almost never pro-active.
Myth is an explanation of why we do what we do. And the myth of Abraham, Isaac, and the sacrifice on the mountain explained why the Hebrews no longer sacrificed their boy children.
Now the Hebrews were small and relatively inbred and so it didn't take long for them to become intelligent and obedient. The stupid, the brutal and those who could not follow the letter of the LAW drifted away or were driven out of the community.
I think it went something like that.

[marco]

The story of Abraham called upon to sacrifice Isaac is a popular one for impugning the Jewish and Christian god. One asks, how could a good God require something like this?

When we immerse ourselves in ancient literature, we discover the context requires some nuance.

Abraham lived in a world where a deity, though not often, yet still might require human sacrifice. Abraham was only recently acquainted with this new god, and probably regarded him as he might any god; which means the demand for human sacrifice was not completely out of the blue when it was given.

The situation provided God with two opportunities: to test Abraham's devotion by imposing a recognizable litmus for obedience; and to distinguish himself from other gods by interrupting the process.

Does this interpretation resolve the specifically moral problem of the story?

The problem with the story is NOT the subsequent events but the actual order to murder a boy. There is no moral justification for this.
If it was a "test" - (does God need to determine things by a test?) - it involved an evil instruction.

If the distinguishing feature from other "gods" is the prevention of the command being fully implemented, it does not cover the horror of taking the boy and binding him, and the readiness of a human father to commit murder, as if the boy is an incidental.

The evil suggestion leads one to decide that Yahweh has some qualities from which it is best to distance ourselves. The appropriate reply, from Abraham, would have been: "No. Take my life instead." But Abraham wasn't all moral of course. He was a man who sent his concubine and his son into the wilderness. Nice chap!

[myth-one.com]

The story of Abraham called upon to sacrifice Isaac is a popular one for impugning the Jewish and Christian god. One asks, how could a good God require something like this?

When we immerse ourselves in ancient literature, we discover the context requires some nuance.

Abraham lived in a world where a deity, though not often, yet still might require human sacrifice. Abraham was only recently acquainted with this new god, and probably regarded him as he might any god; which means the demand for human sacrifice was not completely out of the blue when it was given.

The situation provided God with two opportunities: to test Abraham's devotion by imposing a recognizable litmus for obedience; and to distinguish himself from other gods by interrupting the process.

Does this interpretation resolve the specifically moral problem of the story?

A better version is in the Bible. There was never going to be any sacrifice of Isaac.

It is an amazing example of faith -- the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen:

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. 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. (Genesis 22:1-2)

Abraham did not question God, but arose the next morning and set off to Moriah. When they reached the place God showed him, he instructed the two men who accompanied them:

And Abraham said to his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you. (Genesis 22:5)

On the way up the mountain, Isaac asks his father:

Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together. (Genesis 22:7-8)

Abraham and Isaac reach the top, build an altar, lay the wood, and Abraham binds Isaac and lays him on the wood on the altar. Then:

And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thy 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. 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. (Genesis 22:10-13)

Upon reading this scripture the first few times it seemed to be a barbaric tale like the sacrificing of children by idol worshipers during that period.

Then the truth finally struck me while reading verse five of chapter twenty-two for what seemed like the hundredth time. Abraham knew God would not allow Isaac to be killed! Notice in verse five Abraham instructs the two young men who accompanied them on the journey to:

Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship; and come again to you. (Genesis 22:5)

Did you catch that? It's rather subtle. I and the lad will go and worship and come again to you. In other words, we will go and worship and then we will return to you.

Abraham knew Isaac would return with him! Why? Because God promised Abraham that he would make an everlasting covenant with his son Isaac and Isaac's seed. This is a story of incredible faith! Abraham had faith that God would keep his promise. Abraham was one hundred years old and his wife Sarah was ninety when God said:

Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. (Genesis 17:19)

Now, here was Isaac on the altar. If he were killed, the above promise could not be fulfilled. God could not establish his covenant with Isaac and his seed if Isaac was dead!

Abraham did not know how God would accomplish it, but he had faith that Isaac would not be killed that day. God was testing Abraham's faith.

There is an obvious dualism and prophecy at work here. Abraham was instructed to offer his only son as a sacrifice. Later, God would offer his only begotten son as a sacrifice for mankind's sins. In both instances, God supplied the sacrificial lamb, a ram with his horns caught in the thicket and Jesus. Mankind could then gain eternal life through faith in Jesus. That is, through believing in Jesus, mankind's reward is something in the future, which we cannot now see.

That reward is eternal life.

God, Abraham, and probably even Issac knew no one would be hurt that day.

[marco]

A better version is in the Bible. There was never going to be any sacrifice of Isaac.

Yes, this is the facetious explanation. God was joking. When he told Abraham to murder Isaac both Abraham and God knew it was all an amusing play and Abraham paid lip service, pretending he didn't know God was only joking. Some versions say Isaac also knew about the joke and all three had a good laugh.

Abraham did not know how God would accomplish it, but he had faith that Isaac would not be killed that day. God was testing Abraham's faith.

It is not clear why we have to be told the horrible story again. God wasn't testing Abraham because the object of a test is to discover what one, as yet, does not know. God has no need to test. Remember he has such useful information as the number of hairs on Abraham's head. The brutality practised on Isaac and the sadism in the suggestion: "take thine only son whom thou loveth and murder him," are diabolic, not divine.

There is an obvious dualism and prophecy at work here. Abraham was instructed to offer his only son as a sacrifice. Later, God would offer his only begotten son as a sacrifice for mankind's sins. In both instances, God supplied the sacrificial lamb, a ram with his horns caught in the thicket and Jesus.

I imagine some Jesuit thought up this "dualism". Unfortunately Christ did die, Isaac did not; Isaac's ordeal was a joke; Christ's wasn't; Isaac was a child, with brutality done to him; Christ engineered his own fate. Isaac was Abraham's son. Christ was a human being, and it was not his father who was wielding the knife. The alleged reason for Christ's "sacrifice" was to free folk from sin; there was no benefit at all in the Isaac-Abraham pantomime other than to set a bad example for people who think they hear God's voice.

God, Abraham, and probably even Issac knew no one would be hurt that day.

Then for whose benefit was the pantomime enacted- the reader's?

[JehovahsWitness]

The situation provided God with two opportunities: to test Abraham's devotion by imposing a recognizable litmus for obedience; and to distinguish himself from other gods by interrupting the process.

Does this interpretation resolve the specifically moral problem of the story?

I don't see any moral problems with the account.

God has the right to reclaim anything he has given including a life, that is just common sense. That said I agree that as the text says, Abrahams outstanding faith was confirmed by his being willing to sacrifice his Son, and it also served as a "prophetic drama" as Paul pointed out, for the future ransom.


JW

[marco]

I don't see any moral problems with the account.

God has the right to reclaim anything he has given including, that is just common sense. That said I agree that as the text says, Abrahams outstanding faith was confirmed by his being willing to sacrifice his Son, and it also served as a "prophetic drama" as Paul pointed out, for the future ransom.

One cannot argue with the contention that God can reclaim what he has given. One can argue with a being telling a father to murder a son.

Abraham's willingness to commit murder shows his willingness to break a strict moral injunction; he had questioned God in the past - he had every right to question him here, especially since a third person was involved.

The argument that everybody knew God would stay his hand reduces the scenario to dark farce.

Paul's view is an irrelevance.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 17 by marco]

It's the double standard we see time and time again. Sacrificing children to the gods is very bad. But if God tells you murder your son, it is very good.


Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

One cannot argue with the contention that God can reclaim what he has given. One can argue with a being telling a father to murder a son.

Murder is unlawful killing, so biblically, killing someone in obedience to a direct command from God is not murder. For believers life belongs to God, so God is the one who decides what is murder or not.

Abraham was not told to murder his Son.


JW


Paul's view is relevant to people of faith because he explains the significance of the account in relation to worship.





RELATED POSTS

Did the Mosaic law prohibit killing or murder?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 91#p826591

Is murder forgivable?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 52#p977052

Does the bible advocate the dashing of babies against rocks?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 65#p827065

Could someone like HITLER be forgiven for what he did?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 03#p909903

Are "pacifists" cowards (and oportunists)?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 80#p826880

Go to other posts related to


MURDER, KILLING and ... THE FLOOD OF NOAH'S DAY

[Menotu]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

I've always found the concept that God needs to test anyone rather flawed. If he needs to test them, then he doesn't know them. If he doesn't know them, he's not all knowing.
Some say the person being tested needs to be tested. But why? What does that tell them about themselves they don't already know?

Anything that says it's all knowing but needs to test you is rather perverted, IMO.