Making Sacrifices

I had a really good weekend overall. The highlight was a visit to see Sid and P. G.. After coming back from the pub Sid cracked open a bottle of twelve year old scotch and we sallied forth into some interesting discussions well into the wee hours.
The most interesting one (that I still recall) was on Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac. It’s a tough one certainly. I figured I would tale a few minutes and put some thoughts to the old blog and see what shook out. Here I have the advantage of access to the scriptures. The passages in question are in Genesis 22. Go read it and save me having to repost the whole chapter.
Here are the things that jump out to me.
1) This is a test. God, knowing what he did, knew that a sacrifice wouldn’t be necessary. Abraham on the other hand didn’t “know” it was a test. Or did he?
2) 5 He said to his servants, “Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you.” – Abraham could be lying to his servants. After all if he told the truth his servants might not be so willing to let him go.
3) Isaac (smart boy) asks hsi father where the lamb is. 8 Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” And the two of them went on together. – Again Abraham could be lying since Isaac probably wouldn’t be willing to jump on the fire.
4) Just as he is about to do the deed, God speaks. 12 “Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.” Is this intervention expected?
5) 14 So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide. And to this day it is said, “On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided.”
I would posit the following. Abraham knew God’s character. Up until now God wasn’t one that called for human sacrifice. Still Abraham also knew that he needed to obey God. He had three days to think about this. I can’t imagine that those were three easy days. That’s just me filling in the blanks of course. We don’t really get an insight into Abraham’s thoughts. Don’t get me wrong, it does seem that Abraham was going to go through with it. At least on the surface, though, he indicated to his servants and to the boy that God would provide the needed sacrifice. I think he really believed that and that he wasn’t lying.

  • Anonymous
    Then why, after verse 2 did Abraham respond with disbelief in the voice he was hearing.
    I assume you mean why didn't he? He was, for some reason that we don't know, certain that it was God.
    (which suggests he was able to sleep!)
    You're making an assumption He may not have slept at all. We don't know. His surprise is not recorded so we don't really know. He wasn't skeptical perhaps because he recognized the voice of God as such.
    Disobeying God, even when you don't understand the commands or the purposes behind them always has consequences. Either he wasn't willing to pay the consequences, which is understandable, or he didn't think that ultimately he would have to perform the sacrifice.
    I don't think I said that Abraham had it "figured out". I'm asking the question, did he know. Maybe he did know and if so you would be right, God failed to administer the test, or did he? I mean regardless Abraham went through with it. He saw that Abraham was willing to do it. Maybe Abraham was just acting on faith that he wouldn't have to sacrifice his son or that if he did perhaps God would bring him back.
    In order for this part of the Bible to be consistent with that message shouldn't the correct choice have been for Abraham to sacrifice his own good standing with God for the life of his son?
    Self sacrifice is not the only message in the Bible. Obedience is also an important part of the Bible. God is satisfied with Abraham's obedience. Ultimately it was incredibly important for Abraham to obey some difficult commands so that God's will could be done.
    I'm not saying that if Abraham had killed Isaac that it would have been a moral act though I guess if it were sanctioned by God that would make it moral since he's the ultimate arbiter (this is a problem I have ALWAYS had with the OT passages where God's armies kill children).
    Then of course you would have to deal with the idea that if he was willing to do it then he had already committed the act in his heart. It's a tough one to deal with that's for sure.
  • Hello Scott,
    That was a good conversation. I'm glad you decided to continue it with others here. I have a number of problems with this myth.
    "I would posit the following. Abraham knew God's character. Up until now God wasn't one that called for human sacrifice."
    Then why, after verse 2 did Abraham respond with disbelief in the voice he was hearing.
    Verse 2.1 Then Abraham said, "Be gone vile deceiver for I know God would not ask such of anyone."
    Instead, he got up early the next morning (which suggests he was able to sleep!) and began preparations for murder. His lack of surprise and utter lack of skepticism at the request suggests that the demand for human sacrifice did not seem out of character for God at all to Abraham.
    Since the myth says that it ultimately was a test, then in order to be an effective test, the ruse could not be obvious to Abraham. If Abraham figured it out, then God failed to administer an effective test of Abraham's faith. Of course if God succeeded in trick Abraham, that would mean that the the test was a success, but it would also mean that the Jewish God is a deceptive God.
    Another issue I have is with the 'success' criteria of the test. Considering later in the Bible, self-sacrifice becomes a major theme and the ultimate act of good. In order for this part of the Bible to be consistent with that message shouldn't the correct choice have been for Abraham to sacrifice his own good standing with God for the life of his son? Abraham might have suffered, and suffered greatly for the life of his son. According to most Christian theology, God suffered, and suffered greatly for the lives of his children.
    Instead, in this story, the 'correct' answer was to obey God even onto performing evil. In this story, God demands obedience, not morality; authority trumps good.
    "modern thought takes Abraham out of context. He doesn't live in our time, we didn't live in his."
    Is that a post-modernist defense of Abraham's actions? The morality of his actions is relative to the culture and time?
  • I've been rather busy lately, so I don't have much time to think of a good response to add to discussion, but I can add that "The Problem of Abraham" was discussed at length before in a rather famous book in the history of philosophy. It's relatively short, doesn't resort to dull technical language, and the author makes some interesting and, for some, surprising arguments. He goes into what Abraham went through and into the problems that the situation presents. And it was written long enough ago that there is no copyright and thus, the book is available online.
    The book is Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling, viewable in HTML at http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/tkannist/E-texts/Kierkegaard/fear.htm
  • The only insight offered into Abraham's thoughts appears in Heb 11:17-18. The idea presented was that Abraham trusted that Isaac was the future of his descendants. As such, he reasoned that Isaac would be resurrected from the dead.
    Based on the two texts, I would venture to say that Abraham's thoughts were that either God would provide a sacrifice (Gen 22:8) or that God would bring Isaac back from the dead (Heb 11:17).
    In modern thought, this is a horrible idea. It is child endangerment at the very least. It shows signs of mental instability on the part of Abraham. It begs the question of what kind of God would go against his own nature and demand child sacrifice as a test?
    Then again, modern thought takes Abraham out of context. He doesn't live in our time, we didn't live in his. I've seen a lot of equivocating about this story, but it basically comes down to the fact that very few modern folks will ever actually *like* the story. It is too foreign in its details.
  • The only insight offered into Abraham's thoughts appears in Heb 11:17-18. The idea presented was that Abraham trusted that Isaac was the future of his descendants. As such, he reasoned that Isaac would be resurrected from the dead.
    Based on the two texts, I would venture to say that Abraham's thoughts were that either God would provide a sacrifice (Gen 22:8) or that God would bring Isaac back from the dead (Heb 11:17).
    In modern thought, this is a horrible idea. It is child endangerment at the very least. It shows signs of mental instability on the part of Abraham. It begs the question of what kind of God would go against his own nature and demand child sacrifice as a test?
    Then again, modern thought takes Abraham out of context. He doesn't live in our time, we didn't live in his. I've seen a lot of equivocating about this story, but it basically comes down to the fact that very few modern folks will ever actually *like* the story. It is too foreign in its details.
blog comments powered by Disqus
«
»