Abraham's Near-Sacrifice of Isaac

[Clockface]

Hello all. I thought I'd start this thread because the story of Abraham's near-sacrifice of Isaac in Genesis is often cited on MN as a real difficulty people have with the Bible / Christianity / God - if God is love, how on earth can he ask anyone to murder their own child?

Anyway, I am reading a book about the Old Testament and came across a take on it that I hadn't thought of before so I thought I'd lay it open to the MN jury! I hope no-one finds this offensive. It is so well put that I will quote:

'if you put God in a story, and you want it to be a good story, he is almost bound to end up as both the good fairy and the big bad wolf. If God had not been...the initiator of suffering, then...he would have been reacting to events, not in control of them, cleaning up messes for which he was not responsible. And so it would be in the story of salvation as a whole; human beings, not God, would be the prime mover, and God's role restricted...'

So...applying this to Abraham and Isaac, in the story passed down round firesides in the tribes, God has to be in control of events in order to be God, and God has to save in order to be God. The event itself (shrouded in the mists of time) is interpreted theologically along these lines.

What do we think?

Like many stories, this throws an interesting light on how our ancestors saw God.

However, the principle (that God needs to create suffering in order to save us from suffering) reminds me of the Scooby Doo story whereby a man creates nasty cowboy robots in order to 'save' people from them. I don't mean to offend by that; it just seems to have no more point than robot cowboys.

Because if God needs us to suffer in order for 'him' to love us, what is the point of 'heaven'? Surely we are better off continuing our suffering so that we can be aware of God's love?

It also assumes that God is fully outside and separate from humanity, rather than being something that is within us.

So, how does this story inform your faith (apart from being a great yarn, of course?)

I don't think that God is supposed to be the instigator of suffering/evil (although he created the devil etc in full knowledge of what would happen including all the people who will end up in hell wishing they never existed and this I can't understand) but he does control it to some extent as nothing happens without God allowing it.

In the Isaac story though, God isn't just allowing evil, he is asking/ordering it. He commands Abraham to sin (is murder not a sin)? Even if is done with the knowledge that he will stop it from happening at the last minute, it still doesn't seem right.

Does the devil ever impersonate God, cause if I was commanded to kill anyone I would have to consider that I was being tricked.

1. Abraham's understanding of God's will was dodgy but his faith meant God intervened & saved the day
2. It was a test of how much he loved God
3. It was to show that Jesus would be the Lamb of God

Just 3 theories I remember, I'm sure there are lots.

How does this story inform my faith? Oooh, there's a good question...

Well, I'm a Christian. But I am slightly hesitant about answering 3. above on mariagoetti's list, because my instinct is that to Christianise the Hebrew Bible is verging on belittling it by implying that God wasn't fully involved in the world until Jesus' birth. Obviously, because I'm a Christian, I believe that it's in Jesus that we get the best revelation of God, but I do believe that it's the same God all along, deeply, messily involved with the world. So there has to be more to it than allegory to me. although I don't think it's wrong to read it in metaphorical terms - as long as it's also read as far as possible in its hitsorical context. What I mean is, it can't juts be allegory, although it works allegorically.

So...the story informs my faith (tentative answer here, ask me again in a year!) by acting as a kind of roadmark in the long journey of faith of my Judeo-Christian tradition. I am quite taken with the 'winding quest' / 'progressive revelation' way of reading the Bible (i.e. the tradition is not downloaded like some great computer file into the hearts and minds of the Hebrew people, it develops over time, slowly, nearly completely by narrative rather than abstract theologising). So at this time (which, btw, scholars believe to be among the oldest oral stories passed down; Elohistic source if that means anything to anyone), and in this place (tribal Palestine), this story represents the ultimate test of faith - do you obey God even when he tells you to do something horrific, something which the other surrounding tribes did as part of their worship?

Actually, that last point - the fact that child scarifice was a part of Canaanite tribal religions - could represent a move away from that, a decisive break from the ways of the other tribes. So maybe the point is not that God tells Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (something that a tribal god would have the right to do in that culture) but the fact that he stops it. So maybe it's a radical re-definition of faith, a radically new (again, in that time and place) revelation of God. So it speaks to my heart about a group of tribes who are getting to grips with what kind of God they worship. And more personally, it speaks to me about the sacrifices that obeying God might incur, that faith is never meant to be a ticket to an easy life (here we are very much on the grounds of metaphor; we've left the child-scarifice element behind).

As I said, it's a tentative answer. Because it's such a very ancient story, I have to bear in mind that it's heavily theologised / interpreted.

Deep thoughts for a Fridy evening!

Clockface, that is a very lovely way of explaining it - your faith shines through.

And I wonder if it isn't an account of a shift in the collective consiousness of the Jewish people? That their awareness moved on to another level, the level whereby child sacrifice goes against what Love wants? But they can only explain - even justify - this change by putting it down to God without rather than knowing that it had come from God within?

And I wonder what faith looks like if it doesn't require sacrifice? And if God doesn't require us to obey?

Deep thoughts for a Saturday morning, too!

Yeah, that's right - so bad king Manasseh is said to have sacrificed his children as evidence of his badness (sorry to be glib, but the story of bad king Manasseh is riddled with hyperbole IMO).

Another thing I was thinking of when I was doing the washing up - another seminal moment in the shift of the collective consciousness (great phrase btw spiritmum!) - is in the story of the establishment of the Israelite monarchy, when the prophet Samuel says to King Saul 'To obey (or 'draw near to listen') is better than sacrifice'. I think he was talking about sacrifice in the literal sense, as there are cows mooing and sheep baaa-ing in the background and Saul is caliming to have sacrificed them (lying through his teeth). So maybe this moment is another radical re-definition of faith - Abraham's faith superseding child sacrifice (it is never suggested again after that story or promoted as something that a Hebrew should do), and Samuel's speech re-locating the animal sacrifice system, not doing away with it at that point but quite clearly relegating it so that listening / obedience (same word in Hebrew) becomes the highest standard, with animal sacrifice a lesser thing. Then later on in the story king David insists on paying for a place to sacrifice grain, on the basis that 'I will not offer to the Lord a sacrifice that cost me nothing'. So yes, spiritmum, sacrifice is costly, one way or another.

Interesting thoughts! Keep 'em coming, if you like!

i will have to read this again, a little deep for me
however i do feel HE likes to test people, adam and eve for starters. and JOB?, even though he must already know the outcome.

Maybe have a look at this before you get too theological.

I feel so sad that somebody even has to ask questions like this and would like to get some more encouragement for her.

Hi, Clockface,

So I take it the OT is really floating your boat at the moment?

But aside from the Biblical teaching, what does the idea of faith needing to be sacrificial mean to you? How does it inform what you do?

And when you 'draw near to listen', where do the answers come from? From within you, or something that is outside of you?

Interesting conversation, thank you (and I should probably flag up here that I'm not a Christian, although I used to be.)

spiritmum

Hi Spiritmum!

Well, I'm training to be a Church of England viacr, and as part of that am doing a degree in Theology, specialising in the Bible. It is blimmin' hard work but a really fantastic oportunity to get my head around it and ask all those pokey questions! I am studying alongside all sorts of people, not just fellow-believers, and I think that's great - I didn't want to sit around with a bunch of people who'd all agree with each other all the time! So yes, I have got suckered into the Old Testament - there is a known species of 'Old Testament geek / addict' and I seem to have become one. I get really excited when I meet someone doing an Old Testament PhD! (which is what I'd love to do at some point).

So...really deep questions! Sacrifice...I think being a mum has taught me a lot about sacrifice, knocked some of the selfishness out of me, just by teaching me to put others before myself. I know it's a cliche but there's that thing that Mother Theresa said about seeing Christ in the face of the poor, and I'd add children to that too. We have a framed picture in our house which a friend gave us, that has a quotation of Jesus on it: 'I tell you, what you did for the least of these my children, you did for me'. Which I love. I think most mums would agree with this but not necessarily put it in religious terms!

More specifically, I was in the perfect job - I could see promotion etc, and I absolutely loved what I was doing. We had a nice(ish) house with a tiny mortgage and two incomes, dh ahd an easy commute into work - then we upped sticks for me to train to be a vicar, and now we are paying shedloads of rent on one income (I'm now a full-time student) and dh is commuting much further, which has meant that as a family we've had to really work hard at creating good-quality family time at the weekends as dh's time with the dc in the week is so limited .

We all love it here - there are some really fabulous blessings - but there are sacrifices we've had to make, and IME sacrifice and blessing do seem to go hand in hand. And I don't see that changing - we'll be moving from here in 2 years and I'm sure there'll be new challenges. I preached at our church just before we left home, and held up my super-duper coffee maker as a symbol of sacrifice - we gave it to the Children's Centre where I ran a mums' group as our kitchen here is too small for it!

As for drawing near to listen...can I answer that later? We're off for a picnic today and I need to make sandwiches!

Ah, Clockface, that was very nearly my path, too. Got so far as meeting the DDO then discovered I was pg (unexpectedly) - I knew myself well enough to understand that the seismic shift of having a baby meant that I had to put my vocation on hold. But then...well, that's a story for another time.

But here's the thing: all those things you call sacrifices - what would it have cost you not to do them? My guess is that it would have been far, far more painful for you.

This may sound like small fry compared to your lifestyle changes but I used to loathe making lunchboxes. Every day I used to make the wretched things, seething with indignation, not least because the school provides perfectly nice lunches these days which my precious little darlings turn their noses up at. Then one day I realised that I had a choice - I could send them in to eat the lunches or go hungry. Instead I choose, every day, to make them a packed lunch full not only of nutrition but of love. How cool is that? So my 'sacrifice' of the time that I give in making lunches is actually a wonderful gift - to myself, because I'm staying true to my values.

See, my life doesn't look a lot different from when I did give myself the label of Christian in terms of how I live it. But I find it all so much less...stressful, is the word which comes to mind. I do understand that you have had to change your lifestyle but wouldn't it have been harder not to? So why not say that it is faith that brings you the greatest joy? How can it be a sacrifice if it brings you so much joy and fulfilment? I love the person I am since having kids, I could pinch myself sometimes at how far I've shifted - sacrifice? What sacrifice? Unless you mean the self-centred woman who couldn't see beyond the end of her own nose, and I think I'm better off without her.

I suppose the only thing that did feel like a sacrifice was giving up my faith - I fought for two years' before finally giving it up, but when I did the relief was huge. As I guess it was for you when you set out on your path, right?

Now I work as a spiritual facilitator - I work with women mostly, running spiritual courses and workshops. The funny thing is this is exactly what I wanted to do as a priest - I was going to be an NSM and eventually build up a retreat ministry, so I'm still following my calling. Now I bring in the side of me I had to squash as a Christian and draw on all kinds of traditions (including Christian)in my work, and I love it.

Have a great pic-nic! I'm looking forward to hearing about 'drawing near to listen'

(your happiness is really shining through...embrace it!)

spiritmum

Yes it is inspiring! Isn't it funny how things work out...

Sacrifice is a funny concept really. One person's idea of sacrifice is totally different to the next's. Maybe it depends on the value, to you, of the thing you are sacrificing. I know some people who sneer at the idea of giving things up for Lent / Advent but I think it's a good thing to have a time in the year when you think about the things in life that you'd find it hard to do without, and voluntarily sacrice them for that time. For me, giving up my job was the crunch point - once I'd done that, there was no going back! And you're absolutely right - there is no way I colud have been happy staying where I was, knowing that my heart was all for where I felt God to be leading. I had 6 months of battling in myself, during which time I was really miserable, and in the end dh said 'you're never going to be satisfied unless you at least give this a try' - and of course he was right! And yes, there is no way on earth I'd go back if I had the chance to.

Drawing near to listen...well! One of the things I really like about the CofE is the 'Daily Office' - the cycle of prayer and Bible reading. For me, that's a daily time of drawing near to listen - to soak myself in God's presence and in the words of the Bible. For me, that's my basic framework of drawing nar to listen. I don't always come with specific questions that need answering as such, it is simply open-ended listening to God, being concsiously open to Him. Some days (okay, quite often!) my heart is a bit distracted but carrying on I think is important, because enthusaiasms for all sorts of things wax and wane, so it shouldn't be dependent on how I feel that day.

In terms of specific questions, I do feel that the answers come from without but reverberate within, iyswim. Like when dh said about me not being satisfied unless I offered myself for ordained ministry. It was a simple observational comment but the force of the truth of it was so strong that I knew it was the answer to my 6 month battle! I love a verse from the Psalms that says 'Deep calls to deep in the roar of your waterfalls' - I might be using poetic license here but I read that as the deep within God spaking to the deep within my spirit, through all sorts of means (even dh! ). Sometimes for me it's been through dreams at nght. I recently had a moment in a dream that was so powerfully spiritual and so utterly different to anything I would think in my waking hours, with a very profound and true 'message' in it - I am still processing it but there was a quality to it that was luminous and almost spellbinding. That doesn't happen all that often but it has at times through my life and I can still really vividly remember dreams like that I had as a teenager - those moments are still as spiritual! Maybe that's part of the essence of drawing near to listen - entering into the timelessness of God.

Deep deep stuff! Deep calling to deep...

The original story of Abraham and Isaac was of an actual human sacrifice.

The institution of human sacrifice was widely practised in the ancient world although usually only at times of great emergency and was invariably accompanied by guilt on the part of the society and by the need to shift the blame, despite the desperation that required the deed.

However, out of such terrible acts good fortune may flow. A nation may be established, a famine averted, a city founded, or a threatening army may be defeated. This last example is recounted in 2 Kings 3:27, where, when faced with an Israelite attack, the Moab King sacrifices his eldest son, and a ?great wrath came upon Israel so they withdrew from him and returned to their own land.? Even Yahweh cannot stand against the power of this sacrifice.

The story of Abraham and Isaac as told in the OT appears to represent a transition between the practice of human sacrifice and its rejection by the Israelites. The purpose of this narrative is to demonstrate that the Hebrew God ordains animal substitutes. Hence the account contains no revulsion at the prospect of human sacrifice and Abraham is accorded extraordinary merit that he is prepared to sacrifice his favourite son at the behest of his deity. That Yahweh provides a ram caught in a thicket as this substitute indicates that while human sacrifice is no longer condoned the offering of an animal substitute must be accorded the same reverence and sanctity that was previously bestowed upon the former human offering.

It is highly likely that in the original story, which would have entailed a human offering, some resurrection motif was evident by which the foundation of the tribe was miraculously renewed. This tale makes that point. The nation is established and human sacrifice is rendered unnecessary because the divinity ordains a substitute.

Interesting stuff, Breton!

'the nation is established....' - what do you mean by this? How does it work? (iyo, obviously!) Do you read national identity into this story? Intrigued...!

Must add...for my theology course I haven't had to study this story...so I haven't read much scholarly stuff on it.

Thank you, Clockface and Justabout, it is odd how things turned out...one of the things that I really love about my life now is that I get to express my pagan leanings, too. When I look at the sun I don't see something that God created, I see God manifested, and that wasn't on when I was studying!

I always used to give stuff up for Lent but I think that it was more ego-driven than out of selflessness. To be honest I think that everything we give, we give to please ourselves. For example, you know what it's like to spend hours searching for the perfect gift for someone. You wrap it lovingly, and when you give it to them you expect hugs and kisses and weeping with gratitude.

But what if it doesn't happen? If they aren't that impressed, we may feel deflated, hurt, even angry. This happens all the time; the cup of coffee that our partner leave to go cold, the meal our kids turn their noses up at...accept that when we do things for others for the pleasure that it gives us and the gift becomes unconditional, beause you expect nothing at all in return, not even a thank you.

As for where the answers come from, my beliefs have shifted from the dual to the non-dual. So I see no place where I end and you begin, and no separation between me and God, or my Source. But the paradox is that the very fact that I have beliefs that are different to yours means that we have an illusion of separation. It is why I never say that I follow a particular religion any more - apart from the fact that what I follow probably doesn't have a name (New Age pic'n'mix is what my former tutor would have said it was ) as soon as I say that I am this and you are something else, we notice our separateness.

I remember feeling thoroughly miserable before offering myself for ordination. It took me 18 months and I really got quite depressed. I did have some doubts though - the biggest one being that I knew I could never obey my bishop. Probably just as well for the CofE that I didn't get ordained as there would have been a big scandal about a lady vicar marrying gay couples in secret!

I have dreams too, but I don't usually remember them - I cary the feeling with me and have faith that what I needed to know has gone in somewhere! (Although last night's dream was about me dying my hair blond...) I tend more to get messages when I meditate, I see images, and I also channel when I am journalling sometimes - I try not to put too much of a label on things. When I was a Christian I used to have this sense of a presence who would guide me and answer any questions that I had. That presence left as abruptly as a light switch being flicked and because my faith had stopped stacking up intellectually, I lost it, although not without a very hard fight. It was terrifying! Now I have a sense of something with me again, although in a different way - I feel very strongly that the only person who will save me is me - so who knows what it is that we assign these labels to? God? Angels? The Higher Self? Does it matter?

Have you read Geza Vermes? I love his books and he's been really instrumental in shaping my beliefs now.

Breton, that is really interesting.

Spiritmum

Geza Vermes - Yes! I love his work! although obviously he comes at things from a very different angle to me. When I was a bit younger and more conservative I would have found him too intimidating but I've mellowed!

I think the Judeo-Christian-Islamic sense of God as basically 'other' than oneself is probably one of the biggest differences between those traditions and the 'pagan pic'n' mix' - what do you think? [hmmm...pic'n'mix...missing Woolworths emoticon!]

Oooh watch it, Clockface! Most pagans most definitely do not take a pic'n'mix approach and wouldn't thank you for saying it! Neither do I actually - it's more a case of finding my own truths, which happen to come from different places - although I'm happy to laugh at myself about it. I can remember my tutor being very sneery of the New Age style of doing things, like it was a cop-out in some way. (Also very sneered at was the term' spiritual') Yes, to leave Christianity and go for something New Age was definitely viewed as weak.

The non-dual thought (i.e. oneness) is probably more Eastern - certainly Taoist and Buddhist. But then paganism still allows for you to find your own truths, so many pagans probably do see oneness also. I don't believe in God as a being, but I can relate to God as mother and father as a way of finding a meeting point.

My Reiki master, who follows a shamanistic path but also attends Quaker meetings sometimes, describes her 'faith' as taking the beautiful strands from many places and weaving together her own amazing spiritual quilt. I guess that goes for me, too!

Sorry, spiritmum! I was using your former tutor's words - althought I guess there's a difference between pagan and New Age?

No need to apologise, Clockface, I meant that I don't take a pic'n'mix approach, not that I didn't thank you! Yes, big differences between New Age and pagan. I think my beliefs probably fit closest to New Age although it's not a lable that I feel comfortable with - mainly due to negative connotations and prejudices. Just like when I was a Christian I would never describe myself as 'born again', even though according to the doctrine of the church I was, because of the image of 'born again Christians'.

And I do dip into a bit of paganism myself - so maybe a better label would be Christo-pagan? But then I have a Buddha on my home altar (Jesus is in the middle and I also have a very heavily pregnant earth mother ).

Whatever, I never know what to put in the box on forms that says, 'religion'. (very )

now for me the interesting part about this is that it isn't always Isaac who is sacrificed. it's the oldest son. which is Ishmael. hence the muslim version of the same story and also the symbolic divide between jewish and arab nations (imo)