I always found this tale disturbing even as a child in Sunday School where it was drilled into us as an amazing test of faith. There was no one as great as Abraham for "taking his son, his only son" and of course it ended up being a type of God offering Jesus, which was the point.
But I always wondered what Isaac's relationship with his father was after this and whether he ever trusted going anywhere again with dad.
I always wondered in the same way, what Lot's daughter's, not to mention his wife's relationship with him, was after he offered them to the crowd to be raped instead of his Angelic guests. Neither Mrs. Lot or Mrs. Abraham seem to have cared what the men did with the children nor questioned their sanity. Lot was listed as a great hero of faith in Hebrews 11 and Mrs. Lot got turned to salt so I suppose that settles it.
(IT NEVER HAPPENED)
The Old Testament often seemed to me full of prophets, priests and kings who had no real human emotions. They acted and thought like automatons it seems to me. The voices said do and they did. They were much more inclined to obey the voices in their heads than think for themselves. And when they were wrong, they weren't really wrong. It was always the people who were wrong. Those who observed and noted absurdities and thought for themselves were and are the bad guys to be dismembered and discarded.
And so it is today. Peter called them "scoffers" for noticing that Jesus did not come back as he said and as Paul had made so clear to the church would be the case soon. But back in the day they were not scoffers at all. They were noticers and they were right.
And while remnant members spend hours every week listening to the voices in the heads of others, the likes of Dave Pack and Gerald Flurry, they would not be wrong to notice that nothing these men, and others, contrive to be so, is actually true. It is simply more De Ja Moo which is the same BS repeated over and over.
Perhaps this is a better explanation of Yahweh's Great Test and it certainly would have made me feel better as a child in Sunday School.
The Psychopath Test Gone Awry
27 comments:
Son we have to go off by ourselves, this is just between you and me and god. That's scary for any trauma survivor to think about. "Don't tell anybody", don't want any eyewitnesses. And they never talked about it again? Everything was hunky dory? I love you son. I love you too dad. Oh and son, don't tell your mother she'd only worry.
Did the kid just climb up on the alter and sit peaceably while being bound, lay down compliantly and look adoringly at his dad while Abraham was getting ready to thrust a knife in him while knowing dad planned thereafter to set him alight? I don't think so. It says God's own son BEGGED him not wanting to die and "sweated blood". Was Isaac calm, cool and collected? Lots of future generational trauma memory there.
How long after, did folks start sacrificing their children to "please" their god/god's? Where did they get that idea from? Tales recounted of a patriarch who went to sacrifice his son to please his God? After all, somebody saw or told. The whole world knows the story.
I don't know any child over the age of reason that would calmly take it, while dad was setting out to kill them and not plead with tears, "Daddy no, no daddy, please don't kill me! I didn't mean to be bad. What did I do? I'm sorry daddy I'll be good!"
Mock on all you want. The reality is that devout Christians are qualifying for eternal life while Dennis the spiritual menace is qualifying for the lake of fire.
I like that Dennis.
Also 9:51 take on events.
The historic reality of human sacrifice is that it either would be a voluntary act (to get into walhallah or save the tribe from disease by throwing tollund man in a swamp) or/and "victims" worldwide would be drugged either voluntary or forced.
One must consider that at the time Paul was speaking to the Galatians, their warior kin a few miles up the Danube would still be having human heads on poles outside their habitats for energy dose. (much like modern workers would have their morning red bull energy soda for survival)
When the Conquistadores of South America witnessed the bloody spectacle of throwing human sacrifice from the temples in order to have the blood smeared all over the steps and "cleanse" the area, they could not interpret it other than having to massacre those heathens.
Whereas if the accompanying catholic priests would have read their own holy books, they would have known, they were witnessing the most religious of ceremonies ever.
As a matter of fact. I am pretty sure they would have understood that. But hey. It is all politics and economy after all.
So I am awaiting the sequel to this posting to explain the economics of the Abra(ha)mic ritual to me. Was their some "blessing" involved or rather a hush up to mamma as 9:51 seems to imply?
nck
What if God had also spoken with Isaac, and reassured him that this wasn't his test, it was Dad's? Told him not to worry, because he wasn't going to be harmed or killed.
If you were God, isn't that what you would have done?
That's how I thought about it as a child anon 951. And still do. A real son having had this real experience, just as Lot's daughters are said to have had, would have puked at the name of their father.
The author of Hebrews 11 notes that Abraham just knew God could or would raise Isaac from the dead after killing him. Of course, there is no hint of this in the story and the author of Hebrews 11 makes this part up as if he knew what Abraham was thinking.
Israel Finkelstein, Israeli archaeologist and author of The Bible Unearthed makes the point that there is no convincing evidence that figures like Moses, Abraham, Solomon and perhaps even David actually existed in history. So perhaps we should not worry too much about Isaac's mental health after this event. As Dr. Finkelstein told me personally when digging with him at Megiddo, "We exaggerate."
It is not mocking to merely notice and question. If a God clued Isaac in it was all was well then Isaac as type of Jesus breaks down or verifies Jesus' sacrifice was just a weekend inconvenience. As I was asked once, "shouldn't a sacrifice stay dead?"
Lake of fire, good one. Sorry for your mental retardation and inability to discern myth from reality. Don't drink the koolaide.
Fake Christians in the ACOGs are probably mostly sincere, but all they are qualifying for is continuing to be victims of false prophets, and being ripped off to support bogus ministries.
BB
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/09/reading-the-bible-through-neuroscience/539871/
It's true that we don't know Isaacs reaction to Abrahams willingness to sacrifice him. From Abrahams point of view, it's academic since God had a moral right to kill and then resurrect Isaac.
And too...as long as we're on types. Isaiah 53 is not about Jesus in context. Jesus was not "marred more than any man", millions have died worse deaths, and after dying in a mere few hours when most crucified took days and were eaten by dogs with no burial an't the coming back better than ever in a few days alive and a God is also not much of giving one's only son. Sorry, that's how the story reads. Every OT "type" stayed dead which is the nature of giving up something in sacrifice. They don't return. Any parent who has really lost a son or daughter understands this.
Anonymous September 27 at 12:50 AM asked,
"What if God had also spoken with Isaac, and reassured him that this wasn't his test, it was Dad's? Told him not to worry, because he wasn't going to be harmed or killed.
"If you were God, isn't that what you would have done?"
No anon. If I were a god, what I would have done is to spare two of my favorite human beings such an inhumane test. In fact this passage is one of those (along with the book of Job) that did the most to sour me on the Bible. Just as I would quit any job where an actual human boss played such a cruel joke, I swore off of any relationship with the hypothetical god of Israel.
I have wondered about the inconsistency of this story in one regard: why would God--who hates and condemns human sacrifice in so many other passages--ask Abraham to do something that He hates and condemns? Even if He did not intend Abraham to fully carry it through, why would He even require Abraham to go through the motions of something so abhorrent? It doesn't make sense.
The reason why they are the ONLY ONES to hear Gauwd'zz voice is because they are only reporting on their internal dialouge. Think about it. If God is talking to us, don't you think we would hear It too?
DBP
Josephus says Isaac was 25 years old at this event. There is rabbinical traditions that says that he was 37 years old and that this happened just before Sarah died. It was the news of this that shocked her to her death. If he was a man of that age, he probably was well able to overpower Abraham and went along with this until that point to see what would happen. Or he may have just been a toddler just after his weaning and thought it was a game.
There is no hint of "I know God will or can resurrect Isaac" at this stage of the OT theology. That concept was for a later time. Also pretending to know what else these characters "knew" is simply apologetic for what should bother one in real life.
The reason why they are the ONLY ONES to hear Gauwd'zz voice is because they are only reporting on their internal dialouge. Think about it. If God is talking to us, don't you think we would hear It too?
DBP
Dennis 3.38 PM
God appeared to Abraham and told him that 'I will make nations of you and kings will come from you' (Genesis 17.6). This meant that Issac had to be resurrected if killed. Abraham would have known this.
In the context of this post, some might find this podcast (book-reading) interesting or at the very least entertaining:
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/podcast/abrahams-excellent-adventure
(Seth Andrews begins reading of the story at the 9:00 point, and it lasts for approximately 30 minutes.)
spoiler alert: has a twist-ending...
DBP
God doesn't play favorites. He listens to and communicates to all who try to live a blameless life. Even you "would hear it too."
Dennis
Those who have lost sons and daughters will in fact see them in the resurrection. It's in your bible, remember?
Christ couldn't carry his cross because his back muscles were shredded. So his disfigurement was real.
"He listens to and communicates to all who try to live a blameless life."
I love the concept that God also communicates with the Sikh father trying well for his children, but I don't think it is a biblical concept. I think the Pharisees or most Aztecs ripping hearts out of their sacrifices were religiously trying to balance the universe in order to increase the good side of the force. A blameless life.... so much food for thought, like the bland individual hiding the 10 talents or the famous David character, passionate, succesfull but hardly blameless. Gotta find the middle road somewhere.
nck
Anon 234
While I certainly understand the hope, return from the dead is a faith and belief issue. It is not demonstrably true. It is a hope of every conscious human being and the fear of permanent non existence the origin of all religious thought, myth and speculation
"God doesn't play favorites"
Wrong. God told me that he does. And I blame you for not listening and heeding that Voice.
***tongue in cheek***
DBP
234. Real or fictional, Gospel Jesus was not marred more than any man or you never read the fate of some men under the Tudors or the Inquision
The ancient Jews used hyperbole to make their basic point. From time to time, it has brought tears to my eyes realizing how much Jesus suffered to pay our sin debt. But if you read Eusebius, there were also just incredible tortures and pain that both sabbath-keeping, and Sunday-keeping Christians suffered at the hands of Nero and Domitian. The testimony of those who endured the torture and death was very effective in spreading Christianity throughout the Roman Empire, finally leading up to the reforms instituted by Constantine.
BB
Post a Comment