John A. Broussard

But Abraham was willing to kill his son out of love of god.

lee_merrill

Not willing to withhold his son, this must have been in God's presence, so that would be somewhat different, with God being present in a real way:

Genesis 22:16 because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son...

And expecting his son would not, even then, remain dead, for God had promised that Isaac would be his heir...

Hebrews 11:19 Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death.

Regards,
Lee

John A. Broussard

I've never heard this explanation before. If I understand you correctly, this was all a game. Abraham knew that if he killed his son, he'd get him right back alive.

But if Abraham knew that, then god must have known it too, so they were both aware this wasn't a test of anything.

Very interesting. It casts a very different light on the episode.

Anat

You can imagine the Jewish approach is just the opposite. Abraham could have argued with God that - hey, just a while back you promissed me a future through Isaac, and now you want me to sacrifice him? But instead he wakes up early and packs to go (just count the number of verbs in Genesis 22:3 - a lot of action, no talk). Note the conversation with Isaac, in verses 7-8 - the whole intent of the narration is to build up tension - by the time Abraham finishes talking, Isaac knows who the sacrifice is going to be, yet "So they went both of them together."

Also, see God's command, in verse 2: "And He said: 'Take now thy son, thine only son, whom thou lovest, even Isaac, and get thee into the land of Moriah;"
God is trying to soften the blow. The traditional commentators have filled in Abraham's hypothetical responses:
G: Take now thy son
A: I have two sons
G: thine only son
A: Each one of them is his mother's only one
G: whom thou lovest
A: I love them both
G: even Isaac

You can hear God's hesitation and Abraham's increasing anxiety.
There's a lot of drama in this chapter, that other than the gruesome nature of the portrayed events would have been absolutely beautiful.

Sven

You do know that there's a thing such as "one-sided" love? Even pathological love?
This can do great harm to other people.

But I'm not surprised by another error in the bible. Thanks for pointing it out!

DeDia

I will NEVER expect anybody to be able to apologize for , play dow or explain away the blatant barbary and sadistic cruelty of stories like this. I think they are blasphemous and they make me want to defend God and cry out. NO, there is no way anybody can love a deity who pulls a sic practical joke on his humble worshipper to "test" what he already knows, that Abraham is devout. If you claim that God to be God is wise, loving and all knowing it is an outrage to portray him like this. Is it really possible for anybody to LOVE such a god? If you do that word loses all meaning, we can never use it again. You can explain this historically, but excuse it morally- never! This isn't the worst example of child sacrifice in the bible however. Remember Jeftas daughter? God insisted on the sacrifice of the young girl as "a burnt offering" there. Maybe not such a big deal as with Abraham's only son, she was only a girl, and this story is rarely mentioned. Fundies whith their back to wall usually cop out by claiming. "God created everything so he can do what he will with his creation, everything that God wills is good". And that leave us- and them with no moral guidance whatsoever. If you choose relevation to be the source of morality it is fair to say "If God exist, then everything is permissible" contary to Dostoyevski "If there is no God then everything is permissible. It's the Goddidit excuse for everything which leaves us with nothing to hold on to as far as morality goes.

Anat

God didn't insist on Jephtah's sacrifice of his daughter, Jephtah was the one who insisted, God was silent. The traditional interpretation is that God, upon hearing Jephtah's vow, thought: 'What a stupid vow. What if the first that comes to meet him is a donkey?' So God sent the daughter. In this case Jephtah was tested and failed the test. Because child sacrifice on its own wasn't the point of the Abraham and Isaac story, but child sacrifice commanded by God. The same act can be an act of ultimate faith or sinful, depending on whether it is commanded in the particular case or not.

(This is also the explanation for God killing Nadav and Avihu on the day they are dedicated as priests - for performing a sacrifice that wasn't commanded. Attempting to be more pious than what is required is a sin on its own.)

DeDia

YEAh, and biblegod really enjoys these little pranks

John A. Broussard

This is by far the most profound problem faced by any thinking theist. How can she/he possibly continue to believe that "everything that God wills is good" and still continue to be a moral person?

Anat

John, this isn't so hard. As long as you accept a broad enough (to be meaningless) perspective. And belief in a butterfly effect on a divine scale. (Yeah, so-and-so suffered immensely, but as a result a series of events took place that made the world a better place altogether.) Consider that Orthodox Jews believe that a good and moral God either permited or engineered the Holocaust.