One of the stories in the Old Testament that anger people the most today is that of Abraham and Isaac. God comes to Abe and says, “Abe, take Isaac up that holy hill and kill him seven kinds of dead on the altar up there. Do it for me, Abe”. Abe goes and does it. As Sufjan Stevens puts it,
When the angel came you had raised your arm.
Abraham.
Put off on your son.
Take instead the ram until Jesus comes.
We read this as incomprehensible act of violence by a petty deity that should drive us to “hand back our ticket”, like Ivan in The Brothers Karamazov. This is the kind of scene that prompts Prof. Dawkins to write,
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
But this is the kind of reading that lacks the basic historical empathy needed to understand texts written from outside our culture. God asking Abraham to kill Isaac is not a case of God trying to break his own rules. In the age of Abraham and indeed in the age when Genesis 22 was written, child sacrifice was a normal cultic activity. As John Howard Yoder puts it, child sacrifice was “no more ethically scandalous or viscerally disturbing than the killing of the villain in a western film is to most readers today”. For this text to be read, we must remember than this was not perceived by the final editor or their audience as an act of murder but of ritual holiness.
Now that doesn’t mean that such actions were ok. How the Bible is written inside the boundaries of cultural practices that it critiques and does not support is a whole other entry or indeed a whole other freaking blog (but Genesis 22 continues Genesis’ pattern established right at the outset of using the practices and writings of other religious worldviews and weaving them into the story as a means of critique.)
So what does this passage mean? It was not some arbitrary test of Abraham’s faith. It was not a command to break some moral law. It was in fact, a reminder of God’s promise to Abraham to bear him a seed and through him a whole nation. Does Abraham believe that of God? To the extent that as an old man he is able to raise his arm against the son who he waited long for over many decades?
To grasp Genesis 22 then, we have to hold together what God reveals about himself (contra the gods of the nations) by utilising and then subverting the common ritual practice of filicide and what it means about faithfulness that Abraham who is credited as righteous on account of his faith in God’s promise to bear him a son is willing to trust God enough to raise an arm against the son he hopes is his heir.
Your Correspondent, Likes to go to the cinema if he needs to clear his throat
![The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ [Hardcover]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41bh8oSh1VL._SL160_.jpg)
Out of genuine interest. are you a ‘the Genesis stories actually literally historically happened’ kinda guy? or does it not matter? I have friends/family who roll there eyes at me and say ‘of course’ and i have friends who roll their eyes at me and say ‘oh course not’.
For me, Genesis 1-11 is beyond history. From Abraham onwards I think that is historiographic.
These are difficult issues.
Why is God’s command not “some arbitrary test of Abraham’s faith” and yet you correctly acknowledge that the story is really about whether or not Abraham believes God’s covenant promise to him (i.e. a test of his faith)?
It may not be arbitrary (a sovereign God cannot act in an arbitrary way) but it is a severe test of faith that seems wrong because it is too much to ask of any parent. I know I would not have done it. In fact, if I told my wife that God was calling me to sacrifice our first born, she would be on to the cops faster than a tout from West Belfast.
Are you saying that the point of this story is that it reveals that God requires us to live our faith by our actions (often as sacrifice) even when we consider that His ways are not our ways?
Or is the story primarily significant in light of the ultimate filial sacrifice of Jesus?
Something else has been puzzling me. How can a sovereign and unchangable God be persuaded to change his mind? As you will know, he does this alot in the Old Testament, generally demonstrating his mercy despite the faithlessness of his people, see Exodus 32. The people begin to worship the Golden Calf. God asks Moses to leave him alone so that “…his fierce anger can blaze against them, and I will destroy them.” (v. 10, NLT)
Moses, who turns out to be a useful defence barrister, rises to the eternal Bar to deliver an eloquent plea in mitigation. He straightens his tattered wig, tugs his gown over his weary shoulders and clears his throat. Like any good lawyer, he knows that less is often more and so he begins.
Lord, why are you so angry with your own people, whom you saved from slavery with such great power?
Why let the Egyptians say that their God rescued his people only so he could destroy them in the wilderness?
Turn away from your anger. Change your mind.
Unfurling a long and crumpled document he begs God to remember His promise to their forefathers.
“So the LORD changed his mind about the terrible disaster he had threatened to bring on his people.” (v. 14)
Moses sits down again, wipes a thin film of sweat from his brow, and gets ready to go and see his clients who will never know how close they came to total destruction.
What amazes me about this passage is the very human grounds of appeal that Moses makes to God. He begins by stating the obvious (something alot of judges do indeed require). These people are your people despite their folly. He then tries a little flattery. Only you could have saved these people with your great power. Now for a little emotional blackmail. Did you save us to destroy us? What will the Egyptians say? Moses then sets out the relief he seeks in very simple terms. Change your mind. Finally, he relies on the contractual bond between God and his people.
A master class in advocacy but what does this teach us about God?
What I was trying to say Steven was that it was not an arbitrary test of faith. But it was a very specific test of whether Abraham believed the primary promise of a son. Secondly, I argue that it is another example of how the editors of Genesis utilise the practices of other religions to polemically make their point (ie – YHWH is exactly the kind of God who does not sacrifice children).
I would say that its dangerous to do ANTHING based on what you think a god or spirit is asking you to do -- unless its really really clear (not just ‘a peace’ or ‘feeling’). It’s fine if that god is telling you today to give out gospel tracks of help out at a homeless shelter but what if the next day he tells you to strap a bomb to your waist or kill your son as a sacrifice? I’m miles from Dawkins on this one, the god of the old testament isn’t anything, it’s the priests and the followers who are convinced god is talking to them who are the [insert list here]. Just as Allah isn’t responsible for Jihad
Just to add fuel to the fire: the king james version of Exodus 32:14 says that God “repented”, and it isn’t the only place where such a term is used of God. This I find interesting. Also, there is an important verse which follows on from Exodus 32 which either sheds more light on the dilemma or makes things murkier. God says to Moses in Ex. 33 “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy…” In other words (at least in my understanding), He is saying to Moses that I spared Israel because I wanted to, not because you twisted my arm or argued well.
As for Abraham/Isaac, I think it’s important to remember that Isaac was a gift from God, born by miraculous means, therefore God had more claim on Isaac than Abraham did. Also, we can’t underestimate the relationship between God and Abraham. In Hebrews were told that Abraham considered that God would raise Isaac up from the dead had he sacrificed him, so trusting was he in God. In this respect Abraham’s test wasn’t arbitrary; it didn’t take place in a vacuum. It wasn’t God capriciously saying to Himself “Let’s see what I can get this guy Abraham to do!” The test was how well did Abraham know God after their many years in communion with one another, and how trusting was He in God’s ability to keep His promises.
There is obviously a case to be made for this being a foreshadowing of Christ’s sacrifice as mentioned in a previous comment. One can’t miss the significance of God’s command to Abraham to “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love” and the words of John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son…”
So those who gathered together the various oral traditions about Abraham chose to include this particular narrative because it demonstrates that while God would never actually call for a father to murder his son, God does expect his followers to have that “kind” of faith i.e., to trust him absolutely, even above those we love the most, our family? It is the same faith demanded by Jesus, that we be ready to forsake all to follow him, including own family sometimes.
The experience of Abraham is therefore more about a God who wants us to trust in his absolute goodness and love, despite appearances sometimes, rather than as a simple test to see whether or not Abraham really has faith in God.
Any thoughts on a God who can change his mind?
I think Steven I’d put it this way.
1. The final redactors of the Genesis had the inspired idea to frame the story as YHWH transcending the depressingly man-like morality of neighbouring idols.
2. Abraham is not, as Declan puts it, tested just to see how far he’d go. He is very specifically tested around the promises by which he is counted righteous- ie- the gift of his son.
3. As we zoom out from the text we can of course see what Sufjan Stevens sees in his song. God does not call on man to sacrifice, he do it himself. It is not Isaac who dies but Jesus.
Or I could say it like this: “The experience of Abraham is therefore more about a God who wants us to trust in his absolute goodness and love, despite appearances sometimes, rather than as a simple test to see whether or not Abraham really has faith in God.”
I am not going to get into a God who can change his mind on this post. But stick around. I’ll write something and it should show up in about 3 weeks!
This seems a good spot to ask this question. I’m aware that there are two or more different sources for this story/tale/event. Mainly the jahwist style telling and the elohist telling. The Old Testament for any given event seems to use one of these sources more than the others, for example having Moses ascend Mount Sinai rather than the whole council of jewish leaders in other sources.
Can I ask, from a Christian perspective, why is the story from one source used? Is it because one story is more consistent with the nature of God as revealed in the Bible?
I ask because I can’t seem to find a good theological reference for this stuff. Well I can from a Jewish point of view, but not from a Christian point of view.
today i here twice something completly new to me .. the terms elohist and jahwehist… cool.
Mcquitty am i missing some NornIron reference that i havent got yet but im going to make a wild guess here and assume there are touts from both sides of your lovely city?
Zoom how do you draw the line that you do at Gen11 and say after that is from history? Ok so your not a creationist but how do you know where the bible starts telling the truth as it happened as opposed the truth by story-telling…
False dichotomy SF, isn’t it? Why do you draw it that way: “telling the truth as it happened as opposed the truth by story-telling…”
Justify that and I’ll have a go at answering your question.
Hey SF, yes indeed touts all round. All compliant with the duty of equality under s. 75 of the Northern Ireland Act.
I suppose the only difference is that one always expected the loyalists to become touts. The Provos, in some ways, had a degree of coherence and solidarilty which worked against that.
Perhaps an advantage of their nominal Roman Catholicism?
Yours, in the staunchly Orange town of Portadown, raised agnostic, by nominally RC mother and lapsed presbyterian father.