homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » "Aint got far to go" - Abraham and Isaac

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.    
Source: (consider it) Thread: "Aint got far to go" - Abraham and Isaac
mark_in_manchester

not waving, but...
# 15978

 - Posted      Profile for mark_in_manchester   Email mark_in_manchester   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This song is rather beautiful, and has had me thinking about Abraham and Isaac quite a lot. I wonder if anyone is interested in discussing the story as something close to an 'honour killing'?

--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)

Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010  |  IP: Logged
mark_in_manchester

not waving, but...
# 15978

 - Posted      Profile for mark_in_manchester   Email mark_in_manchester   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I should perhaps have expanded the OP a little.

We view people who kill their kids are Evil, or (if we are perhaps more thoughtful) as deranged, or driven mad by something. I guess it might be questionable to assume the ancients thought as we do - but it seems more questionable to automatically assume that they didn't, which seems to be part of what is happening when we say 'jolly good, that Abraham, he really passed that test of faith'.

This painting perhaps captures this, to me, deeply weird and somehow sanitised view of an act full of fear, bleakness and despair - or that's what I might feel if I attempt to place myself in the scene.

If instead I imagine myself as full of conviction of my own sin in the face of a perfect God, but without hope of grace and entirely bound by the Law, then I can much more easily imagine being driven to madness and extreme acts by the crushing awareness of an impossible standard which I must, but cannot, but must, but cannot...meet.

And if this madness whispers 'kill your child then, if you really mean it' - then who'll pull me back to sanity?

In the bible story, God pulls Abraham back to sanity - and this to me is the miracle, not the 'faith' to be prepared to kill your kid.

I know a family where no such divine intervention took place when wrath took hold. And separately, I am also aware that Islam is a Law-religion, and when I place myself there, then in the light of what I have written above, perhaps honour killings make some kind of broken sense.

Well, that's what the story makes me feel. I don't have a question to start the thread, except perhaps to say 'honk if you agree, or write and say why you think it's rubbish'.

cheers
Mark

--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)

Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Registering an interest here! I was going to ask about your thoughts in more detail - so thanks for pre-empting that. Will need to come back later. Keep my seat...
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

 - Posted      Profile for Moo   Email Moo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My take on the story is that Abraham did not believe Isaac would stay dead if he were killed. God had promised Abraham that Isaac's descendants would form a great nation.

Isaac's birth was a miracle. I think that Abraham expected another miracle, if Isaac actually died.

Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That's how the author of Hebrews saw it.

quote:
By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back. (Hebrews 11:17-19)


--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The testing passage is here.

I would guess that the honour killing idea would be difficult to apply to Abraham/Isaac's case as there isn't a hint that Isaac had in any way transgressed any cultural taboo that might have applied then. The record doesn't say, for example, that he flouted his father's judgment on an issue. This in turn makes it difficult to use the text as being significant for honour killings today.

Despite that, though, this is one of those twitchy passages in the bible. I'm not sure how far this helps, but the verb in the opening line (“Some time after these things God tested Abraham”) implies that God had already been confronted with Abraham's persistent assertions of loyalty and that the test was a reaction. It was as though Abraham had spent considerable time asserting that he was the most loyal of loyal subjects of God – and not just any god. He had made the leap from worshipping the remote supreme God El to worshipping that El as Yahweh, so accepting that El was not the absentee landlord God, but the 'here-in-your-face' supreme God.

God's test was a response saying, in effect, “So you keep making these incredibly public assertions of loyalty to me; but just how far are you willing to go? Can I really take you at your word? Would you, for example, now take your son, your only son...?”

This raises an interesting question in relation to the Hebrews passage LC quoted. If we had only the Genesis passage to go on (and not the Hebrews text), then we would probably be talking about Abraham as an exception, rather than as an exceptional example, in the sense that the story is not an invitation to modern believers to replicate the action (or even attempt to find a sacrificial principle), but to focus on the significance of Abraham's status as a father figure (in more ways than one) of a believing community. Does the Hebrews passage change that, in view of its focus on faith?

Perhaps not – the focus is on faith as defined in Heb. 11:1 (“...having assurance about things we can currently only expect, a practical confidence in things not yet seen...”), living life and engaging in activities as though God's kingdom was already fully present on earth. For Abraham that meant certain activities in his setting, for people today it might mean something different.

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
The testing passage is here.

I would guess that the honour killing idea would be difficult to apply to Abraham/Isaac's case as there isn't a hint that Isaac had in any way transgressed any cultural taboo that might have applied then. The record doesn't say, for example, that he flouted his father's judgment on an issue. This in turn makes it difficult to use the text as being significant for honour killings today.

Despite that, though, this is one of those twitchy passages in the bible. I'm not sure how far this helps, but the verb in the opening line (“Some time after these things God tested Abraham”) implies that God had already been confronted with Abraham's persistent assertions of loyalty and that the test was a reaction. It was as though Abraham had spent considerable time asserting that he was the most loyal of loyal subjects of God – and not just any god. He had made the leap from worshipping the remote supreme God El to worshipping that El as Yahweh, so accepting that El was not the absentee landlord God, but the 'here-in-your-face' supreme God.

God's test was a response saying, in effect, “So you keep making these incredibly public assertions of loyalty to me; but just how far are you willing to go? Can I really take you at your word? Would you, for example, now take your son, your only son...?”

This raises an interesting question in relation to the Hebrews passage LC quoted. If we had only the Genesis passage to go on (and not the Hebrews text), then we would probably be talking about Abraham as an exception, rather than as an exceptional example, in the sense that the story is not an invitation to modern believers to replicate the action (or even attempt to find a sacrificial principle), but to focus on the significance of Abraham's status as a father figure (in more ways than one) of a believing community. Does the Hebrews passage change that, in view of its focus on faith?

Perhaps not – the focus is on faith as defined in Heb. 11:1 (“...having assurance about things we can currently only expect, a practical confidence in things not yet seen...”), living life and engaging in activities as though God's kingdom was already fully present on earth. For Abraham that meant certain activities in his setting, for people today it might mean something different.

I have to agree that there isn't much of the honor killing thingy here, except possibly in the severe mental stress bit. But in an honor killing, the mental stress presumably drives the killing, while in Abraham's case it is shown as a result of being ordered to do it. So the comparison is sort of dodgy.

Isaac's role in the whole drama appears to be very, very flat--there's nothing of individual personality here. He is a placeholder for an innocent, wholly obedient, and willing victim (Jesus, yes)--but we get no more of him than that. (Yes, I said willing--if he was old enough and strong enough to carry the wood needed for a human sacrifice, he was certainly old and strong enough to overpower his aged father and run away.)

Random other thoughts, mostly stolen from other people I can't remember--

The text says God decided to "test" Abraham. Now a good teacher tests with the intention that students shall pass, not fail--the timing and preparation for tests is all designed toward that end. God intended and expected Abraham (and Isaac!) to pass this test. As they did. I suppose a different outcome was theoretically possible, but God knew Abraham well enough to expect, and get, this result. So it makes sense to ask, "Given that God knew (for human values of "knew") Abraham and Isaac would pass this test, were the results worth it? And what were those results, anyway?"

One of those results is of course strengthened and confirmed faith. It would take a helluva lot to unsettle Abraham's faith in YHWH after this event. In fact, I can't really imagine something that would. Abraham now knows experientially that yes, this god IS the God who keeps his promises even in impossible situations, and who really does care about/love him and Isaac too. And we who hear this story get some encouragement in our own growth toward this maturity.

There is also of course the rather detailed foreshadowing of the cross, for those who like to work it out. That's all to the good.

There's also a really obvious, so obvious that it escaped me for a long long LONG time, benefit to the world in general. Somebody pointed out that one of the main functions of this story is to make it clear to Abraham and the rest of the world that whatever the Canaanite gods are like, YHWH isn't going to be that kind of God. He doesn't demand human sacrifice--he himself provides the sacrifice. Human sacrifice is abhorrent to YHWH. It is not to feature in his worship, now or ever. While Abraham had no such assurance before this incident,* we DO have it now (and what a good thing that is). Straightforward traditional human sacrifice has mostly vanished from the earth. I wonder how much of that is due to the farflung effects of this story, and the faith that developed from it.

* And poor Abraham--he must have spent those three days wondering what kind of god was this he'd gotten mixed up with? how could he have so misunderstood his character? and now look how things are going...

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
mark_in_manchester

not waving, but...
# 15978

 - Posted      Profile for mark_in_manchester   Email mark_in_manchester   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks for your interesting contributions, folks.

I've also heard someone describe this as when Yahweh makes clear that human sacrifice - presumably common or at least not unknown in ancient religious practice, if our own 'bog bodies' etc are anything to go by - is NOT what God requires. That he does this by first appearing to require it is confusing; which is why I suppose I can imagine that whisper coming from somewhere else. We view child-killing as evil. Does God test us by appearing to be, or require, evil - even if that evil does not reach its fruition? Later stories (Job) seem to award that testing role to the Devil. And, I guess, Paul seems to think that even the appearance of evil (in us) is a Bad Thing...

I do trust God. But does he want to torture me with insane suggestions in order to test my sincerity? I don't see that in Jesus, who I believe calls me out of my insanity.

I accept the honour killing analogy has holes in it. I'd like to pick it up again perhaps - I'm not sure it matters whether the 'killed' has actually transgressed, or whether a valid analogy is there so long as the 'killer' fears transgression (in Abraham's case, his own disobendience) and believes that a killing is required. But I'll stop there for now.

cheers
Mark

--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)

Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't think you need worry about this passage being read as a form of torture. From the way the verb “test” is used in the Jewish scriptures I sense this is more about an examination of something that already had a claim to a particular competence. So for example the Queen of Sheba came to test Solomon who already had a claim to wisdom, and David refused to wear King Saul's amour because he (David) had not had a chance to test them out.

I suppose that it could be possible for a believer today to announce publicly that he or she would be prepared to prove their loyalty to God even if it meant killing their only offspring, and that God might then tell them to try it out to see if they were really so faithful, but perhaps the Abraham story acts as a brake here. It may have been necessary to include that event in the biblical literature for the very reason that there was a persistent strand of such faith at the time that needed to be restrained.

As such, the test of Abraham wouldn't really be a case of putting him through a period of angst before letting him off the hook; rather it was a letting him off a leash for a bit to see how far he really would go. I note that the text has God watering down the imperative “Take your son...” (Gen. 22:2) with a particle of entreaty, which would make his command less command-like, as it were: “Would you mind taking your son...”

It's as though the author wanted us to read this along these lines: “Very well, Abraham; you've been making very impressive claims to loyalty, which is nice. Let me see how you react to this. What if I wanted you to take your son – that's your one and only son don't forget, the one that you really really adore, don't forget...?” Perhaps the author intended us to understand that God was just as surprised as the reader would have been at how Abraham was prepared to go.

There are, as you noted, examples elsewhere in the OT where child sacrifice is condemned. Jeremiah, for example, records that God saw it as a cause for the exile:
quote:
Jeremiah 32:33-35
“I tried over and over again to instruct them, but they did not listen and respond to correction. They set up their disgusting idols in the temple which I have claimed for my own and defiled it. They built places of worship for the god Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom so that they could sacrifice their sons and daughters to the god Molech. Such a disgusting practice was not something I commanded them to do! It never even entered my mind to command them to do such a thing! So Judah is certainly liable for punishment.”

It would be interesting to chase a bit further the way that Abraham's episode is taken up and used in the NT. There are plenty of examples in Christian teaching (and Judaic) that seek to explain the event away in one form or another, but it's rather rare in my experience to find a Christian one that grapples with the examination in Moriah in parallel with the take on Abraham in the NT. After all, Abraham was not just the father of Israel, and not just the father of all faithful, but the father of many nations.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged


 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools