Abraham/Isaac sacrifice

[Archaea]

Who here believes the narrative as proposed?

I'm aware of its metaphorical value, but does everybody simply accept at face value that Abraham was requested and accepted the fact that he intended to sacrifice Isaac? I will not deny the power of the analogy, but whether anybody is really willing to kill one's offspring, is very difficult for me to accept. It is also plausible for me that something which evolved into the current narrative actually occurred, but what do I know.

Any other speculations?

[PaloAltoCougar]

I believe it, but mainly because believing it adds power to the message; i.e., I want to believe it. I can only take Kierkegaard in small doses, but his Panegyric Upon Abraham, at the beginning of Fear and Trembling, has provided fodder for at least a half dozen talks I've given over the years. Like the narrator in that introduction, I'm incapable of fully understanding or appreciating Abraham, but it's an interesting exercise to try.

[DrumNFeather]

The Abraham/Issac story was presented recently in a lesson I attended as an example of the "refiner's fire."

I suppose the point was that Abraham wanted all of the things he wanted for himself, not because it was the lord's will. Through his faith and the refiner's fire of having to give Issac up as an offering to the Lord, he was showing the lord that he would do the lord's will when asked.

[SoonerCoug]

The Abraham/Isaac sacrifice is one of the most damaging and stupid stories in all scripture, IMO.

Job also ranks right up there.

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

The Abraham/Isaac sacrifice is one of the most damaging and stupid stories in all scripture, IMO.

Job also ranks right up there.

You never disappoint, Sooner.

Inflammatory statement with zero explanation or support. Ding!

Ready for this? My Old Testament teacher believes Abraham actually sacrificed Isaac and God raised Isaac from the dead later.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

You never disappoint, Sooner.

Inflammatory statement with zero explanation or support. Ding!

Ready for this? My Old Testament teacher believes Abraham actually sacrificed Isaac and God raised Isaac from the dead later.

Your Old Testament teacher is an idiot. You can tell him I said that.

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Your Old Testament teacher is an idiot. You can tell him I said that.

I'll be sure to do that.

Aren't you even a little curious as to how he arrived there? He's a converted Jew, btw.

Also, you have no substance. You can tell you I said that.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

I'll be sure to do that.

Aren't you even a little curious as to how he arrived there? He's a converted Jew, btw.

Also, you have no substance. You can tell you I said that.

The idea that Isaac was raised from the dead is found is some rabbinic midrash. I assume he is drawing on those sources.

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by pelagius

The idea the Isaac was raised from the dead is found is some rabbinic midrash. I assume he is drawing on those sources.

Most likely.

Here are some of his points:

1. In the first part of Genesis 22, the verbs used when Abraham and Isaac go up to the mountain, the plural forms are used. However, in verse 19, Abraham returns alone, and the verb used for "returned" is definitely singular. "Abraham (singular) returned (singular)."

2. In verse 19, Abraham lives in Beer-sheba. In the first part of Genesis 23, Sarah dies and Abraham has to journey to Kirjath-arba to bury her, which is 30 miles from Beer-sheba. Is is possible that Sarah knew what Abraham was going to do and gave him a "if you return without my son, don't come back at all," ultimatum?

3. In Hebrew, the word we get "to offer" from (if I remember right) is "obla." "Obla" is the same word as "to go up," as when burnt offerings are made, the entire offering is consumed and goes up to God. Essentially, the word "to offer" implies a lot more in Hebrew than it does in English. To us, there is no implication of giving. We can offer things and have them rejected or choose to take them back. To a Jew, "to offer" means to go all the way... give it to God, entirely.

3a. Every time an apostle (Paul) or prophet (Nephi) references Abraham and Isaac, they use the word "offer." In Gen 22:16 it reads:

And said, By myself have I sworn saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:

One way to look at it is that God accepted Abraham's "offering" (English understanding) and Isaac was not sacrificed. But the Hebrew understanding of "offering" is a very final one.


That's essentially it. My teacher was very clear about how this isn't doctrine; there are two ways to interpret the scriptures, and either story has the same doctrine behind it. And frankly, it doesn't matter. It's just something interesting.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

Most likely.

Here are some of his points:

1. In the first part of Genesis 22, the verbs used when Abraham and Isaac go up to the mountain, the plural forms are used. However, in verse 19, Abraham returns alone, and the verb used for "returned" is definitely singular. "Abraham (singular) returned (singular)."
.

Yes, he is drawing on jewish midrash of the story. These midrash usually expand on Genesis 22:19 in about the way you just describe (they attach great singificance to the fact the it only refers explicitly to Abraham returning and not Isaac). My understanding is that this was a very common view in the middle ages.