Do you agree with this interpretation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter yesukristus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

yesukristus

Guest
I came across this interpretation of the story of Abraham sacrificing his son, and would like your opinion of it (traditionalist, liberal, what have you):

If we read the story of Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac as if it were a newspaper account – as most are likely to do – then we will imagine a voice coming from heaven telling Abraham – ‘Kill your son’. However, when I tell a story of my relationship with God, I often say, ‘And God said to me’, but I do not mean a voice sounded in the room where I was, I mean that on reflection that is what I understand God has said to me. When I speak like this, I am sharing an experience of my faith, I am not writing a story for the newspaper and the intention is not to tell you something about me, but to help you hear God in your own life – for the God I walk with is the God you walk with. Likewise, when we read the story of Abraham and Isaac, we are listening to a story Abraham told of his relationship with God – and, more importantly, how he grew in understanding through those happenings.
Yesterday, I was talking about this to a young man under instruction to be received into the Catholic Faith and I asked him, ‘If you had a dream that God was asking you to kill your mother, would you do it?’ He answered, ‘Of course not. I would know it is not God because he does not ask such things.’ Even though not yet a Christian, he knows that because many others have lived with God and told their stories and from those stories we learn what God is like. However, Abraham did not know what God was like, because, as far as we know, he was the first person God had ever spoken to. He obviously felt that God was asking something of him, but as there was no one to ask, he looked at the customs of the Canaanites amongst whom he lived and he saw that when they worshiped their god, killed a child in sacrifice. So, Abraham decided that was the way to do things and took his son Isaac to Mount Moriah to do the same. However, God stopped him, told him that he appreciated and the devotion of Abraham and added – ‘but not that way!’ And from that time onwards, human sacrifice has never been acceptable as a way of worshiping God. From that time also, a set of standards of acceptable behavior began to be built up, standards which have been improved on by succeeding generations as the received this heritage and tried to live it.
 
Your saying that “God would not do something like that” does not square with revelation. God *did *send his Son to die, as a sacrifice, and this is what the Abraham/Isaac story is prefiguring.

I don’t think we know God better than Abraham did. Quite the opposite. God had conquered nearly all of Abraham’s natural epistemological doubts by His direct revelation of Himself. Abraham expressed faith in acting as he did. He believed that God would not make him kill his son, and God did not make him kill his son.
 
Your saying that “God would not do something like that” does not square with revelation. God *did *send his Son to die, as a sacrifice, and this is what the Abraham/Isaac story is prefiguring.

I don’t think we know God better than Abraham did. Quite the opposite. God had conquered nearly all of Abraham’s natural epistemological doubts by His direct revelation of Himself. Abraham expressed faith in acting as he did. He believed that God would not make him kill his son, and God did not make him kill his son.
Pardon me for asking, but where do you get this idea from?
 
Pardon me for asking, but where do you get this idea from?
My own reasoning. If I were in that situation, all my hope would be in the idea that God would deliver me from His own command. Every parent would feel that way, I assume.
 
My own reasoning. If I were in that situation, all my hope would be in the idea that God would deliver me from His own command. Every parent would feel that way, I assume.
I would respectfully disagree - in the context of the times, I don’t think Abraham would have had any such expectation. We have good archaeological evidence that human sacrifice, including of first-born sons, was practiced in the middle east in the bronze age at the time of the patriarchs.

My understanding of the story is that Abraham would have had no reason to doubt that the sacrifice would go ahead, but because he saw absolute obedience to God as fundamental to the covenant, he would have perceived no moral dilemma in being given the command to kill Isaac.

Obviously it would still have been an emotional dilemma, both because he did not want to sacrifice the boy, and also because of the apparent illogic of killing the child whom God had promised would be father to a great nation. But because this kind of sacrifice was commonplace, he would have thought the command congruent with the religious practices of the day.

The ultimate revelation of God here is, of course, that He does not wish human sacrifices to be made. In this respect as in many others, He shows how different He is to the other deities of this age. Even in the incarnation of Jesus this prohibition is maintained, because it is God Himself who is sacrificed, and as a means to end the need for sacrifice for all time.
 
I came across this interpretation of the story of Abraham sacrificing his son, and would like your opinion of it (traditionalist, liberal, what have you):

If we read the story of Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac as if it were a newspaper account – as most are likely to do – then we will imagine a voice coming from heaven telling Abraham – ‘Kill your son’. However, when I tell a story of my relationship with God, I often say, ‘And God said to me’, but I do not mean a voice sounded in the room where I was, I mean that on reflection that is what I understand God has said to me. When I speak like this, I am sharing an experience of my faith, I am not writing a story for the newspaper and the intention is not to tell you something about me, but to help you hear God in your own life – for the God I walk with is the God you walk with. Likewise, when we read the story of Abraham and Isaac, we are listening to a story Abraham told of his relationship with God – and, more importantly, how he grew in understanding through those happenings.
Yesterday, I was talking about this to a young man under instruction to be received into the Catholic Faith and I asked him, ‘If you had a dream that God was asking you to kill your mother, would you do it?’ He answered, ‘Of course not. I would know it is not God because he does not ask such things.’ Even though not yet a Christian, he knows that because many others have lived with God and told their stories and from those stories we learn what God is like. However, Abraham did not know what God was like, because, as far as we know, he was the first person God had ever spoken to. He obviously felt that God was asking something of him, but as there was no one to ask, he looked at the customs of the Canaanites amongst whom he lived and he saw that when they worshiped their god, killed a child in sacrifice. So, Abraham decided that was the way to do things and took his son Isaac to Mount Moriah to do the same. However, God stopped him, told him that he appreciated and the devotion of Abraham and added – ‘but not that way!’ And from that time onwards, human sacrifice has never been acceptable as a way of worshiping God. From that time also, a set of standards of acceptable behavior began to be built up, standards which have been improved on by succeeding generations as the received this heritage and tried to live it.
I am certainly no expert, but I am a faithful Catholic; and I happen to appreciate this insight. Up to now, I have understood the story in light of the fact that God had not yet revealed, at that time, that He abhores human sacrifice. That is congruent with the interpretation you gave, where Abraham inferred that that was the way to do it, because that is what the Canaanites did. In my view, He later revealed that He abhores human sacrifice through the Scriptures; but I don’t see any harm in interpreting the story of Abraham as the moment when God began to reveal this fact, (i.e. that He abhores human sacrifice,) because it was at that moment that He intervened to stop it from happening. 🙂

God bless!
-Dmar198
 
Interesting.

What, if any church fathers have made simillar conclusions, if any on this passage?
And, could you make a stretch that the ideas you hold are simply a speculation based on a development of existing thought, or is this based on thought that has no back up?
 
Not exactly-Abraham trusted God completely and loved him more than his son.
He had faith that God could bring his son back to life,if He so chose, because God is Life. IMHO
 
He had faith that God could bring his son back to life,if He so chose, because God is Life. IMHO
We don’t have to stick to your humble opinion. Paul says this explicitly, I believe, in Hebrews.😉
 
Interesting.

What, if any church fathers have made simillar conclusions, if any on this passage?
And, could you make a stretch that the ideas you hold are simply a speculation based on a development of existing thought, or is this based on thought that has no back up?
That was just my speculation, which I drew from a simple reading of the passage and contemplation of the moral dilemma that jumped out at me. I didn’t “consult” anyone to see if it’s traditional or not; but I don’t see it as incompatible with any Catholic teaching. But here’s the moral dilemma that I saw, so that you can see how I came to this conclusion:

If I heard an inner voice claiming to be God but telling me to sacrifice my son, I wouldn’t do it, and I think it would be immoral to follow such a voice. Why? Because, in the Scriptures God revealed that He abhores human sacrifice; and Paul says that if someone, even in a vision, tells us to follow another teaching, don’t listen to them. “So how was Abraham justified in attempting to kill his child?” I thought. Well, There are only two reasons I could think of: (1) Abraham could have been justified if God hadn’t yet revealed that he abhores human sacrifice, or (2) he could have been justified if God hadn’t yet revealed that He can not contradict himself by telling us to do something that He hates.

I simply think option #1 is more plausible than option #2.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top