RE: Binding of Isaac (Was Re: Scripture and the ASA; Robt

From: Shuan Rose (shuanr@boo.net)
Date: Sun Jun 30 2002 - 19:20:03 EDT

  • Next message: Shuan Rose: "RE: Question to David Campbell, Robert Rogland and George Murphy"

    Rogland's post)
    Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 19:10:16 -0400
    Sender: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
    Precedence: bulk

    Dear George,
    I find this a good solution to what is a difficult passage. Also interesting
    is that God is working on two levels in your scenario: at the contemporary
    level with Abraham and also with an rye to later times

    -----Original Message-----
    From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
    Behalf Of george murphy
    Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2002 4:47 PM
    To: asa@calvin.edu
    Subject: Binding of Isaac (Was Re: Scripture and the ASA; Robt Rogland's
    post)

             In a discussion of "Scripture and the ASA" I wrote the following
    on 19 June.

              G) To take a different tack, if creation is fundamentally
    dynamic & evolutionary, it's not surprising that the ethical sense of
    human beings would also evolve. & if God limits divine action to what
    is within the capacity of creatures, then ~3000 years ago God had to
    work with people for whom massacres, slavery, &c were the way things
    were done.
              H) That there is ethical advance within scripture is shown by
    the progression from Gen.4:23-24 (unlimited vengeance) to Ex.21:23-24
    (defined & limited retribution) to Mt.5:38-39 (non-resistance).
              ...................................
              J) The suggestion of G) above is still disturbing, but the
    problem it presents is similar to that of God's creative action through
    natural selection. & as with that, an adequate answer has to be sought
    in the cross - where God experiences execution as a breaker of the law.
    (N.B. I say "an adequate answer has to be sought ...". I am not
    claiming that this just makes the problem of exterminations, slavery &c
    in the OT go away.)

              The OT reading for tomorrow is Gen.22:1-13, "The binding of
    Isaac." It caused me to reflect further on what I said above.

              This is one of those "disturbing" texts - God commanding Abraham
    to sacrifice his son. It's not less terrible for being a "test" because
    Abraham would have had to think that God was the kind of deity who could
    make such a demand. OTOH, both Jews and Christians have seen it as a
    central part of their traditions. From at least the second century it
    has been seen as a foreshadowing of the Passion of Christ.

              So how are we to think of this? Clearly we aren't called to
    sacrifice our children as burnt offerings. Here's one approach along
    the lines I suggested earlier. I assume here that there was an
    historical Abraham and something like the basic events described in the
    text happened.

              In the culture in which Abraham lived, human sacrifice, and
    especially the sacrifice of children to fertility deities in Canaan, was
    practised. It would not have been surprising if the thought came to
    Abraham: "If the worshippers of other deities have this supreme degree
    of devotion, should my offering to my God be any less? Maybe my God
    does demand my firstborn." It would have been a natural temptation at
    that place & point in history.
              God "tempts no one" (Jas.1:13) - but "tempt" & "test" are quite
    close. (Modern versions generally say that God "tested" Abraham but KJV
    & DRC say he "tempted" him.) "Temptation" comes from our surroundings
    &, primarily, our own hearts & heads. While God does not "tempt"
    Abraham, in the sense of trying to get him to do something wrong, God
    makes use of the temptation which contemporary religious ideas offer in
    order to test him.
              By doing this God first of all provides a dramatic story that
    will tell Abraham's descendants that God does not demand child sacrifice
    - that it is to be done away with. Further reflection by future
    generations will bring out deeper insight into the nature of faith
    (Heb.11:17-19, Kierkegaard &c), God, the death of Christ, &c.
              The liberal reaction is likely to be that God should have found
    a better way to do this that didn't violate the rights of the child &c.
    But if God was going to act in history, a culture in which child
    sacrifice was considered acceptable and even admirable was what God had
    to work with.

    Shalom,

    George

    George L. Murphy
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
    "The Science-Theology Interface"



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 30 2002 - 19:20:31 EDT