It would be arrogant to suppose that we could puzzle out the “real” meaning of this, one of the most difficult pieces of scripture, in the short time we have available.
Kierkegaard wrote a whole book on it, after all, and in the end he threw up his hands and said “that’s as good as it gets”. Who are we to say we can go one better?
I say this because an easy interpretation suggests itself, of course.
It would be easy–so easy–to read this story as a parable of having too much faith. Easy to read it with America’s Religious Right cast in the role of Abraham, seemingly too eager to slice up his son when prompted by the Lord. Easy to see in Isaac the American project itself, the precious, hard-won son about to be sacrificed at the altar of dogma and blind faith.
Easy, but wrong.
First of all, it doesn’t do justice to the narrative. The Dane had it right: this is a story about paradox, about what the Germans used to call the “thrownness” of the world.
Without warning or desire, we find ourselves stuck between The Rules, those moral precepts we can seemingly take for granted, and The One who made those rules. Even if we don’t believe in a “One”, there is still the matter of the exceptions to the rules. If our moral systems are to be logical systems as well, there will come the inevitable point where they meet self-contradiction, where they break down under the weight of simple consistency.
That’s the point Abraham confronts on the altar with Isaac.
Does he relish his role as sacrificial priest? Does he approach it with “fear and trembling”? We are not told; there is nothing in the text to describe his emotional state.
Likewise–chillingly–we know nothing of God’s motivation. Is this a test? An earnest request? A terribly misunderstood direction? We simply don’t know.
At least in the case of Abraham, this lack of descriptiveness seems deliberate. It prevents us from the mistake of judging too soon. For Abraham represents no one other than ourselves here.
We are at the altar. We hold the knife. We look into Isaac’s eyes and say, “God will provide”. The story, as Kierkegaard understood, throws us into this role.
Because let’s face it, we’re not perfect. Nobody is. There is none of us capable of getting it right every stinking time, liberal or conservative, young or old, black or white, male or female, whatever or whatever.
The temptation is always there to think otherwise, of course, and that’s exactly what sucks us into situations to which we’d like to suppose ourselves invulnerable. The other temptation, as stakes rise, is to think that this is Too Important a matter for us to be wrong on. If it were my child on the altar, I’d know just what to do, we think.
And then the trouble begins.
So the next time you hear about some rat-faced git standing up and proclaiming the moral superiority of his political party, and declaring that the other side of the aisle is just a bunch of treacherous pansies, think of Father Abraham.
Think of him standing there above his son, knife in hand, looking dazed and confused.
Think of him swallowing hard and saying to himself: “Now what?”
Think of him hoping like hell that something–anything–will come up to set him off the course he’s on.
And then do what you need to do, knowing that you too have been thrown into the paradoxes of this world, and that the only sure way to blow it all is to think you can’t.
O Lord, grant us the grace of humility, and at the end, bring us out of the paradoxes in which we find ourselves trapped. Amen.
Mrs. Pastor and I will be travelling in early July (the holiday weekend and the weekend of the 8th). I’ll try to post my diaries from the road, but I can’t make any promises.
Ever think of Isaac and Abraham as a concise version of Job?
Not in those terms, no. But I was aware that they cover very similar terrain…
perhaps one has more of binary God, containing evil within himself…
…and in the other Satan contains good, while God is a son of a bitch…
Different eras, different ways of interpreting the ‘throwness’….
Part of me doubts that it ever took place — that it was thrown in later as part of the foreshadowing of the coming of the Messiah as Suffering Victim. (Maybe some Hebrew Scriptures expert can fill me in; where’s our Torah Parsha guru?) And, as a woman (though not a mother), I put myself in Sarah’s position…”You did what with our son???”
But at the same time, it reminds me of the difference between the God of the Old Testament, that seemed to be intent on the Letter of the Law, and the Light as revealed in the New Testament, where there is more emphasis on the Spirit of the Law. In a sense, it’s the difference between a childish relationship with authority and adult relationships. When kids are young, you’ve got a lot of rules: hold hands when crossing the street, don’t touch the hot stove, etc. But when those kids get older, you don’t have quite as many little rules; you expect people to use their own judgement. It seems like too many Christians are stuck in that child/adult relationship with God, forgetting that Jesus boiled down the whole Law to two basic concepts: love God, and love your neighbor.
Just a thought…
Old Testament: Do not piss off the Lord Thy God, for He is full of wrath and vengeance.
New Testament: Sorry about all the wrath and vengeance. That was under old management.
Actually, I don’t think there’s anything one can gain from a study of the Old Testament, other than certain sociological and psychological insights into the people who wrote the various parts of the inherently contradictory document. What I find mostly in the Old Testament is a God who is a bit of a moody bastard (all those plagues and floods and various other acts of destruction), not to mention spectacularly insecure–I mean, what sort of Supreme Deity has to test Abraham’s faith by ordering him to murder his own son (and then stops the whole proceedings at the very last second, like a badly-written soap opera…God’s also a bit of a melodramatist).
If one absolutely needs a religious-based guide to life, I xuppose I’d rather they look to the New Testament, in which Jesus preaches humility and compassion. My absolute favourite part of the Old Testament is this:
Matthew 6:5-6: “And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men….when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret….”
In other words, Jesus believed that prayers are to be an intensely personal event between a person and God; no one else should be present. Prayer to him was a private matter. Jesus condemns prayers in situations where other people are present. For example. in religious settings like churches or synagogues, in In a private or public school,a legislature or municipal government meeting, or in the street or other public place.
If only people today could take Jesus’ advice and keep their prayers private, America would be spared a good deal of its present state of grief.
Right on Cali Scribe!! Having come out of a fundamentalist Christian background I see so many similarities in the “conservative” mindset that needs to attach to a set of rules to guide everything. For conservative protestants, its the Bible, for conservative Catholics its the Pope, and for conservative Republicans, its the constitution. We could go on and on. Its really an example of the stages of moral development where initially the rules come from the other and then as we develop into more moral maturity we are able to discern right and wrong from the situation. Its hard to talk about this without sounding patronizing, but having been both inside that mindset as an adult and now outside, its very clear to me. I remember the day I had an awakening that ultimately I was responsible for my life and my choices, it was frightening (by the way, it was literally a day and I was frozen with fear not knowing what was happening to me. I only see now what was happening in retrospect). Perhaps it was a little more difficult for me because I had lived for 30 years depending on my religion to define all of this for me. Maybe sometime I’ll write a whole dairy about that journey for me if I can find a way to generalize how it might help others.
In the scripture,Abraham tells his servants:”. . . the boy and I will go over there; we will worship, and then we will come back to you.”
This suggests to me he was sure they would both be coming back. If that’s not true then we have to believe Abraham was lying to them, maybe because he didn’t want them to try to stop him. . .although would they have? since he was their master. . .or he didn’t want to frighten his son ahead of time, a more likely possibility. But that phrase could also suggest that Abraham believed what he was saying, that both of them would return, because he knew that he didn’t have to understand God’s plan, he only had to carry it out, and that his and his son’s safety actually lay in that act of obedience.
Was it a test? Who knows, but personally I’d doubt it. Seems to me it’s more a good story about how we can get some pretty strange and scary-sounding orders from God, or our Higher Self, but that “strange” and “scary” are only our ego’s interpretations of them. The story seems to say: no matter how this sounds now, have trust that more will be revealed at the right moment. Or else, where’s the “Higher” in “Self”? <gr>
Just a thought from me, too.
The lesson of Abraham and Isaac is clear: if God tells you to do something, even if it’s fruit loopy, you must do it.
So…President George W. Bush gets guidance from God, too. God tells him to launch the nuclear missiles and smote the enemy.
Who is Bush to question God? To say “erm, no, believe I’ll take a pass on the nuclear holocaust”?
Now, did God really speak to Bush? Well, who knows. God only appears to a select few, and we must take it on their witness alone that God has indeed delivered His Word to them.
According to this passage, Bush, like Abraham, should dutifully march us all to the altar and lay us down for the sacrifice. Certainly Bush, if one can believe his public statements, think’s he’s God’s instrument on earth.
Substituting authority for reason, as Bertrand Russell once reminded us, leads to no end of trouble:
Lol! I’m not saying I think Abraham should have done it, I’m saying how I read the story.
Although. . .since I don’t know when to leave well enough alone<gr>. . .judging solely by the outcomes, it does sound as if Abraham was listening to a better “Voice” than George does. Abraham’s story ended benignly, except for the poor ram. We already know how George’s story is ending/neverending, and it’s murderous. So maybe there’s also something in the story about discriminating between true voices and false ones.
Despite the fancy spin Kierkegaard tries to put on the story, the story is not a complicated one: Abraham is ordered to haul Isaac up to the altar and kill him. Now, if Abraham cared tuppence for his son, obeying this cruel order of God–which Abraham had no way of knowing would be stayed at the very last moment by an angel of God–must have caused him intense grief and suffering.
Now, how is this God, who orders Abraham to kill his own son as a test, differ from your everyday average sadistic psychopath? Other than the fact that God is the Creator of the Universe, He doesn’t–and that’s the way I read that story. God is playing a game with this “test” and it’s a fantastically cruel one.
Let’s suppose I did this. I have a thirteen year old son whom I love more than anything in the world, and he is the centre of my wife’s universe, as well. Suppose I say to her, “Annie, to prove you really honour, love, and cherish me, I want you to take our son out to a mountaintop and sacrifice him.” Wonder what her first move would be, to call a psychiatrist and have me put away for observation, or get a protective order.
I suppose when the police come around, I could tell them that their interpretation–that I wanted my wife to express her blind faith in me by killing our son–is just too easy and doesn’t do justice to the narrative I created.
With a good lawyer, I might get free in five or six years.
I know, I know, and on any other less obstinate day I’d agree with you all the way. But as PD pointed out we don’t know how any of them were feeling, we can only guess based on our own values. All we can do is project how we’d feel onto them, and although we are positive we’re right about that, on this particular day of reading that story, I don’t feel so confident that I can know that that particular father, in his particular circumstances, with his beliefs would feel as I would feel if asked to do that with my son. Well, I wouldn’t do that. You wouldn’t do that. But he did, which already makes him different from us.
Sorry, but you don’t convince me that we can “know” how Abraham felt. Intense grief and suffering? It’s not in the story. It’s in your ideas of how a good father would feel. I can’t recall what happened next in the story, if there is anything more, but I also don’t know for sure that his society would necessarily have reacted as ours would, either. I think your interpretation is just that. . .interpretation. It actually isn’t any more fact than anybody else’s is, including Kierk. It’s based on many assumptions.
And still, you could be guessing right. I’ve had exactly those same thoughts you just expressed about the story, myself. But I’m suspicious of them, since they don’t stick to the story.
A good father wouldn’t feel distressed–to put it mildly–by being ordered to put his beloved son to death?
Yes, he would. If Abraham was happy about being ordered to put Isaac to death, then he’s a monster. I am assuming that he is not a monster, and therefore would feel a great deal of dread.
I appreciate the sermon, I do, but I always get a little wigged out with the OT because of its varying origins, esp Genesis, which is a patched up quilt of stories that compete with the Israelites’ neighbors (including the flood Uta-Napishtim part).
Jewish tradition sees this passage from Genesis as the tenth and final test of Abraham by the Lord. Putting that into context, it makes Abraham more of a Hercules-type figure who had to endure ten (obviously an important number) tests of character and faith. This last test is sometimes referred to as the Akeidah (the binding).
Some see this story as a way to separate Judaism from the common practice of the day, which was to sacrifice children to deities. As in, the big shocker for the people hearing this story was not that the Lord asked Abraham to sacrifice his son but that the Lord stopped it. Or actually, sent an angel to stop it. God told him to do it but it was just an angel who put the brakes on the whole thing, which adds another double element of whether or not the angel was working per the strict orders of the boss or whether the angel intervened by sending in the ram at the last minute…
I should mention here that in Islam, the son on the rock was Ishmael rather than Isaac. It’s one of the strangest divisions between the two, because Islam attributes almost everything to Ishmael that Christians/Jews attribute to Isaac.
As for all the other stuff Abraham did, there’s a lot of weirdness, including claiming his wife was his sister at one point to the haggling over the people in Sodom.
I should also mention that Isaac was a FULL GROWN MAN at the time of this near-sacrifice, so while most sermons focus on the father’s actions, what does it say that Isaac did not resist his father despite being able to do so?
Food for thought though PastorDan… thanks!
Pax
Thank you for sharing that. It seems the best explanation to the story that I have read or heard.
Wow, I hadn’t thought of this story as compared to the surrounding cultures before. That’s a great perspective.
Also, Christian Century had an interesting commentary on this passage.
This discussion sent me to look again at a book I read long ago – “The Great Cosmic Mother” – by Monica Sjoo and Barbara Mor. Here is one of their comments about the stories of Genesis:
“These ruling-class partiarcal religions no longer invite participation… Instead, they demand obedience – a fearful obedience which keeps human beings out of touch with our natural transcendent centers…The only way any tyranny can maintain control over the human psyche is to set up a false god, a police god, which in the guise of ‘religious morality’ interposes punitive and manipulative dualistic systems between our daily beings – and the source of being.”
I may not be in a state of mind in harmony with that of most of the commenters here, but I wonder if anyone can describe what possible meaningful human value can be derived from this story.
What good could come from any of us blindly following the direction to sacrifice our own child on an altar? And what benefit derives from learning to fear one’s God in the context of following orders unquestioningly?
And Huck and Jim.
I don’t put much stock in the OT, as we see from the evolution of every religion, it’s a potluck. A little myth, a dash of little folk legend with a heap of politics.