Our desires sometimes lead us astray from what we feel is right. But sometimes even what we feel is right proves wrong.
This becomes clear when we read Genesis 22 on the second day of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year. Abraham the patriarch -- one of the great prophets of the Torah -- readies himself to kill Isaac, his most beloved son, as a sacrifice to the Divine. He does so, no less, in the name of God.
Most perplexing about Abraham's actions is that the right desire motivates them: the urge to show reverence for God. But Abraham's goals are unspeakably wrong. To kill an innocent person -- much less one's own beloved son -- is an atrocity. Reading about it turns the stomach. But the process of reading this gut-wrenching Torah portion is profoundly illustrative of more common foibles. It shows us, as readers thousands of years later, the extent to which our own misapprehensions lead us astray.
In Abraham's case, it appears that his upbringing may be at least in part to blame. As the first Jew, and arguably the first monotheist of any kind, Abraham may well have been immersed in ancient cultures that hailed the practice of child sacrifice. It was seen as the ultimate show of faith to certain deities, of which the ancient Near East abounded.
Yet Abraham's feeling of need to show faith in this way was fundamentally misguided. God had already established a covenant with him in Genesis 17; his decision to sacrifice Isaac went well beyond the scope of their pact. It would seem, in fact, that Abraham was being led astray by his own zealotry, itself channeled by the understanding of total devotion he had garnered from encounters with ancient polytheists and their idols.
Evidence for this theory lies in the carefully selected terms for "God" and "god" used in Genesis 20. Elohim is an unspecific term, which can refer either to the God of Israel or a local Near Eastern deity; the tetragrammaton, whose pronunciation is now unknown and filled in for with the Hebrew word Adonai, specifies the universal and singular God of Abraham.
The unspecific term Elohim is used throughout the first part of Genesis 22. The Elohim "put Abraham to the test" (22:1, JPS translation for all quotes); when Isaac asks about the animal to be sacrificed at the altar -- not realizing it was in fact to be him -- Abraham replied that "[Elohim] will see to the sheep for His burnt offering, My son" (22:8).
Abraham's motivations to sacrifice his son Isaac are inspired by a deity which is likely not the universal and singular God with whom he entered into covenant. I would suggest, in fact, that The Elohim does not refer literally to a particular Near Eastern idol or its adherents, but to the powerful, unspoken theological assumptions that Abraham carried with him into his pact with God. The Elohim in Genesis 22 is his preexisting set of notions about faith and obedience. Ancient Near Eastern deities spoke to Abraham solely from within his psyche. His zealotry is the product of an emotional residue, accumulated from observing child sacrifice earlier in his life.
The general term for deity stops abruptly in verses 11 and 12 of Genesis 22. Adonai -- the God of Abraham -- returns as the focus of Abraham's faith and desire to live by it, transforming the unfolding tragedy into an ethical drama. Adonai intervenes to put an end to his prophet's zealotry, just moments before Abraham would have caused irreparable harm.
Here in verses 11 and 12 we see the shift take place between Elohim and Adonai within Abraham's consciousness: "The angel of [Adonai] called to him [Abraham] from heaven: 'Abraham! Abraham!' And he answered, 'Here I am.' And he said, 'Do not raise your hand against the boy ... For now I know that you fear [Elohim], since you have not withheld your son.'" The remainder of the chapter exclusively uses the term Adonai.
God's intervention enables Abraham to rid himself of theological norms established in his earlier life. The prophet had tried to show his reverence for Adonai in a way defined by The Elohim (as suggested by the fear of Elohim referenced in verse 12); he carried over norms set by adherents to other deities. But Adonai, the singular and universal God, sent a heavenly messenger to stop Abraham from acting on his misplaced zealotry. Verses 11 and 12 of Genesis 22 represent a sacred call to end zealotry wrongfully carried out in the Divine name.
Genesis 22 is particularly clear in its demand to end religious extremism. Yet even extremism has moderate forms, namely misplaced goals based on false assumptions. We can do harm in good faith, both to our relationship with God and in our relationships with other people. Genesis 22 is a call to be humble in our assumptions and cautious in our actions, particularly when we perform them in God's name.
Follow Joshua Stanton on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dialogueeditor
Rabbi Sid Schwarz: Genesis 22: Abraham's "Return" and the Binding of Isaac
Peter Ochs, Ph.D.: Renewing Abraham's Children in the New Year and Liberating Them from the Old
Brad Hirschfield: Resisting the Seductions of Religious Zeal
So now this article ignores all this, and attributes one meaning for Yahweh (or Jehovah) and another for Elohim. Strange.
"What the story really meant" is impossible to determine because no one now living witnessed the oral origin of the story, the intention of whoever wrote it down, and the common meaning of the words used to write the story down.
There is nothing inherently wrong with developing moral and ethical principles from non-biblical, or "non-superstitious" sources. Likewise, the evil and ignorance many "modern" thinkers impute to biblical stories does not discount the value of efforts selectively to take elements from them to elicit ethical and moral ideas.
In the New Testament you will find Jesus driving out the merchants who set up shop to profit at the temple in Jerusalem. Here is what he did and what was said about it
john 2--. 14In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"
17His disciples remembered that it is written: "Zeal for your house will consume me."
Jesus, who IS GOD, was zealous for the things of the Father.”
Oh I forgot, thats what you specialize in
what made me think that anything has changed around this site. Most highly censored forum in the religion forum
"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourself every girl who has never slept with a man." (Numbers 31:17-18)
"The Lord commands: "... slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women" (Ezechial 9:4-6)
"For I will go through the land of Egypt in that night, and will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and animal. Against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am Yahweh. ” — Exodus 12:12 (WEB)
The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their women with child ripped open." (Hosea 13:16)
"A curse on him who is lax in doing the LORD's work! A curse on him who keeps his sword from bloodshed!" (Jeremiah 48:10)”
Seems pretty zealous.
I really think there needs to be more scholarship among Christians in ancient Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Latin and Coptic.
It takes long years of scholarly study and a talent for intentional blindness to turn Him into anything resembling a moral being.
Oh, please. The machinations that the faithful go through to justify one of the most loathsome stories in the Bible. The only one I haven't heard is that it was April Fool's day and God was just playing a little joke.
http://www.youtube.com/user/nonstampcollector#p/u/39/AqfGu6vTxFY
"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourself every girl who has never slept with a man." (Numbers 31:17-18)
"The Lord commands: "... slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women" (Ezechial 9:4-6)
"For I will go through the land of Egypt in that night, and will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and animal. Against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am Yahweh. ” — Exodus 12:12 (WEB)
The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their women with child ripped open." (Hosea 13:16)
"A curse on him who is lax in doing the LORD's work! A curse on him who keeps his sword from bloodshed!" (Jeremiah 48:10)”
On the notion that 'elohim' doesn't refer to 'yhwh'.
Completely untrue, as near as Genesis 17:1-3 we see the two names used interchangeably to refer to the same entity. This interchangeability is widespread throughout the Torah and wider Old Testament. Simply put, the two different terms do not demand two different entities semantically.
But of course, "a text without a context is a pretext for a proof text." As a prof of mine once said, the three most important things in translation are context, context, and context. Though the words might not demand two entities the context might. It does not however. The idea that 'elohim' is referring to some sort "god ideal" is unwarranted. There is nothing in the historical or literary character of the text that suggests there are two entities. Worse, and rather damning to the suggested interpretation, it is almost impossible to reconcile v. 16,
"saith HaShem (yhwh), because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son..."
with v. 1,
"that G-d (elohim) did prove Abraham..."
without some rather significant gymnastics. Finally, the JPS treats the 'elohim's of the text here in the same manner as it does when 'elohim' MUST mean 'yhwh'.
The simple fact is that the narrative only has one divine entity in it. Translation/interpretation should, like water, take the path of least resistance. This is not exegesis. Rather it is eisegesis.
Jefferson"S Bible was an attempt to find the meat but he even knew the story was a fable?
The poetic edda has more merit - you knew what they were after.
So why spend your time reading 95% propaganda and debating a thing that is unreal and used for brutality .......Jesus love, peace tolernance ....
And then this why speak in parables? Why go ancient mystics, and religous minds sold that because rationality and thought was nowhere to found - and now that I read this debate I see they were right,,,,what the seromon on the mount I have come to feed you meat but I see you only take milk!