In the Bible Abraham is called to Sacrifice his son...

sooda said:

Its a morality tale.. Its fiction.

Click to expand...

Two indicators that its not to be taken as a literal event by us:

• Killing Isaac would be murder in the pentateuch
• Jeremiah 19:5 "They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind."

The question is why is this story there. @leov says its a teaching tool. Abraham is a peacemaker. When his name is Abram he has a treaty with five tribes, and later he visits the king of peace, Melchizedek. At this meeting Abraham turns some kind of corner, but the story doesn't flesh it out. Maybe this incident with Isaac it is to illustrate that Abraham's mission will not fail. The rest of the world probably thinks that he and his kind will be wiped out by the nations, but he just keeps going. The world thinks his efforts are pointless, but we're being made to see that no they aren't pointless. Its not wrong to put war away, to cry instead of reeking vengeance on every insult. His son Isaac, and his grandson Jacob also are peacemakers. This is how they differ from Esau and Ishmael. You can see them pacifying enemies in the stories. Its Abraham who thinks that peacemaking is the wave of the future, but the nations don't believe it and think its nonsense.

Brickjectivity said:

Two indicators that its not to be taken as a literal event by us:

• Killing Isaac would be murder in the pentateuch
• Jeremiah 19:5 "They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind."

The question is why is this story there. @leov says its a teaching tool. Abraham is a peacemaker. When his name is Abram he has a treaty with five tribes, and later he visits the king of peace, Melchizedek. At this meeting Abraham turns some kind of corner, but the story doesn't flesh it out. Maybe this incident with Isaac it is to illustrate that Abraham's mission will not fail. The rest of the world probably thinks that he and his kind will be wiped out by the nations, but he just keeps going. The world thinks his efforts are pointless, but we're being made to see that no they aren't pointless. Its not wrong to put war away, to cry instead of reeking vengeance on every insult. His son Isaac, and his grandson Jacob also are peacemakers.

This is how they differ from Esau and Ishmael. You can see them pacifying enemies in the stories. Its Abraham who thinks that peacemaking is the wave of the future, but the nations don't believe it and think its nonsense.

Click to expand...

For years and years Abraham was a warlord.. Let me find the verses for that.

crossfire said:

The Isaac sacrifice story, the destruction of Sodom, or both? The Sodom story was connected to Sarah's becoming pregnant with Isaac...

Click to expand...

Both...

PureX said:

We are reading those stories from within a very different time and culture. To us, every individual is unique. Our children are afforded their own unique status as individuals. But in the culture that generated these stories, children were considered "offspring" in a very literal way. A son was a kind of physical proxy for the father. Agreements made with a father were binding on a son, and agreements made with a son were considered approved and instituted by the father. This was a culture ruled by family-clan patriarchy. Sons were not their own beings, they were extensions of their fathers. For God to demand that Abraham sacrifice his own son was equivalent to demanding that he end his whole family-clan lineage. It would have been viewed by that culture as an ultimate sacrifice: the sacrifice of everything they held important in life - of all meaning and purpose.

Click to expand...

I am often amazed at the great knowledge and understanding displayed by members of this board.

There are people in my life that I talk to on a daily bases, and I still don’t really understand how they think.

But some posters have the amazing ability to understand the psychology of people living 3500 years ago based on a smattering of incomplete texts. I am just incredibly impressed.

@Brickjectivity
@Ellen Brown

Genesis 14:14-16 King James Version (KJV)
14 And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.

15 And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus.

16 And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.

King James Version (KJV)

Ellen Brown said:

I was always taught that it was Abraham's sacrifice. Wasn't it actually Isaac's sacrifice?

I learned this pearl of wisdom from watching the movie "Venom".

Click to expand...

There are four separate instances of human sacrifice in the Tanakh.

The first is in Genesis 2:9+ where God commands Abraham to sacrifice Isaac but sends an angel at the very last minute with the message, "Only jokin'".

To answer your question, I'd say that Abraham was to make the sacrifice and Isaac was to be sacrificed ie Abraham was to get the credit.

The second is in Judges 11, where Jephthah, under the influence of the spirit of God, makes a deal with God that if he can have a particular military victory, he'll sacrifice the first who comes out the gate to greet him when he returns victorious. The Lord gives him the victory, the first to come out the gate is Jephthah's daughter, Jephthah says, That's a real shame but a deal's a deal, and sacrifices her. The Lord sees to it that he becomes Judge (boss) of Israel.

The third is in 2 Samuel 21. David says, Why are we having a famine, Lord? and is told "There is bloodguilt on Saul and on his house, because he put the Gibeonites to death. Sort it out." David says to the Gibeonites, "What do you want to fix this.," They reply, "Give us seven of Saul's sons and we'll impale them before the Lord." So seven are rounded up, impaled before the Lord, and the famine is ended.

The fourth is Jonah, who commands the crew to throw him overboard to appease the Lord; which they do, but you know the rest.

And then there's the NT.

sooda said:

For years and years Abraham was a warlord.. Let me find the verses for that.

Click to expand...

Genesis 14 there are fighting men; but in 14:25 you can see he is not a warlord and that the men are from 3 allies: Aner, Eshkol and Mamre. Abram (before he is Abraham) is living in Mamre among these people, and their exactly 318 fighting men go to fight when another country kidnaps his nephew, Lot. They win, defeating five allied kings and they bring Lot back along with his goods and Sodom's people and their goods. They go to a city called Peace. Melchizedek, king of that city, blesses Abraham. Abraham reveals that he has sworn not to allow himself to be enriched by the king of Sodom. Its an important point, since later on he does become very wealthy; and he does so without taking from others. In other words he is not a warlord though he has allies.

I think the myth of the Binding of Isaac is a morality tale explaining why Israelite culture did not practice child sacrifice.

Brickjectivity said:

Two indicators that its not to be taken as a literal event by us:

• Killing Isaac would be murder in the pentateuch
• Jeremiah 19:5 "They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind."

The question is why is this story there. @leov says its a teaching tool. Abraham is a peacemaker. When his name is Abram he has a treaty with five tribes, and later he visits the king of peace, Melchizedek. At this meeting Abraham turns some kind of corner, but the story doesn't flesh it out. Maybe this incident with Isaac it is to illustrate that Abraham's mission will not fail. The rest of the world probably thinks that he and his kind will be wiped out by the nations, but he just keeps going. The world thinks his efforts are pointless, but we're being made to see that no they aren't pointless. Its not wrong to put war away, to cry instead of reeking vengeance on every insult. His son Isaac, and his grandson Jacob also are peacemakers. This is how they differ from Esau and Ishmael. You can see them pacifying enemies in the stories. Its Abraham who thinks that peacemaking is the wave of the future, but the nations don't believe it and think its nonsense.

Click to expand...

We need to ponder the way Sons of Israel behaved when the sold his brother to be slave after the almost killed him and the way they behaved in Egypt trying to protect other brother, it shows newly born empathy, brotherly love. Sometimes OT shows negative side of side to show later the positive changes of a character.

Brickjectivity said:

Genesis 14 there are fighting men; but in 14:25 you can see he is not a warlord and that the men are from 3 allies: Aner, Eshkol and Mamre. Abram (before he is Abraham) is living in Mamre among these people, and their exactly 318 fighting men go to fight when another country kidnaps his nephew, Lot.

They win, defeating five allied kings and they bring Lot back along with his goods and Sodom's people and their goods. They go to a city called Peace. Melchizedek, king of that city, blesses Abraham. Abraham reveals that he has sworn not to allow himself to be enriched by the king of Sodom.

Its an important point, since later on he does become very wealthy; and he does so without taking from others. In other words he is not a warlord though he has allies.

Click to expand...

They are his 318 trained, armed servants.

Genesis 14:14-16 King James Version (KJV)
14 And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.

15 And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus.

16 And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.

King James Version (KJV)

Whether the Canaanites respected Abraham as a powerful chieftain, a warlord, a wealthy herdsman, or a holy man depends upon how one parses the Scriptural language.

One could, however, question whether an accurate assessment of their attitudes is any event either relevant or instructive (to us as Jews but also to other, non-Jewish readers of the Bible).

Is it not sufficient for us as readers of Scripture and inheritors of the faith bequeathed by Abraham almost 4,000 years ago, to know, understand, and appreciate his true character without regard to how he may have been viewed by others?

https://anshesholomnewrochelle.org/sermons/the-canaanites-view-of-abraham/

Chieftain and Warrior

Abraham’s Trained Men

We’re completely unused to the very extended families and massive households with large numbers of servants, hired hands, armed retainers and so on that a careful reading of Scripture makes clear Abraham’s was, so we tend to read our own very nuclear families onto the story without even thinking about it.

But it’s obvious from the details we read (and take in without playing out the implications) that Abraham’s household was pretty large, and that he was a powerful chieftain in his own right.

snip

Who were these “trained men”? How could three hundred men make the armies of six kings flee from them, so that they pursued them for several days’ journey?

snip

But this battle of six kings against five provides one of the few possible clues to date the whole Abrahamic period, and scholars argue back and forth as only scholars can over the identities of these rulers that the Bible names.

But we can say some things about the time period and the sort of warfare we’d expect to find.

sooda said:

They are his 318 trained, armed servants.

Genesis 14:14-16 King James Version (KJV)
14 And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.

15 And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus.

16 And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.

King James Version (KJV)

Click to expand...

How does this equate to calling him a warlord? He's a shepherd, and he supports himself that way. His sons Isaac and Jacob go out of their way not to attack people -- even people who wrong them. He's no warlord. A warlord is a different thing.

Brickjectivity said:

How does this equate to calling him a warlord? He's a shepherd, and he supports himself that way. His sons Isaac and Jacob go out of their way not to attack people -- even people who wrong them. He's no warlord. A warlord is a different thing.

Click to expand...

Discounting that the defeat was a huge campaign.

Heyo said:

That's also my hypothesis. You write it as if it was not only your own pondering but objective fact. Do you have any link to a study or some other corroborating evidence?

Click to expand...

We know this is how the Israelites lived, even into the time of Christ, which gives a whole new meaning the "son of God" declaration. I'm sure there will be data on it, somewhere.

susanblange said:

God was testing Abraham's faith. It was meant to teach him trust and obedience. Abraham believed in the one true God and it was accounted to him as righteousness. On the last day, the death and resurrection of the Messiah, salvation will once again come down to belief. This will be the final judgment by fire and it's called the "Day of Decision". The heathen will be cut off by fire. Joel 3:12-14. Zechariah 14:12.

Click to expand...

That's the story.

susanblange said:

God was testing Abraham's faith. It was meant to teach him trust and obedience. Abraham believed in the one true God and it was accounted to him as righteousness. On the last day, the death and resurrection of the Messiah, salvation will once again come down to belief. This will be the final judgment by fire and it's called the "Day of Decision". The heathen will be cut off by fire. Joel 3:12-14. Zechariah 14:12.

Click to expand...

I would rather go to hell, than kill one of my children.

I can't stand Abraham the monster, who would kill his own child.

This is why I reject my religion being called "Abrahamic". Abraham is like the least significant person I can think of in regards to my religious faith.

The Muslims can have him. I don't acknowledge him.

sooda said:

Discounting that the defeat was a huge campaign.

Click to expand...

A warlord would take property, seize people, live as a warrior. Warlords aren't shepherds. The man in the story may have had to defend his nephew, but its not the story of a warlord.

Brickjectivity said:

A warlord would take property, seize people, live as a warrior. Warlords aren't shepherds. The man in the story may have had to defend his nephew, but its not the story of a warlord.

Click to expand...

He was a Bedouin chieftain with 318 armed, dedicated warriors at his command.. in his family.