I agree with Andrew that we can't overlook the importance of Abraham! Remember that God promised him that his descendents would be beyond counting, and that all [people groups] would be blessed through him. So his willingness to offer up Isaac, the means to the fulfilment of this promise, took incredible faith.
This discussion has not taken account of 'sacrifice' in the whole of the OT and NT. It seems to me there are two threads running through Scripture. One points to the Atonement. The other is a developing realisation that animal sacrifice is not the heart of worship, and not 'what is required'. True worship is loving God with heart, mind, soul and strength and your neighbour as yourself. This amounts to the 'living sacrifice' that Paul talks about in Romans 12. Of course, the two threads are intertwined! Incidentally, there are still religions that teach that animal sacrifice *is* required, Islam and Balinese Hindu-Buddhism amongst them. We should take that perceived need seriously. Sue On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:18:24 +1100, Andrew wrote: > >G'day Lindsay and the Group > >At 07:55 PM 26/01/04 +1100, Lindsay Brash wrote: > >>G'day All, >> >>More brief responses to selected items ... >> >>At 11:56 AM 24/01/04 +1100, Andrew Alder wrote: >>>At 01:38 PM 23/01/04 +1100, Lindsay Brash wrote: >>>>At 06:00 AM 23/01/04 +1100, Andrew wrote: >>>>>At 07:15 PM 19/01/04 +1100, Lindsay Brash wrote: >>>>> >>>>>I think Abraham understood perfectly well what God was asking. I think >>>>>God asked this because of Abraham's primitive, barbaric if you like, >>>>>understanding of what God is like. I don't see how you can read the >>>>>story and conclude that God didn't really ask for the sacrifice. >>>>> >>>>>Can you? >>>> >>>>To be honest, yes. Perhaps God asked Abraham if he was willing to give >>>>up anything if God required it. And Abraham interpreted that either as >>>>a direct instruction to sacrifice Isaac, or as a general demand to >>>>demonstrate that willingness so he chooses his most precious >>>>possession. And God allows it to proceed but intervenes at the last minute. >>> >>>Hmmm. I think that's an unlikely reading. Why wouldn't Genesis say that, >>>if that was what happened? >>> >>>I can see no reason to speculate like this. It violates Occam's (or Ockam >>>or Ockham if you like) Razor. >> >>It depends how you think Genesis came to be spoken/written. My version >>doesn't rely on Abraham (or anyone else) realising that he had made a >>mistake on the first instruction. > >Hmmm? How do you (or anyone else) get the idea that Abraham thought he'd >made a mistake? > >Again, I think it's a very unlikely reading. We are reading the same story, >are we? Genesis 22:1-19 says nothing about this. Rather, it seems to >Abraham that God has changed his mind, and it seems to me that God never >intended the sacrifice to proceed. > >>This fits in with your angle of God meeting people within their own >>understanding. >> >>I'm not quite clear how you are applying Occam's Razor here. If it >>applies to the text, then wouldn't Occam always point to a "face value" >>reading? If it applies to the story, then I'm not sure that my version is >>less simple than the original, but I'm no expert on such matters. > >Your version has God asking Abraham "if he was willing to give up anything >if God required it". There's no mention in the text of God asking this, in >fact there's no mention of God asking anything at all. In the text we have, >God is giving instructions, not asking questions. So, it seems to me that >you have elaborated on the story, and changed it significantly in the process. > >There are two problems with this approach. One is that adding these details >doesn't seem necessary. That's where Occam's Razor comes in. The simplest >explanation is the one we should prefer. The other is that these added >details don't even seem to be consistent with the existing story. > >Perhaps the problem is that you think of this as a mere campfire yarn, and >so you feel free to come up with your own fanciful version of it. > >>>>>>>I agree that the story of Abraham and Isaac shows a very limited >>>>>>>understanding of God. Is that the point you wish to make? >>>>>> >>>>>>I guess that is part of it. And if our understanding of God has >>>>>>out-grown this story (in some respects) then we should allow ourselves >>>>>>to move on, and not feel that we have to drag it all with us into the >>>>>>21st century when it doesn't want to go. I think I'm in common with >>>>>>Allan on that. >>>>> >>>>>Hmmm. So, how will you draw the line as to what goes and what stays? >>> >>>I don't think you have answered the question, and I fear it may be I who >>>have offended you in asking it. >> >>Not at all. But you're correct that I didn't really answer it, so I'll >>have a go. My purpose in reading the Bible (as I've mentioned elsewhere) >>is to discover a coherent revelation of God. Some bits are contradictory >>or confused, or confusing ... those bits get sidelined (not erased and not >>eternally - I might gain a new understanding at a later time). The >>remainder I suppose gets sorted (mentally) into major themes, sub-themes, >>by-lines and trivia. >> >>The only way that it could all get sidelined is if it was all >>contradictory, etc, or if there were no worthwhile themes. Then I would >>need to look elsewhere for a revelation of God. >> >>As for what goes and what stays, it depends on the setting. If I had 30 >>seconds to give an account of my faith, or to try and share it with >>someone else, then I could only brush on the major themes, and I wouldn't >>feel guilty that I hadn't done justice to 90+% of the Bible. On the other >>hand if I chose to write a book I could go into every detail even on the >>sidelined bits. > >That's fair enough. It seems to mean that nothing gets cut out completely, >which I find encouraging. > >>But no one would read it. > >William Barclay wrote a series of commentaries he called the Daily Study >Bible, in which he did go into all the details of even the sidelined bits >of the NT. The revised editions of this are still in print, many years >later, so someone must read them besides me. I didn't find the companion >volumes for the OT (not written by Barclay) nearly as good, nor did I find >them as good as Isaac Asimov's OT commentary, which explores *mainly* the >sidelined bits in the same sort of detail. But Asimov is relatively weak on >the NT IMO, and I guess that is understandable, while I found Barclay's >detailed NT commentaries fascinating, and his ability to describe other >viewpoints most refreshing. > >The point being, IMO there may be a market if you did write it. I think the >problem is more that *you* wouldn't want to read it, let alone to write it. >And that's fair enough too. > >>>>And I think you grossly misrepresent Allan. >>> >>>I certainly didn't mean to. I would never have brought his name up if I'd >>>thought it would be controversial like that. Our conversation ended on a >>>very positive note I thought. I thought this would be helpful. I have >>>blundered. >>> >>>But I'm now struggling to see how I have misrepresented him, even >>>slightly. All I said was that he'd rejected the doctrine of the >>>Atonement. And he did say that, didn't he? >> >>I leave that to Allan. > >It's a bit late for that when you have already (falsely I hope) accused me >of "grossly misrepresenting" him. I'll leave it at that. > >>As for me, you might say that *I* reject the doctrine of the atonement, >>but I would say that I simply understand it in different terms. > >I'm very interested. In what terms do *you* understand the doctrine of the >atonement? > >I don't wish to put words into your mouth, any more than I wish to put them >into Allan's. > >>>>>As for "transplanting" the story to Australia 2004, that's exactly what >>>>>I'm *not* suggesting. Rather we need to locate it firmly in its >>>>>historical setting. >>>> >>>>I'm not sure that I can sufficiently understand Abraham's setting to >>>>really understand the story. I am even more doubtful that I could >>>>convey an adequate understanding to a congregation. So where do we end >>>>up? "The preacher says we should follow Abraham's example, but he >>>>doesn't really mean it." >>> >>>The point is simply that Abraham had faith, and was obedient, and was >>>blessed as a result. I think you're making it needlessly complicated. >> >>Maybe. But it also concerns me whenever we don't exactly say what we mean. > > > >>I agree that "Abraham had faith, and was obedient, and was blessed" (I'm >>not so sure about "as a result" but that is a different story). > >Hebrews 11:8-19 deals with Abraham's faith in detail, both this incident >and others, as I'm sure you're aware, and there are other mentions in the >NT. The connection seems pretty plain to me. > >Abraham is of course a major part of the Genesis story. Genesis is roughly >divided into four parts. The first eleven chapters start with the creation, >then Adam and Eve (three or four chapters), then Noah's Ark, then the Tower >of Babel shoe-horned in between to two chapters of genealogy. Then in the >second part we have Abraham for thirteen and a bit chapters, with his death >in chapter 25 marking roughly the half-way point of Genesis, and leading on >to the stories of his son Isaac and his son Jacob, aka Israel. Then the >story of Jacob's son Joseph is the last quarter, it starts properly at the >beginning of chapter 37, with his death in chapter 50 concluding the book. > >Now somehow Adam, Eve, Noah and Joseph are far better known in Christian >circles than Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Their stories are the forgotten >middle of the book. One problem with this is that this probably wasn't the >perspective of Jesus. He is more likely to have regarded the story of >Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as the very heart of the Genesis story. > >>And that Abraham is a great example for us. But I'm not sure that his >>aborted sacrifice of Isaac is a great example. > >Fair enough. Is that because you think that the Bible leaves this question >open? > >>It came up earlier in your discussion with Allan, that the epithet "This >>is the word of the Lord" is OK because we know what it means, and that it >>doesn't mean "these are the words of God." I have a problem with that >>because in 2004 I think it is dangerous to make any assumption about the >>background knowledge that is sitting in the pews. > >True. I wholeheartedly agree. > >And this makes the job of the preacher more important than ever. > >If you wish to remove everything from the service that may possibly be >misunderstood, I think you'll have a very short, quiet service. The problem >then will be, I think that having such a service will be widely >misunderstood. (;-> > >>So we could spend a lot of time regularly explaining what the different >>forms of words really mean to us. Or alternatively we could change the >>words so that they mean exactly (as close as possible) what we want them >>to mean. > >I'm all for changing the words of liturgy to suit the occasion. How do you >adapt these ones? Or have you something else you recommend and/or use instead? > >>If this is PC and offends John Howard, too bad for him. > >Hmmmm? I hadn't connected John Howard's recent comments on PC (I guess you >mean in schools) to this topic. This seems a bit out of the blue to me, >much the same as the comments themselves were to many of us I guess. > >>>>>>OK, so that just adds another layer - instead of consensus in each >>>>>>group, the conclusion represents the wishes of the strong debaters, >>>>>>with a few concessions for the others. That could also have been a >>>>>>dynamic in authorship of the bible. >>>>> >>>>>Hmmm? I rather think the whole scenario collapses. It sounded so >>>>>convincing, but you've now abandoned one of its key assumptions. >>>> >>>>Not at all. We could replace the groups by individuals - I certainly >>>>know people who would represent the different midsets. I think you are >>>>missing the whole point, which was that we could obtain two documents >>>>which purport to be a revelation of God's will, but which are mutually >>>>incompatible. >>> >>>I agree that we could easily obtain such. I think that's harmless. >>> >>>>I believe that the Bible includes examples of this. >>> >>>Can you give me an example? >> >>The command not to murder, contrasted for example against: >>* Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac >>* The command to slaughter the Caananites (every woman and child) >>* The instructions about stoning people for crimes > >Let's take the first of these first, since we've already explored it a >little. Hang on, this has become quite an essay. > >As I understand it, you are claiming that this is an example of "two >documents which purport to be a revelation of God's will, but are mutually >incompatible". You have said that the Bible contains many such. Again as I >understand it, you wish to contrast the Sixth Commandment, which appears in >Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:16, to the story of Abraham's agreeing to >sacrifice Isaac, which appears in Genesis 22:1-19. I'm going to assume that >these are the passages you mean, and that we have all read them, and know a >little of the context of the Exodus and Deuteronomy readings. > >Now let's see what the first passage in chronological order, which is the >Genesis passage, says about "God's will". It shows God testing Abraham by >asking him to do something that makes no sense to us. That is, the idea of >Abraham sacrificing Isaac makes no sense to us. It is a revolting idea. > >That's partly because we are in possession of the Sixth Commandment. >Abraham isn't, because the Ten Commandments come later. The request makes >sense to him (and Hebrews tells us more of why, but that's incidental). >Abraham is being tested by being asked to do something that makes sense to >him, but which *only* makes any sense because of his faith in God. > >And God's will is to test this. To demonstrate Abraham's faith. That faith >is really important to God. That's what is revealed in the Genesis passage. > >It is quite clear to *us* that God never intended the sacrifice to take >place. I've dealt with this previously. The request is a puzzle to me on >other grounds, as I've said before too. But again that's incidental, >because what you are claiming is that this story is incompatible with the >Sixth Commandment, not that it's incompatible with our current >understanding of God. That's another issue. > >How are they incompatible? The Sixth Commandment deals with killing (you >say "murder" above), and is notoriously hard to translate. The Westminster >Larger Catechism holds it to ban "the immoderate use of meat, drink, labor, >and recreations; provoking words, oppression, quarreling". In past ages >when sperm were believed to contain tiny, already formed human beings, the >Sixth Commandment was held to prohibit (male) masturbation. Others have >used it to justify vegetarianism, presumably based on the ridiculous >belief, as Asimov devastatingly puts it, that "plants are not killed when >you eat them as they were never alive". But I hope we can agree that it's >about killing human beings, and leave the exact scope of its meaning as >just vaguely within these bounds for the moment. > >So we must next ask, does the Genesis passage tell us anything about God's >attitude to killing human beings? It looks at first glance as though it >might show God approving of the practice. After all, that's what he tells >Abraham to do. But on the other hand, God also prevents Abraham from >carrying out the deed. Does the passage suggest that, in other >circumstances, God might have accepted a human sacrifice? I don't think it >does. I don't think it says either way. It's quite clear that he didn't >really want it on this occasion, but that's all. > >And I think this is a shock to us. Human sacrifice is so revolting to us >that I think we *expect* God to take a stand against it. And here he >doesn't. But we must be careful. He doesn't take a stand for it either. He >doesn't take a stand at all. That's what shocks us. > >IMO the Genesis passage says nothing to us about God's attitude to killing >human beings. And of course the Sixth Commandment does. But there is no >clash between what these passages tell us about God, and so the passages >are not "mutually inconsistent" at all. > >Or let's attack it another way. Might a God who gave the Sixth Commandment >act in the way God does in the Genesis passage? If the answer is "yes, he >could", then that's equivalent to saying that there is no inconsistency. >And I think he could. > >That's not to say that the Genesis passage is incapable of >misinterpretation. Probably any passage is capable of misinterpretation, >especially if taken in isolation. Nor is it to say there are no other >problems with it. In a sense God has deceived Abraham, and I'm not at all >comfortable with that. > >I'm quite happy to discuss this alleged conflict in more detail. There's a >lot going on there. But IMO it would be better to look at another. So, >would you like me to deal with the other two passages that you claim are >inconsistent to the Sixth Commandment, or can you give an even better example? > >What I'd prefer is that you give your *best* example, whether one of these >or another. You did say there were many, so it's probably not feasible to >go through them all. And while you may be confident that they are all >important, IMO it will be more efficient if we first discuss the ones that >you find *most* troublesome. Surely there are some that are clearer than >others. > >If for example you want to investigate whether God has ever supported the >practice of human sacrifice, then IMO we would be better to look at the >story of Jephthah in Judges 11. I raised this one before, and it's after >the giving of the Law, so the Sixth Commandment becomes a lot more relevant. > >So, what is the one that worries you most of all, and why? Or at least one >of the clearest, most convincing? > >Or is the one example we've dealt with enough? I'm not for a moment saying >that there are no puzzles. I'm just saying that your claim that there are >many "mutually incompatible" passages is a bit over the top. > >Yours in Christ >andrew a > > >**** >email: andrewa @ alder . ws >http://www.zeta.org.au/~andrewa >Phone 9441 4476 >Mobile 04 2525 4476 >**** Sue Bolton Sydney, Australia ------------------------------------------------------ - You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe insights-l' (ell, not one (1)) See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/insights-l-information.htm ------------------------------------------------------
