How to rationalize these two Bible narratives?

[Michael Peterson]

It's been a goal of mine to write a translation and commentary of Genesis in one year. I'm now in the tenth month of this project and am not even half-way through. Here's my latest stumbling block:

How are these two narratives - The story of Sodom and Gomorrah and the story of Abraham's attempt to sacrifice his son, Isaac - to be rationalized. I do not have an answer but have described the conflict here.

I was hoping that some fresh eyes with different perspectives might provide some way forward. Thanks in advance.

Blessings,

 

[DawudTalut]

It's been a goal of mine to write a translation and commentary of Genesis in one year. I'm now in the tenth month of this project and am not even half-way through. Here's my latest stumbling block:

How are these two narratives - The story of Sodom and Gomorrah and the story of Abraham's attempt to sacrifice his son, Isaac - to be rationalized. I do not have an answer but have described the conflict here.

I was hoping that some fresh eyes with different perspectives might provide some way forward. Thanks in advance.

Blessings,

1=According to Quran, before this event-to-be, Hazrat Abraham (on whom be peace) was tried to be thrown in fire by opponents but saved by God.
Related verses: https://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=37&verse=95

So he might have thought, this time another sacrifice is needed [as son's life and delicate emotions of mother and father]

2=He waited to get child's opinion too.

3=He surely had thought their sacrifices would do good for the cause of faith. [though sacrifice was already done by leaving son and mother in wilderness according to Ahmadiyya-Muslim understanding]

4=In S/G case, he wanted same goodness if some goodness was present as seed, it would eventually take over darkness......But we need to keep in mind, what S/G would do to good people. So even if few good people were present, their life would have been under continuous persecution which is another form of sacrifice. So goodness was the thought of Hazrat Ibrahim (a.s.) in both cases.

 

[Skwim]

It's been a goal of mine to write a translation and commentary of Genesis in one year. I'm now in the tenth month of this project and am not even half-way through. Here's my latest stumbling block:

How are these two narratives - The story of Sodom and Gomorrah and the story of Abraham's attempt to sacrifice his son, Isaac - to be rationalized. I do not have an answer but have described the conflict here.

I was hoping that some fresh eyes with different perspectives might provide some way forward. Thanks in advance.

Blessings,

Well, your problem is apparent in your belief that Abraham's' actions must be a rational. Is there some compelling reason for this belief? Many things in the Bible defy rationalization, which quickly compel people to forget about it lest it disturb their faith. Rationality and coherency are not the Bible's strong suits.


.

 

[rusra02]

It's been a goal of mine to write a translation and commentary of Genesis in one year. I'm now in the tenth month of this project and am not even half-way through. Here's my latest stumbling block:

How are these two narratives - The story of Sodom and Gomorrah and the story of Abraham's attempt to sacrifice his son, Isaac - to be rationalized. I do not have an answer but have described the conflict here.

I was hoping that some fresh eyes with different perspectives might provide some way forward. Thanks in advance.

Blessings,

I find no conflict in these accounts. Abraham was a man of outstanding faith. He trusted God implicitly, and lived his life by faith. Thus, "By faith Abraham, when he was tested, as good as offered up Isaac—the man who had gladly received the promises attempted to offer up his only-begotten son— although it had been said to him: “What will be called your offspring will be through Isaac." He showed the same faith when he said to God regarding Sodom; "It is unthinkable that you would act in this manner by putting the righteous man to death with the wicked one so that the outcome for the righteous man and the wicked is the same! It is unthinkable of you. Will the Judge of all the earth not do what is right?" (Genesis 18:25)

 

[Michael Peterson]

I find no conflict in these accounts. Abraham ... lived his life by faith.

This is a reasonable point because within the cultural context of those times child sacrifice was not uncommon in Canaan and across into North Africa. Moreover, this was before God formally promulgated His will to mankind (i.e., before Torah, before Joshua's genocide of Canaan - to prevent the Israelites from adopting child sacrifice, and before Jeremiah's condemnation of Israel's having adopted child sacrifice). With this in mind, I could see how Abraham assented to God's request, i.e., on the basis that, "Well, everybody does child sacrifice, why should I be excepted?"

It still doesn't clear up the conflict between the two stories. In Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham was greatly disturbed by the genocide proposed by God and thus OBJECTED to it - persistently! In the Binding, Abraham does nothing other than to silently assent to the request. Why object so strenuously in the former narrative and not at all in the latter?

Blessings,

 

[rusra02]

This is a reasonable point because within the cultural context of those times child sacrifice was not uncommon in Canaan and across into North Africa. Moreover, this was before God formally promulgated His will to mankind (i.e., before Torah, before Joshua's genocide of Canaan - to prevent the Israelites from adopting child sacrifice, and before Jeremiah's condemnation of Israel's having adopted child sacrifice). With this in mind, I could see how Abraham assented to God's request, i.e., on the basis that, "Well, everybody does child sacrifice, why should I be excepted?"

It still doesn't clear up the conflict between the two stories. In Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham was greatly disturbed by the genocide proposed by God and thus OBJECTED to it - persistently! In the Binding, Abraham does nothing other than to silently assent to the request. Why object so strenuously in the former narrative and not at all in the latter?

Blessings,

I do not believe Abraham was disturbed by God's intent to destroy the wicked; rather, that God would destroy the righteous along with those deserving destruction, something Jehovah would not and did not do. Abraham knew that God had given him his son Isaac, and that Isaac would be the one through whom God would bless all nations. Hebrews 11:18,19 explain; "it had been said to him [Abraham]; What will be called your offspring will be through Isaac.” But he reasoned that God was able to raise him up even from the dead, and he did receive him from there in an illustrative way." Once again, implicit trust and faith in God's righteousness.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I was hoping that some fresh eyes with different perspectives might provide some way forward. Thanks in advance.

Different pericopes with different oral histories and different intents.

 

[Michael Peterson]

But he reasoned that God was able to raise him up even from the dead ..."

Fair enough, i.e., when seen through the lens of the New Testament. But, at this time in history, resurrection of the dead was unheard of - even in the surrounding pagan mythologies. Moreover, there is nothing in the whole of Pentatuchal history about resurrection or its possibility, so I do not see how Abraham would have murdered his son believing that Isaac would be resurrected. Indeed, the whole idea behind child sacrifice in the Baal traditions of Canaan were that the child would be forever gone. It's not a sacrifice if what you sacrifice is not lost.

But, I take your point. I am not compelled by it, but you're clear in making your case. Thanks.

Different pericopes with different oral histories and different intents.

I certainly agree that the oral Genesis narratives, when they came to be written down, were surely edited. But, according to those who hold to the document hypothesis, the editing was done to make the narratives cohere. In this case, the editing resulted in a protagonist who behaves inconsistently. The incoherence is glaring. So, if your advice is to write-off this inconsistency as the result of poor editing, I can buy that. Thanks for your thoughts.

Blessings,

 

[Tumah]

It still doesn't clear up the conflict between the two stories. In Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham was greatly disturbed by the genocide proposed by God and thus OBJECTED to it - persistently! In the Binding, Abraham does nothing other than to silently assent to the request. Why object so strenuously in the former narrative and not at all in the latter?

Blessings,

In both cases, he did what he understood G-d to have wanted from him. In the case of Sodom, G-d lets the cat out about going to destroy Sodom. Abraham not being G-d's secretary, there's no reason G-d had to share that information with him. The purpose then, was for Abraham to pick up the hint and pray for them.
In the binding, where it wasn't G-d's intent to actually sacrifice Isaac, G-d again phrases it in a way that makes it seem like He wants Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I certainly agree that the oral Genesis narratives, when they came to be written down, were surely edited. But, according to those who hold to the document hypothesis, the editing was done to make the narratives cohere.

Sometimes. Sometimes the intent seems to be to insert a theological point. Sometimes the intent of the splicing is wholly unclear. The presumption of coherence is simply unfounded.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I view the Scriptures as a blog of man looking for God. They ascribed so many heinous things to God including infantacide, genocide, fits of jealousy, rage and more. So why not couch the difference not as a change in God, but as a change in man's perspective of God. That explains all the conflicts and disconnects we see in Scripture. God is perfect: man not so much.

 

[Thief]

It's been a goal of mine to write a translation and commentary of Genesis in one year. I'm now in the tenth month of this project and am not even half-way through. Here's my latest stumbling block:

How are these two narratives - The story of Sodom and Gomorrah and the story of Abraham's attempt to sacrifice his son, Isaac - to be rationalized. I do not have an answer but have described the conflict here.

I was hoping that some fresh eyes with different perspectives might provide some way forward. Thanks in advance.

Blessings,

I would suggest reviewing more than one text
in making comparisons I noticed the change of one word changes all of the text

as for Sodom.....
I rationalize, a practice had begun of which the spread would undo the spirit of Man
that practice needed to be reduced
a show of force was applied
a warning to all since that day

as for Abram ....
I suspect his following of God took a turn and it was of Abram's own spirit
a sacrifice to God....an item of great love

and the hand of Abram was stayed.....for the misconception

 

[Michael Peterson]

In both cases, he did what he understood G-d to have wanted from him.

I'm not disagreeing, Tumah, but I just want to make sure I understand your point: are you contending that G-d 'wanted' Abraham to challenge Him and in so objecting to G-d's intention did what G-d wanted?

Fair enough. Nevertheless, my conundrum still stands in spite of what G-d's motivations may have been. When faced with the possibility of innocent lives being lost, including his nephew Lot, Abraham mounted a vigorous defense. However, when faced with having to murder his own son, nary a hint of an objection. What G-d's intentions were seems completely irrelevant to Abraham's inconsistent behavior in these two narratives.

What's interesting to me, as I read the commentaries and learn more about human sacrifice in the ANE, is that in some cultures it was seen as an honor to be chosen to sacrifice one's child. If this is true, then perhaps Abraham was behaving as the Baal worshipers would if a high priest of Baal selected one of them to sacrifice their child. Arguing against this interpretation is that the text plainly admits that this was a test. If it was, them Abraham - in going along with the Baal scenario - would have flunked miserably. But he didn't flunk the test, according to G-d. He passed with flying colors. I think it's pretty clear that G-d was testing the limits to which Abraham would go to obey his LORD.

Thanks, Tumah. Yours was an interesting response.

Blessings,

 

[Deeje]

Fair enough, i.e., when seen through the lens of the New Testament. But, at this time in history, resurrection of the dead was unheard of - even in the surrounding pagan mythologies. Moreover, there is nothing in the whole of Pentatuchal history about resurrection or its possibility, so I do not see how Abraham would have murdered his son believing that Isaac would be resurrected.

The book of Job seems to be the first mention of the resurrection and this goes back to Patriarchal times.

Job 14:12-15:
"so a man lies down and rises not again;
till the heavens are no more he will not awake
or be roused out of his sleep.
13 Oh that you would hide me in Sheol,
that you would conceal me until your wrath be past,
that you would appoint me a set time, and remember me!
14 If a man dies, shall he live again?
All the days of my service I would wait,
till my renewal should come.
15 You would call, and I would answer you;
you would long for the work of your hands." (ESV)

Paul's reference to Abraham's belief in the resurrection would not be misplaced then.

Indeed, the whole idea behind child sacrifice in the Baal traditions of Canaan were that the child would be forever gone. It's not a sacrifice if what you sacrifice is not lost.

When Israel fell to imitating the worshippers of Molech, and sacrificed their children in the fire, they obviously did not believe in an afterlife. (Jeremiah 7:31) Where would they imagine that their children would go? If they went into their graves in an unconscious state, which is what the Hebrew scriptures taught, (Eccl 9:5, 10) they would simply have sent them to a place of rest. As Job said "sheol" (the grave) was a place to "hide" from the troubles of this life. When God's anger was passed, he prayed to be remembered so that God would raise him back to life...not to heaven, but back to life on earth.

Jesus told us that this is true....
"For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.........Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment." (John 5:21; 28-29 ESV)

He does not call them from heaven, but from their tombs, just as he did Lazarus. Where was Lazarus before Jesus raised him? Jesus said he was "sleeping" (John 11:11-14)

This is a teaching, not of a "Christian", but of a Jew. Jesus took Jewish belief from the Hebrew scriptures, not the writings of the apostles. All the Bible writers were Jewish. There were no "Christians" when Jesus walked the earth.

 

[Tumah]

I'm not disagreeing, Tumah, but I just want to make sure I understand your point: are you contending that G-d 'wanted' Abraham to challenge Him and in so objecting to G-d's intention did what G-d wanted?

Fair enough. Nevertheless, my conundrum still stands in spite of what G-d's motivations may have been. When faced with the possibility of innocent lives being lost, including his nephew Lot, Abraham mounted a vigorous defense. However, when faced with having to murder his own son, nary a hint of an objection. What G-d's intentions were seems completely irrelevant to Abraham's inconsistent behavior in these two narratives.

What's interesting to me, as I read the commentaries and learn more about human sacrifice in the ANE, is that in some cultures it was seen as an honor to be chosen to sacrifice one's child. If this is true, then perhaps Abraham was behaving as the Baal worshipers would if a high priest of Baal selected one of them to sacrifice their child. Arguing against this interpretation is that the text plainly admits that this was a test. If it was, them Abraham - in going along with the Baal scenario - would have flunked miserably. But he didn't flunk the test, according to G-d. He passed with flying colors. I think it's pretty clear that G-d was testing the limits to which Abraham would go to obey his LORD.

Thanks, Tumah. Yours was an interesting response.

Blessings,

Abraham never objects to G-d's Will unless G-d indicates to him that he should (as by Sodom). So yes, by Sodom, G-d indicates to him, that he has to be the "lawyer" for people, the same way that Moses later acts for the Jews.

I don't think Abraham ever objects to G-d's explicit command. He wants to save people, sure. But if G-d directly commands him to kill someone, I think as you say, obedience trumps all. By Lot, Abraham is just working with what he sees. G-d never tells him yea or nay. By Sodom, G-d only makes known His intent to sit in judgement - the final sentence is not proclaimed yet. But by Isaac, Abraham receives an explicit command to sacrifice his son. There's no room for him to do his thing.

 

[Kelloggs]

It's been a goal of mine to write a translation and commentary of Genesis in one year. I'm now in the tenth month of this project and am not even half-way through. Here's my latest stumbling block:

How are these two narratives - The story of Sodom and Gomorrah and the story of Abraham's attempt to sacrifice his son, Isaac - to be rationalized. I do not have an answer but have described the conflict here.

I was hoping that some fresh eyes with different perspectives might provide some way forward. Thanks in advance.

Blessings,

Hello Michael,
I hope my "fresh pair of eyes" can help.

As we read the Old Testament, it seems that absolute obedience of God's people is required in order to achieve God's promises.
The story of Abraham pictures just this - an absolute obedience.

As for the sacrificial story - perhaps one can trace back its' origin to Ancient Semitic cultures. Remember at this time "God" had not revealed his Identity to Abraham just yet. Back then there were "many" (poly) gods. Abraham in his absolute obedience had not yet "known" God as Moses did. Abraham lived in the word where gods were many. It is very much different in the world that we live today in which we can easily assign/label names to different "gods" and belief system.

Exodus 6:2-3 NRSV
2 God also spoke to Moses and said to him: “I am the Lord. 3 I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name ‘The Lord' I did not make myself known to them.

The Interlinear Bible shows the actual translation of the verse in Hebrew:
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/exodus/6.htm
It says:
2 And Spoke God unto Moses and said unto him "I am Yahweh" and 3 I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as "God Almighty" (Hebrew: El - Shaddai). But my name Yahweh, I did not reveal unto them"


Abraham understood Yahweh only as an almighty God. He did not know (back then) god's "true identity". So for Abraham (in a given polytheistic culture in which child sacrifice was common) - it was OK - "If God says so, I will do so".

As per your English translation in your website (http://thussaidthelord.com/rationalizing-narratives-sodom-gomorrah-binding-isaac/)
I quote directly from your website:
" Here is how the English reads from the actual Hebrew of the first part of Genesis 22:2,
And God said, “Please, take your son, your only son …"

The Hebrew word projects several meaning within one word. Depending on the sentence and the context of use, one word may be translated into several other words. The placement of the word (whether it's on its' own or whether it's used as a suffix) also contribute to how the word should be translated.
The actual word you are looking for in Verse 2 is "qah-na" in Hebrew. The word "qah" translates to "Take" and "na" translates to "now" (or as you say "Please"). It also translates to "I pray" throughout the Old Testament (source: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/strongs_4994.htm)
If you are correct that this seems to be the only place throughout the Old Testament where God says that Hebrew word, then perhaps it carries some sort of Theological meaning - as intended by the writer.



Hope this helps,
K

 

[Mark La Buda]

It's been a goal of mine to write a translation and commentary of Genesis in one year. I'm now in the tenth month of this project and am not even half-way through. Here's my latest stumbling block:

How are these two narratives - The story of Sodom and Gomorrah and the story of Abraham's attempt to sacrifice his son, Isaac - to be rationalized. I do not have an answer but have described the conflict here.

I was hoping that some fresh eyes with different perspectives might provide some way forward. Thanks in advance.

Blessings,

This is a difficult question for me; however, perhaps the following short comments may help.

In Jude 7 is reads: “Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them, after they…had committed fornication excessively and gone out after flesh for unnatural use, are placed before us as a warning example.” The people of Sodom and Gomorrah did not receive any moral laws from God; however, like all humans, they had the God-given faculty of conscience. Hence, God could justly hold those people accountable for their deeds. (Romans 1:26, 27; 2:14, 15)

Abraham taught his son Isaac to love Jehovah and to trust all of Jehovah’s promises. (Genesis 26:2-5). He showed that he had faith God because you were willing to sacrifice your son.-genesis 22:12

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It's been a goal of mine to write a translation and commentary of Genesis in one year. I'm now in the tenth month of this project and am not even half-way through. Here's my latest stumbling block:

How are these two narratives - The story of Sodom and Gomorrah and the story of Abraham's attempt to sacrifice his son, Isaac - to be rationalized. I do not have an answer but have described the conflict here.

I was hoping that some fresh eyes with different perspectives might provide some way forward. Thanks in advance.

Blessings,

Maybe Paul’s comment at Hebrews 11:17-19, with emphasis on vs.19, will provide a perspective not given in Genesis.

That belief and hope, would make a difference.

 

[Bree]

It's been a goal of mine to write a translation and commentary of Genesis in one year. I'm now in the tenth month of this project and am not even half-way through. Here's my latest stumbling block:

How are these two narratives - The story of Sodom and Gomorrah and the story of Abraham's attempt to sacrifice his son, Isaac - to be rationalized. I do not have an answer but have described the conflict here.

I was hoping that some fresh eyes with different perspectives might provide some way forward. Thanks in advance.

Blessings,

It certainly is interesting to see how Abraham acted in both accounts and yes i can see the dilema.

There are clues as to why Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son at Gods request in the Christian scriptures. The apostle Paul explains this

Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested,+ as good as offered up Isaac—the man who had gladly received the promises attempted to offer up his only-begotten son+— 18 although it had been said to him: “What will be called your offspring will be through Isaac.”+ 19 But he reasoned that God was able to raise him up even from the dead, and he did receive him from there in an illustrative way.+

Consider that Abraham had been told that a great nation would come from his loins. He was told this even before he had any children. When God asked him to sacrifice his son Isaac, he must have believed that God would restore his life to fulfill his promise to make a great nation out of him as the Apostle Paul says here, So Abraham never questioned Gods motives with regard to his son.

But with regard to Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham knew Gods motives to destroy those cities. And it is to be noted that his much loved nephew Lot was residing with his family in Sodom at the time. This could explain why Abraham was so concerned about the cities being destroyed. He did not want his nephew to be killed so he was trying to divert disaster.

 

[wellwisher]

It's been a goal of mine to write a translation and commentary of Genesis in one year. I'm now in the tenth month of this project and am not even half-way through. Here's my latest stumbling block:

How are these two narratives - The story of Sodom and Gomorrah and the story of Abraham's attempt to sacrifice his son, Isaac - to be rationalized. I do not have an answer but have described the conflict here.

I was hoping that some fresh eyes with different perspectives might provide some way forward. Thanks in advance.

Blessings,

Reason, which is based on cause and affect, works best for correlating the past and the present; inference and deductions. Science, for example, uses reason to analyze what it already here; from the past and the present. It then makes theories and runs experiments to see if these rational and/or mathematical theories or explanations, can also explain the future. But the future is not known, so experiments have to be run to be sure. Science will not stop at theory and reason, since reason cannot always predict the future. Often experiments open new doors and the path to the future needs to be updated.

The future is harder to reconcile with reason, since there is data missing, because the future is not yet manifest. God is not limited to the past and present, like humans, but he also sees the future because he defines and allows the future to unfold.

The future is where faith comes in, since like the future, we need to believe in an outcome we cannot prove with our senses, like we can with the past or present, since future data is missing. However, in other situations, God made clear predictions of the future, so Abraham knew God had a good track record. Abraham decided to use faith and flow with the needs of the immediate future; sacrifices, knowing the more distant future, would be better for him and his offspring; blessing. Abraham did not bet on a lady luck type future, with obsession or fear, but on a calm sure thing future, via his faith in God.

What bothers the Atheists about such passages is they cannot see these futures outcomes with reason, as ending well, so it is spooky. If this future ends with the sacrifices, it will alter life in negative ways; loss of a son. But through faith in God, in things not seen; future, one walks forward with peace, knowing all will end well, even if the details in the middle are still foggy.