Have you ever heard a song that you really like, only to find out from someone that it was just a cover version?
This information can spoil your enjoyment of the song. Yet people try to do this with the gospels and the life of Yeshua.
When we are rejoicing in Yeshua, others will say that his sacrifice on the cross was merely a rehash of the Greek legends about Dionysus or Artemis.
Yet the reality is that all the stories of sacrifice, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Greek and Pagan, have their roots in Abraham, as recorded in the Akedah passage of Genesis 22, where God tells Abraham to sacrifice his beloved son Isaac.
The Akedah presents a problem for us when we try to understand the god of love, as hereGod tells Abraham to sacrifice his son. Did God instruct his friend to child murder? Does God allow people to commit child abuse in his name?
Both Roman Catholicism and Haredi Judaism are reeling from recent scandals and cover-ups related to sexual abuse of children by clerics. Many both inside and outside these religions are shocked that people who claim to know God should abuse children in such a way. And if sex abuse is shocking and horrific, surely child ritual sacrifice is abhorrent to God.
So is God just like Molech, sacrificing the innocent child to heathen worship? We need to look more closely.
Love
In his book The Gifts of the Jews, Thomas Cahill mentions that the Akedah is the first place where God speaks the word “love.” God says to Abraham in Genesis 22:2 “Take your son, the son whom you dearly love, and offer him as a sacrifice upon the altar”.
We know from the Torah, the whole Bible, and from Yeshua’s teachings that the greatest command is to love God and love your neighbour. God himself acknowledged that Abraham loved his son Isaac. God too loved his son Yeshua and gave him as a sacrifice.
God described Abraham as his friend – both God and Abraham went through the same agony of losing a son, although Abraham did not have to actually lose Isaac physically.
There are further parallels with the story of Yeshua. We read that three days after God told Abraham to kill Isaac, the events of the akedah took place. When God declared Isaac to be killed, he was effectively dead, as Abraham would obey God – a fact acknowledged by the writer of Hebrews in chapter 11. Yet on the third day, God brings the beloved son back from the dead.
We learn in Genesis 22:6 Isaac carried the wood for his own sacrifice just as Yeshua carried his own cross.
In Genesis 22:9, Abraham and Isaac arrive on Mt Moriah, the place that will in time become Jerusalem where Yeshua will be sacrificed.
Abraham tied up his son and put him on the wood. Yeshua was also bound to wood.
Isaac was to be killed by a knife (verse 10) just as Yeshua was to be killed by nails. So just as the material where Isaac was bound was the same as for Yeshua (wood), so was the instrument used for death (sharp metal).
With all these parallels to the Yeshua story, you would assume that the rabbis would attempt to hush up the Akedah and treat it as a taboo subject. Instead the rabbis celebrate the akedah and realise its inescapable significance.
Literature
The most learned rabbinic scholar of the second century A.D. and the “father of the mishnah” the Amora Hoshaiah likened Isaac to one carrying his cross.
Furthermore, in the rabbinic Passover Midrash there is a supplication that when the Jews offer animal sacrifices, God should consider it as if they were sacrificing Isaac! In the Bereshit Rabbati, Isaac says to Abraham that a quarter of his blood is an atonement for all Israel.
According to the rabbinic Mekilta’s commentary on 1 Chronicles 7:12, when the angel of the Lord came to destroy Jerusalem, he stopped because he saw Isaac’s blood. Even the ram’s horn at Yom Kippur is designed to model the horns of the ram that replaced Isaac. In some rabbinical teachings, Isaac was killed and resurrected. (Indeed it could be argued that Judaism has unwittingly switched the stories of Yeshua and Isaac, much like how Islam switched the stories of Isaac and Ishmael.)
The rabbis have admired the faith of Abraham, arguing that Abraham proved to God that he loved him because he would go to the extent of killing his own son.
But how is this different from the Islamic fundamentalist who will murder out of supposed devotion to God? It may be celebrated by men of all religions, but is this story still a glorification of death?
Mercy
We know that Abraham did not glorify in death, as even when the wicked were justly condemned. Abraham pleaded for the wicked men of Sodom, appealing to God’s mercy. How he must have pleaded for Isaac too! This can’t have been an easy thing, unless Abraham was looking beyond what everyone would see as a commandment of death, and actually seeing life.
We read in Genesis 22:5 that Abraham tells his servants that he will return. In Hebrews 11, the writer comments that Abraham had faith that God would raise Isaac from the dead! Abraham’s faith was only possible because he knew God was the God of life, the God of resurrection, that even in a command so apparently full of death, there was life.
Abraham knew God would provide a lamb, as we read in Genesis 22:7. The lamb of the Akedah story appears in a bush just after the voice of God comes from Heaven. 500 years later, God would appear to Moses in a bush, and speak through the bush.
But although Abraham knew God would provide a lamb, he didn’t know God would reveal this lamb before he killed Isaac. Even after God provided the lamb which replaced Isaac, Abraham realised that there was another lamb to come. This is why Abraham called the place “The Lord Will Provide.” The Lord did indeed provide as 2000 years later, Yeshua would die as a sacrifice for our sins on the present day location of Mt Moriah. Yeshua was God’s beloved son, and God was anguished to give him up.
God allowed Abraham to experience something of the anguish he would endure when Yeshua was bound on the cross. Yet God does not test or tempt us beyond what we could bear. Whilst Abraham did not have to go through the slaughter of his son, God did, as Yeshua died as the atonement for our sins.
Mind
It is impossible to fully understand the mind of Abraham or what must have been going through his head. The Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard wrote a whole philosophical essay, the Fear and the Trembling, trying to understand Abraham. In Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard remarks that he has understood all the intricacies of Kantian philosophy, but still has no idea what was in Abraham’s mind as he walked with Isaac to Mount Moriah.
Yet the Akedah will not make sense unless you realise that Abraham did not see Death in God’s commands, but Life. He knew that God would return Isaac to him alive, and he had faith that God would have the ultimate victory. Yet even then we are at a loss to fully understand Abraham.
Just as Kierkegaard could not understand Abraham, neither can we comprehend God’s marvellous ways. We join with Paul in declaring: “Who has known the mind of God? Who can understand his ways?” (Romans 11:33).
Just as Isaac unbound has fascinated rabbis and philosophers for centuries, the unbinding of Yeshua takes us way beyond our own understanding and into a place of wonder and awe.
This article originally appeared in the BMJA Chai Magazine Summer 2010
Joseph
compare (above article)
“Yet the reality is that all the stories of sacrifice, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Greek and Pagan, have their roots in Abraham, as recorded in the Akedah passage of Genesis 22, where God tells Abraham to sacrifice his beloved son Isaac.”
WITH
“Were sacrifices a symbol of the savior to come?
Not according to Judaism. Quite the contrary, some would say that the original institution of sacrifice had more to do with the Judaism’s past than with its future. RAMBAM SUGGESTED THAT THE ENTIRE SACRIFICIAL CULT IN JUDAISM WAS ORDAINED AS AN ACCOMMODATION OF MAN’S PRIMITIVE DESIRES.
Sacrifice is an ancient and universal human expression of religion. Greeks and Romans and Canaanites and Egyptians all offered sacrifices to their gods. Sacrifice existed among the Hebrews long before the giving of the Torah. Cain and Abel offered sacrifices; Noah and his sons offered sacrifices, and so forth. When the laws of sacrifice were given to the Children of Israel in the Torah, the pre-existence of a system of sacrificial offering was understood, and sacrificial terminology was used without any explanation. THE TORAH, RATHER THAN CREATING THE INSTITUTION OF SACRIFICE, CAREFULLY LIMITED THE PRACTICE, PERMITTING IT ONLY IN CERTAIN PLACES, AT CERTAIN TIMES, IN CERTAIN MANNERS, BY CERTAIN PEOPLE, AND FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES. RAMBAM SUGGESTS THAT THESE LIMITATIONS ARE DESIGNED TO WEAN A PRIMITIVE PEOPLE AWAY FROM THE DEBASED RITES OF THEIR IDOLATROUS NEIGHBORS.”
http://www.jewfaq.org/qorbanot.htm
The contrast between the two views is very interesting and hopefully some others will say something about that. But for the moment what I find strange about “jewfaq’s” view is that I was under the impression that God had ordained the sacrifices (and all the other exacting ritual) IN ORDER TO SET HIS PEOPLE APART, in other words to make them holy. Or should we stick with the Rambam and believe that Moses (and the Saviour YHVH) were merely in the weening business?
I have to say that I think Rambam is talking through his too civilised hat.
Now, I’m in for it.
Pingback: OneDaringJew
Joseph,
Your essay was interesting in its attempt to “level the playing field”.
Sure, Judaism’s sacred text has a binding narrative. But Christianity, Islam, Greek mythology, etc. have storylines in their literature that, in very broad strokes, seem to be similar to the binding of Isaac in the Jewish Bible. And therefore, who is to say that the Jewish binding narrative–or sacred text–has primacy over the competitive religious landscape? And, since all religions’ claims are, after all, equal, why can’t we assert that the Christian theology, which even incorporates the Jewish Bible as it’s “old testament”, and which thereby doubles up on the binding narratives, is the most reasonable storyline to accept and follow?
Because you are an apologist for Christianity and a missionary to the Jews, I can certainly understand your motivation in deploying the logic of your essay. But we have to admit the logic doesn’t hold up under objective scrutiny.
Incorporation of a binding narrative has never been the necessary ingredient for a book to be true. Thus, the Christian “new testament”‘s recognition of two bindings narratives doesn’t afford it greater credibility than other religious texts. Moreover, there is unanimity amongst Jews, Christians and Muslims that the Torah, from which the binding of Isaac story emanates, was given by G-d to the Jewish people, collectively, in broad daylight, with millions of witnesses, all of whom passed down the story of their miraculous rescue from Egyptian bondage and their receipt of the Torah at Sinai to the progeny down through the ages to this very generation. On the other hand, the basis for belief in Christianity or in Islam is no stronger than accepting the truth of Paul’s and Muhammad’s dreams, respectively. Christians today believe that Jesus died on the cross because Paul wrote that it happened, not because they are descended from anyone who claimed to have witnessed that event and passed it down. Thus, there is an entirely different standard of evidence between the nearly universally accepted account of the binding of Isaac as a test of Abraham’s faith (for theological reasons, Muslims have altered the Bible here to assert that it was really Ishmael that was bound by Abraham) and the belief that Jesus was crucified for the sins of man, which Jews don’t believe for a second. It is in no insignificant measure due to Judaism’s uniquely high standard of evidence that Israel has never exchanged its tradition for any of the new religions that cropped up after their own and aped parts of their Bible while contradicting the rest.
Having said that, I think you’re a talented writer and I am not surprised the missionary magazine chose your article for publication.
On my own blog (http://yb4jesus.wordpress.com), I hope to have the opportunity in the near future to write an essay comparing the cases for believing the Jewish and Christian faiths based on how they each came into being.
Great post Joseph!!!
I was struck by the contrast between the following explanation of the stories of sacrifice in the above article and something I had previously read. Here is the excerpt from the above article:
“Yet the reality is that all the stories of sacrifice, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Greek and Pagan, have their roots in Abraham, as recorded in the Akedah passage of Genesis 22, where God tells Abraham to sacrifice his beloved son Isaac.”
Here is a contrasting explanation from Jewfaq:
Were sacrifices a symbol of the savior to come?
Not according to Judaism. Quite the contrary, some would say that the original institution of sacrifice had more to do with the Judaism’s past than with its future. Rambam suggested that the entire sacrificial cult in Judaism was ordained as an accommodation of man’s primitive desires.
Sacrifice is an ancient and universal human expression of religion. Greeks and Romans and Canaanites and Egyptians all offered sacrifices to their gods. Sacrifice existed among the Hebrews long before the giving of the Torah. Cain and Abel offered sacrifices; Noah and his sons offered sacrifices, and so forth. When the laws of sacrifice were given to the Children of Israel in the Torah, the pre-existence of a system of sacrificial offering was understood, and sacrificial terminology was used without any explanation. The Torah, rather than creating the institution of sacrifice, carefully limited the practice, permitting it only in certain places, at certain times, in certain manners, by certain people, and for certain purposes. Rambam suggests that these limitations are designed to wean a primitive people away from the debased rites of their idolatrous neighbors.”
http://www.jewfaq.org/qorbanot.htm
What I find strange about jewfaq’s view is that I was under the impression that God had ordained the sacrifices (and all the other exacting ritual) IN ORDER TO SET HIS PEOPLE APART, in other words to make them holy. Or should we stick with the Rambam and believe that Moses (and the Saviour YHVH) were merely in the civilising business. Perhaps, the roots of the Jewish Enlightenment lie here – in the rationalist rationalisations of Rambam.
Rambam is – arguably (I don’t want to land in deep Talmudic water) – talking through his far too civilised hat. For a far more reasonable view of the Jewish view of sacrifice see “Sacrifice and community: Jewish offering and Christian Eucharist” by Matthew Webb Levering, pp.40-43.
http://books.google.co.za/books?id=62J2ibJOUIwC&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=moses+mendelssohn+sacrifice&source=bl&ots=XtixzR27uh&sig=91LNd0xyYvNHbfPlRb69huc2X1c&hl=en&ei=XvtjTOr2L4vNjAex3bSOCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=moses%20mendelssohn%20sacrifice&f=false
Levering is a Catholic theologian. For this reason, Jews and many Christians will turn up their noses. If only Levering was a Levitt.
Joseph unchain my post.
See my chained post here.
http://onedaringjew.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/sacrifice-and-the-weaning-of-the-primitive-jew/
Great article, Joseph. One observation: in Genesis 22:13 we see that God doesn’t provide a lamb, but a ram.
I think this further adds to your argument though. Abraham says in Gen 22:8 that God will provide a lamb, yet God doesn’t do this in this instance. Abraham goes on to call the place ‘The Lord will provide’, still looking forward to the lamb that he foresaw in verse 8, the Lamb that is Yeshua, who dies in place of Isaac, Abraham and every other believer.
Just some thoughts.
The Torah sacrifice to demons.
In “Sacrifice and the Weaning of the Primitive Jew,”
http://onedaringjew.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/sacrifice-and-the-weaning-of-the-primitive-jew/
I discussed two contrasting Jewish views of sacrifice. There is an embarrassment of Jewish views on the meaning of the Temple sacrifices. They all seem to be on a different literal page (of Torah). As long as there exists different levels of meaning – the “revealed” meaning (the grammatical historical meaning), the “allusional meaning” and the “secret” meaning (sod) – Jewish interpreters of the Torah – in their belief that God has ordained these three levels – can find themselves in more than deep water. How deep – and hot – is what I want to talk about here.
http://onedaringjew.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/the-torah-sacrifice-to-demons/
Great article Joseph, you are a talented writer and any magazine would consider your submissions, not just the (cue eerie music) “missionary” ones.
I never meant to imply that Joseph’s writing skills were so wanting as to relegate his publication exclusively to missionary periodicals!
Just the opposite: I admire Joseph’s composition capabilities.
What I meant in the penultimate paragraph of my comment, the closure–which I note is the only part of it you dared engage, and that by first misrepresenting–was simply that Joseph is best-in-breed, and that the subject of his writing is appropriate to missionary literature. It’s not engineering or zoology that he’s blogging about, y’know!
So nice to have you back, Gev.
very kind of you!
“His wish was, to have been present at the moment when Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw Mount Moriah afar off; to have been present at the moment when he left his asses behind and wended his way up to the mountain alone with Isaac. For the mind of this man was busy, not with the delicate conceits of the imagination, but rather with his shuddering thought.”
Kirkegaard’s “Fear and trembling.”
bo,
“afar”? “wended”? “delicate conceits”?
Thanks for posting. I prefer substance over form in displays of intellectual virtuosity. But, whatever floats your boat.
Anon, what “substance”? But keep it legal.