All that God did and commanded in the Old Testament was just.

[Hentenza]

I appreciate your concern, but I think you're misreading my attempt to communicate and connect with other posters. I'm an academically minded person who incorporates a truck-load of scholarly considerations and I'm actually doing the opposite of what you're apparently interpreting that I'm doing.

Looking to "today's" moral thoughts to judge and help us read or understand the Old Testament books is exactly what I tell people to STOP doing. My apologies, though, if my post above was confusing you in that regard. Maybe read it again, more slowly?

I’m not here to argue with you since I happen to enjoy your posts. I’m not talking from inexperience since I also talk from a scholarly perspective (I have a ph.d In History). Your last sentence was what gave the appearance of presentism. Maybe a clearer presentation?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I’m not here to argue with you since I happen to enjoy your posts. I’m not talking from inexperience since I also talk from a scholarly perspective (I have a phd. In History). Your last sentence was what gave the appearance of presentism. Maybe a clearer presentation?

Yes, a clearer presentation is often boon, I know. But because of the time constraints I have, I unfortunately shoot my posts out a mile a minute and...................thereby show that clarity isn't always my strong suite.

Thanks for letting me know, though, that you're a PhD in History. I highly value that since my philosophical interests are in the Philosophy of History and Historiography. Maybe sometime you could give me some finer pointers in my more undergraduate level endeavors.

 

[Hentenza]

Yes, a clearer presentation is often boon, I know. But because of the time constraints I have, I unfortunately shoot my post out a mile a minute and...................thereby show that clarity isn't always my strong suite.

Thanks for letting me know, though, that you're a PhD in History. I highly value that since my philosophical interests are in the Philosophy of History and Historiography. Maybe sometime you could give me some finer pointers in my more undergraduate level endeavors.

Actually your knowledge and even keel delivery are an asset to you. I meant it when I said that I enjoy reading your posts. They are thoughtful and well presented.

 

[PloverWing]

In those discussions, are allegations of psychological abuse by God put forward as an argument against the spiritual relevance or significance of the Akedah passage?

Let's say that the possibility of psychological abuse leaps naturally to mind for many readers who have memories of psychologically abusive relationships in their own lives.

Shifting the focus a bit, the story is also extra-difficult for many readers who have experienced physical violence at the hands of their parents.

I've read a couple of interpretations and speculations that can help the reader escape some of the terribleness of the story. One is the possibility that Abraham trusted all along that God wouldn't really follow through and make him kill his son (this is hinted at in Hebrews 11). Another is the possibility that Isaac consented; this at least lessens the charge of murder a bit. And, well, another is the possibility that Abraham is thinking thoughts that aren't really from God, and God stops him before he can follow through -- tempting, but I'm not convinced that this is faithful to the intent of the author of Genesis.

Mostly, our group of lectors (and our priest!) were trying to reach for anything that would make this passage less awful. And, unlike Joshua, the passage can't be avoided; it comes up every year in our lectionary.

To more fully wrap our western sensibilities around the Akedah narrative, it's probably best to make sure we notice all of the various literary details that are embedded within it. There's very often one significant detail that I notice many folks, whether believers or unbelievers, fail to either notice or to account for in their hermeneutics and/or biblical exegesis which makes a significant difference in "how" I read that narrative.

I'm curious what detail you have in mind.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

There really are some choice disturbing stories in the bible, and that sometimes makes me wonder why we produce children's bibles that retain some of those stories.

 

[The Liturgist]

Unfortunately, I can't let Origen carry the interpretive day

Why not?

 

[John Robie]

Has it born the fruit you expected?

Time will tell.

 

[John Robie]

There really are some choice disturbing stories in the bible, and that sometimes makes me wonder why we produce children's bibles that retains some of those stories.

What disturbing stories are you referring to?

 

[John Robie]

I came across this passage this morning.

There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon: all other they took in battle. For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favour, but that he might destroy them, as the LORD commanded Moses.
— Joshua 11:19-20

For those who think this is offensive, what is worse…that God hardened hearts in order to ensure the destruction of these cities/nations, or their sin against God that led to their destruction?

 

[The Liturgist]

I find myself disagreeing with every single post in this thread, because what we see here is the unrestrained application of Antiochian literalism, both by my dearly beloved brethren such as @Xeno.of.athens and @PloverWing and by others, in that what people are missing is the importance of Luke ch. 24 to Old Testament exegesis. We know from Luke ch. 24 that the entirety of the 73-80 books of the Old Testament (depending on which canon one is using), that is to say, the Law and Prophets, is Christological prophecy (we know this with added certainty in the case of some books that are incorrectly regarded as apocrypha, such as Wisdom, since there is no reasonable non-Christological interpretation of Wisdom chapter 2).

The literalist non-Christological non-Typological interpretative mode has caused people understandable but also invalid alarm, for example, at the so-called imprecatory verses of the Psalms, such as the concluding verse of “By the rivers of Babylon…” The concluding verse of this Psalm is about the rejection of the sinful passions, which are the offspring of Babylon as the word is used scripturally, and not about murdering actual Mesopotamian children. Unfortunately rather than explaining this to the congregation some Psalters in more recent editions of the BCP have simply deleted the verse, and many Western clergy seem to be unaware of its proper exegesis.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Time will tell.

What do you expect?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

What disturbing stories are you referring to?

The usual suspects; murder, floods, genocide, much smiting and so forth. The sort of stuff that will give some children nightmares if they are encouraged to think it is all what God does to sinners. Tales of hell too. I haven't looked at any recent children's bibles, have you? I do recall some from years gone by.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Let's say that the possibility of psychological abuse leaps naturally to mind for many readers who have memories of psychologically abusive relationships in their own lives.

Yes, you're right and it's unfortunately true for all too many of us these days, isn't it?

Shifting the focus a bit, the story is also extra-difficult for many readers who have experienced physical violence at the hands of their parents.

Yes, I agree again. This too is a huge, tragic problem these days and many of us have experienced hellacious situations from within our own families, which is why I can appreciate the emotional intelligence and circumspection used by various ministers, pastors, priests or other lectors when helping us engage the tough, triggering portions of the bible (such as the Akedah). But even then, sometimes, the emotional freight we carry has its own momentum and can't be stopped. It is the trauma that it is.

I've read a couple of interpretations and speculations that can help the reader escape some of the terribleness of the story. One is the possibility that Abraham trusted all along that God wouldn't really follow through and make him kill his son (this is hinted at in Hebrews 11). Another is the possibility that Isaac consented; this at least lessens the charge of murder a bit. And, well, another is the possibility that Abraham is thinking thoughts that aren't really from God, and God stops him before he can follow through -- tempting, but I'm not convinced that this is faithful to the intent of the author of Genesis.

Mostly, our group of lectors (and our priest!) were trying to reach for anything that would make this passage less awful. And, unlike Joshua, the passage can't be avoided; it comes up every year in our lectionary.

You're right about that, as you are about many things---it can't be avoided, and like so much in Genesis, the challenges we encounter in our reading come right at the beginning of the Bible rather than surprising us later in a more latent or subtle fashion.

I'm curious what detail you have in mind.

Essentially, although not simply, the detail I'm alluding to is that the Akedah narrative hinges on the weight of one of its central intertextual features: that Isaac wasn't just any child like any other child that could be born to any parents, but was a miracle child, one born by sheer Divine Providence and who becomes a typological figure providing the significance to the entirety of Abraham's faith in the near-sacrifice he makes of his child----whom he waited 20 years for in promise---and to which we read and at times flinch in disgust as the killing blade is raised.

Isaac is a superlative element of the narrative that needs to be identified, just like other features do within the cumulative chapters involving Abraham and Sarah. They all have to been taken together so they can then be seen as the prefiguring precedent of a pattern that they are, later seen similarly in Hannah and later still, in Mary the mother of Jesus.

I know you're already knowledgeable of biblical exegesis, PloverWing, so I'm not telling you anything you probably don't already know, but I thought I'd provide a reinforced emphasis to consider.

 

[The Liturgist]

You're right about that, as you are about many things---it can't be avoided, and like so much in Genesis, the challenges we encounter in our reading come right at the beginning of the Bible rather than surprising us later in a more latent or subtle fashion.

Really the position of Genesis in common organization of Scriptural texts shouldn’t be as relevant as it is right now, which is an artifact of the widespread use of individual Bibles bound in a certain way, rather than texts organized according to the lectionary, which is what is actually relevant, since the order in which people hear the Scripture read in Church ideally should be all that matters.

Outside of the context of the Church, individual readers should read with caution, precisely due to the risks of confusion and misinterpretation demonstrated in this thread.

 

[BPPLEE]

Let's say that the possibility of psychological abuse leaps naturally to mind for many readers who have memories of psychologically abusive relationships in their own lives.

Shifting the focus a bit, the story is also extra-difficult for many readers who have experienced physical violence at the hands of their parents.

I've read a couple of interpretations and speculations that can help the reader escape some of the terribleness of the story. One is the possibility that Abraham trusted all along that God wouldn't really follow through and make him kill his son (this is hinted at in Hebrews 11). Another is the possibility that Isaac consented; this at least lessens the charge of murder a bit. And, well, another is the possibility that Abraham is thinking thoughts that aren't really from God, and God stops him before he can follow through -- tempting, but I'm not convinced that this is faithful to the intent of the author of Genesis.

Mostly, our group of lectors (and our priest!) were trying to reach for anything that would make this passage less awful. And, unlike Joshua, the passage can't be avoided; it comes up every year in our lectionary.



I'm curious what detail you have in mind.

Abraham had a promise from God and he believed that God would raise Isaac from the dead if he sacrificed him

But God said to Abraham, "Do not be upset about the boy or your slave wife. Do all that Sarah is telling you because through Isaac your descendants will be counted.

His descendants couldn't come through Isaac if Isaac was dead

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Really the position of Genesis in common organization of Scriptural texts shouldn’t be as relevant as it is right now, which is an artifact of the widespread use of individual Bibles bound in a certain way, rather than texts organized according to the lectionary, which is what is actually relevant, since the order in which people hear the Scripture read in Church ideally should be all that matters.

Outside of the context of the Church, individual readers should read with caution, precisely due to the risks of confusion and misinterpretation demonstrated in this thread.

And you're tell me this, why?

 

[The Liturgist]

And you're tell me this, why?

What I’m suggesting is that the position of the text in the structure of the Bible is less important than where the text occurs in the liturgy, in the worship of the church, where the text is expounded upon to the laity.

Specifically, if we look at all historic churches, there is a lectionary, an organized system whereby Scripture is read in such a way as to stress the Gospel message and show the Old Testament prophecies that link to it.

We know from Luke 24, from the words of Christ our True God, that the Old Testament is talking about Him - we cannot separate the Old Testament from Christ or read its stories without bearing in mind that it is primarily Christological prophecy, with a secondary narrative which relates to recurrent human sin, which shows us why we need Christ. Every book in the Old Testament should be read as prophetic rather than as a purely literal historical text, which is not to deny the literal truth of the Old Testament but to say that what that truth is relates to what our incarnate God said it was before His ascension as documented by St. Luke the Evangelist, a point further reinforced in the Gospel according to St. John the Beloved Apostle, who intentionally structures John 1 as a commentary on Genesis 1, which in turn allows us to recognize Genesis 1 as, among other things, a prophecy of what would happen to our Lord during the week of His passion - how He would recreate man on the Cross in His image, before resting in the tomb on the Seventh Day and rising again in glory on the First, as the Light of the World.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Really the position of Genesis in common organization of Scriptural texts shouldn’t be as relevant as it is right now, which is an artifact of the widespread use of individual Bibles bound in a certain way, rather than texts organized according to the lectionary, which is what is actually relevant, since the order in which people hear the Scripture read in Church ideally should be all that matters.

I think you've misunderstood what I was gently suggesting to another poster. I in no way assume anyone does, or should, begin with Genesis.

Do you even know what schools of thought I hail from? I don't think you do because you've never asked me.

Outside of the context of the Church, individual readers should read with caution, precisely due to the risks of confusion and misinterpretation demonstrated in this thread.

Everyone here is reading the Bible in the context of "the Church." It just might not be your branch of the Church. But then again, who knows? In some way, it might be...........................