Struggling with the Abraham and Isaac Analogy

There was a thread last fall that mentioned this story. I understand and value m&g’s view explained above, but the following is my comment from the previous thread:

My favorite interpretation of the story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac is that God was testing Abraham – and that Abraham FAILED the test. He had been raised in a culture that included human / child sacrifice, so God tested him to see if he had abandoned totally that culture. He hadn’t. From the most “believing” perspective I can accept, God stopped him from continuing that abominable tradition and taught him that ONLY God would be required to sacrifice a child – and ONLY in a situation where that child also was a God and was fully aware, understanding and approving of the sacrifice in advance.

(Just as food for thought: In reality, God, the Father, didn’t sacrifice God, the Son. There is a differnece between killing someone and allowing someone to be killed. Jesus of Nazareth was murdered by the Jewish and/or Roman leadership – which makes the “Christ-type” interpretation of the Abrahan and Issac story shakier than most people realize.)

I have no idea if the failure interpretation is accurate at all – or even if the entire story is nothing but a parable. Given the existence of the story, I choose to interpret it in the way that makes the most sense to me – and the interpretation above currently is my favorite.

As I’ve said many times here, I LOVE the symbolism that can be understood through stories like this. I have NO problem whatsoever with people reading this story as a simple foreshadowing and a Christ-type – or with those who teach it that way in Sacrament Meeting or General Conference. There is great power in that interpretation – and I even have no problem teaching it myself in that manner in a setting where I believe it is appropriate. In fact, it very well might be the “accurate” interpretation. There really isn’t any way to know objectively. It’s just not the version I personally like the most right now.

First of all, I think I like Ray’s interpretation of the story of Abraham and Isaac much more than the typical contemporary explanation. But frankly, I think we’re safe drawing whatever message or conclusion from these stories that makes us feel comfortable. Clearly (to me) any attempt to make direct application of this story (and most other biblical stories that come to mind) to our lives is problematic. If a voice told me to murder one of my children as a way of showing my devotion to god, I hope that my first reaction would be to seek competent medical/mental help as fast as my feet would carry me. I simply have no personal experience with which to put these kinds of God-speaks-to-man and tells him to do such and such stories in context. So they are all allegorical to me.

Personally, I doubt that Abraham and Isaac, as portrayed in the bible, represent historical figures, and the culture and milieu in which these stories were created are foreign enough to me that I have little hope of being certain that I am going to perceive the real intent of the author(s). So I take from the stories what I can, and don’t worry about the rest. I certainly feel no obligation to accept anyone else’s interpretations.

And any attempt to conflate the Abraham/Isaac story with those of JS asking to marry other’s wives I would characterize as pure BS.

mercyngrace. I’m a pretty hardened soul, having had my faith transition nearly two decades ago. But thank you for your thoughts on this. Perfect. Beautiful. Indeed, the message of the Gospel is that none would need to be lost, but that God would provide a sacrifice to allow grace to save all who desire it and come to it.

SD, I view much of the early OT to be completely inspired fiction. So the meaning behind the story is much more important than the story itself. I don’t believe that Noah and Mrs. Noah gathered two of every kind of wolf/squirrel/monkey/bear/snake… but the STORY of the lord washing away the earth to start over is very compelling. Job is literally an epic poem. Who cares whether there really was a Moses? The Moses of literature is what we need, because he prefigures Jesus in so many ways. In that same sense, if you treat the Abraham-Isaac story as fictional, then it is beautiful without the discomfort.

As for the “tests of faith” in general… I get uncomfortable there. The pioneers showed loyalty to God and Church by their actions, but those were real circumstances that they faced, not contrived tests. There should never be a test whose only purpose is to put the subject in a compromised position to determine if they are loyal. Certainly, God would not have to do that, because he supposedly knows our hearts.

mercyngrace. I’m a pretty hardened soul, having had my faith transition nearly two decades ago. But thank you for your thoughts on this. Perfect. Beautiful. Indeed, the message of the Gospel is that none would need to be lost, but that God would provide a sacrifice to allow grace to save all who desire it and come to it.

Even the sacrifice and penal substitution metaphors for the atonement miss the point, IMO. The writer of Hebrews seems to indicate that the law of sacrifice was provided to assuage our own guilt. WE need a price to be paid, not God. That’s why He repeats time and again that He doesn’t need the blood of beasts but a broken heart and contrite spirit.

IMO, there was no price to be paid – no law written on stone tables that preceded Satan (our white witch per Lewis’ tales). There is an accuser, our adversary, and whether he roams the earth lying in wait to deceive or exists only in the blackness of our own hearts, he can be satiated and his sense of justice must be appeased. This accuser is appeased, when he comes face to face with one who willingly, and motivated by unadulterated charity, suffers an unfathomable injustice on behalf of another. Then and there the accuser hangs his head in shame, drops his stone, realizes his own culpability, and frees his offender of his just demands. In that instant, mercy claims both accuser and accused. Charity, if they allow it, changes them both.

In essence, Abraham stood ready to appease a God who gently reproved “You do not need to appease me. I will show you through the unblemished Lamb, how to accept an offer that has always been extended.”

And He did.