I Reject the "Abrahamic Test"

[Anonymous]

I’ve thought about this a lot over the years. I have concluded that the classic “Abrahamic Test” is bad theology. God is straightforward. He doesn’t mess with us, set us up, move the goalposts, or test our loyalty with cruel manufactured scenarios. It is not in His character to deceive. What you see is what you get.

I realize this is not orthodox Mormon theology. So what. We aren’t in Auschwitz and this isn’t Sophie’s Choice. I won’t accept this crappy theology for one more second.

[Anonymous]

In responding to another poster today, I realized I also reject the “Abrahamic Test.” I don’t think God operates that way. God presumably already knows how much faith we do or don’t have, so what would be the purpose of such a test? If it’s to show us individually how much faith we do or don’t have, there is no need – I know I don’t have the faith to move mountains except with a shovel.

[Anonymous]

Maybe the test was more to see if Abraham would reject stupidity and make a more rational choice. He failed the test. God had to intervene because he was about to put obedience above intelligence. God gave him some small credit for doing what he was told but he missed the greater point.

[Anonymous]

It’s an allegorical story about the Lord providing a way to avoid spiritual death, so I don’t see the story itself as crappy.

In the words of mercyngrace from a long ago thread:

mercyngrace wrote:

The whole episode with Isaac was not about blind obedience and tests. It was about trusting that if God required, God would provide.

I agree that a loving God wouldn’t “mess with us”. It’s actually part of why I lost faith in the Church. If God wanted to make just one way for us to return to Him, why would he use the LDS Church as the vehicle, with all it’s problems? In order to follow God properly, I must set aside my angst about polygamy? It’s an unfair test. If God were to set up a Church as the only Way, I imagine he would make it pretty easy for the faithful to find and accept; that WANTING to follow God would be the only ‘test’ and would not be followed with mental gymnastics.

[Anonymous]

I don’t want to derail the topic, and I actually hope this enhances it. Many OT stories are clearly not literal in my view (Adam & Eve, Johah, Noah, Moses parting the Red Sea) while others probably really did happen, and some could have happened or could just be figurative or symbolic. Abraham is one of those that I think could have happened but I lean toward it not being literal. I don’t think Abraham actually took his probably teenage or young adult son, bound him in preparation for sacrifice, etc., but I do get the whole theme of the thing. I think this fits with the topic because our supposed Abrahamic Tests are not literal, either – I am not aware of anyone who has been asked to sacrifice a family member.

[Anonymous]

I agree completely with Turin.

I think that kind of test is extremely arrogant. If I may speak with risk, I tested one of my girlfriends to see how she would react in a certain situation if we were ever married. It made her really angry, and asked me why I put her in such a situation. I indicated I was testing her. An older, married friend at the time (I was only 20) told me that there is no room for tests like that and chastised me. I was confused because I thought that was something that someone who was trying to be like God would do in order to predict future behavior. I sincerely regret it now and reject my thinking at the time totally.

I see the Abrahamic test the same way. I don’t believe God is arrogant and willing to make people go through such emotional turmoil as Abraham must have felt, all for a test of obedience. Such tests also remove people’s logic and common sense, and blur the line between right and wrong.

Think about it, the Abrahamic test put Abraham in a position where he would have KILL HIS OWN SON. That is a heinous crime, and to fully pass the test, Abraham would have to give his whole heart over to that act in order to be obedience to God. The emotional stress must have been terrible because Abraham’s own father tried to sacrifice HIM for a god, says the Pearl of Great Price. For a time, that test did not purify Abraham’s heart — it cankered it by making him willing to do something that was against basic eternal principles. In a way, it bastardized devotion to God.

We have seen religious leaders do this in the past and its sinful in my view.

This is totally against the rules of morality — and anyone could justify bad behavior this way.

Shame on the Abrahamic Test as it sets a bad example to all, and paints a picture of an unjust and in my view, arrogant God that doesn’t exist in my world.

[Anonymous]

There’s something else going on in that story… many of the surrounding tribes practised human sacrifice, so I suppose the story is symbolic of the transition from that, to killing animals.

Of course, Christianity is based around human sacrifice and cannibalism. Of only one person perhaps.

[Anonymous]

I like the idea that it was a test Abraham failed.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I like the idea that it was a test Abraham failed.

I’m liking that, too. I hadn’t really looked at it from that perspective before. That’s one of the reasons I like it here so much – I doubt we’d get that perspective in SS class.

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

Maybe the test was more to see if Abraham would reject stupidity and make a more rational choice. He failed the test. God had to intervene because he was about to put obedience above intelligence. God gave him some small credit for doing what he was told but he missed the greater point.

I’d have to say I like Cadence’s explanation best

[Anonymous]

I’m not the sharpest knife in the doctrinal drawer, so I’ll just say at the risk of looking simple that I don’t understand likening anything we experience to the Abrahamic Test – real or symbolic. For a gay person, how does putting intimacy and authenticity on the altar resemble the A. test? What’s the ram? In the polygamy scenario, who’s Abraham – Joseph, Emma, everyone? The story’s getting a little muddled then. And, again, where’s the ram? When we’re enduring the difficulties of life – sickness, death, disappointment, violence, betrayal, we call it mortality and opposition in all things. When we’re telling other people what God requires, we call it an Abrahamic test.

[Anonymous]

I never use this story as something to liken unto me. My response would be, “Hell, no,” so there is no good moral in the traditional view for me.

The failed test view has a really good message for me, so I go with it.

[Anonymous]

Everybody will see the story a little differently. I have no problem with someone ELSE seeing it as a general example of a test of faith wherein the Lord filled in what made it all OK. I don’t love it as that kind of story, but if others do, fine. This is not a uniquely LDS theological viewpoint. It is a common Christian interpretation. In fact, the writer of Hebrews clearly saw it and presented it that way.

Quote:

By faith, Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. –Hebrews 11:17

Likewise, I see value in looking at it as a test that Abraham failed, yet the Lord still came to his aid… that’s an interesting way to look at it and it’s fine by me.

Yet, for me, myself, not accounting for anyone else or arguing that my interpretation is the correct one, I do not see it as a story about Abraham/Isaac at all. I tend to see myself in all such allegories. A better example is the Good Samaritan. Sometimes I see myself in the man beaten down in the road. Sometimes I see myself in the passers-by, sometimes I see myself in the Samaritan. Each way I look at it, it teaches me something about myself and my context in a world of human beings.

What I see in the story of Abraham/Isaac has nothing to do with ritual human sacrifice or succumbing to the will of God in the face of impossibility. What I see, and only what I see, is myself being given a chance at a second life by the atonement. Rather than a life that would have come to an end in meaninglessness, ‘God’ has provided a way for me to rise up and live. I probably see this because I have a heavy orientation toward Paul’s “New Life” teachings, so I project that everywhere. But it works for me, and frees me from having to bog myself down into why “Abraham”, a person that I believe didn’t exist, would be willing to sacrifice his son “Isaac”, another person that I see as fictional, at the command of “God” who I don’t believe gave such a command to these fictional characters. But, New Life is, to me, the single most important aspect of the Gospel and it is strongly represented in this story.

And as Paul said (speaking to the gentile Christians of Galatia):

Quote:

Now you, my friends, are children of the promise, like Isaac. –Galatians 4:28

[Anonymous]

Ann said:

Quote:

I’m not the sharpest knife in the doctrinal drawer,…

I thought I was the only one that felt this way.

This has been an interesting post. I’ve been thinking about it all week.

As written, I do not like this story. I never have.

I have difficulty with the role of JC & the need for him to be a sacrifice too.

The best courses I had in college were the ones that challenged what I thought I believed.

You were forced to defend your belief or modify your belief.

This is what I come away with this story:

1. God doesn’t test us. He allows things to happen to us & around us.

2. We have a choice about how we are going to react. Sometimes we react well & sometimes we react not so well (Badly).

3. We have the opportunity to learn from the challenges in life over time. (This life & the next.)

Imagine trying to write a lesson or story that teaches a moral principle that lasts for 3000+ years.

Imagine trying to relate that lesson or story to a variety of cultures from nomadic tribes in the desert to our generation where people have walked on the moon.

IMO life is not a “pop” quiz where judgement & learning happens in a single moment of time.

Thanks turin.

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

What I see in the story of Abraham/Isaac has nothing to do with ritual human sacrifice or succumbing to the will of God in the face of impossibility. What I see, and only what I see, is myself being given a chance at a second life by the atonement. Rather than a life that would have come to an end in meaninglessness, ‘God’ has provided a way for me to rise up and live. I probably see this because I have a heavy orientation toward Paul’s “New Life” teachings, so I project that everywhere. But it works for me, and frees me from having to bog myself down into why “Abraham”, a person that I believe didn’t exist, would be willing to sacrifice his son “Isaac”, another person that I see as fictional, at the command of “God” who I don’t believe gave such a command to these fictional characters. But, New Life is, to me, the single most important aspect of the Gospel and it is strongly represented in this story.

And as Paul said (speaking to the gentile Christians of Galatia):

Quote:

Now you, my friends, are children of the promise, like Isaac. –Galatians 4:28

Thanks for this, On Own Now.

[Author]

Posts