Paul Nuechterlein of the Girardian Reflections on the Lectionary has a transcript of a sermon that he preached about the binding of Isaac called Binding and Releasing. His web site is excellent and looks at all the Lectionary readings from a Girardian/Peace Church perspective. He, too, sees it as a test...but a test of an entirely different kind. In his view, the test was to discern the true voice of God who spared Isaac (at the end of the story) from the god of this world who ordered him sacrificed (at the beginning of the story) As I mentioned in my first post in this series, child sacrifice was no big deal in Abraham's day and age. In spite of Biblical prohibitions against it, the Israelites continued to do it throughout much of their history. The prophets vehemently spoke against it. The Lord called it detestable.
He begins by saying:
What I want to suggest to you this morning is that, well over two thousand years later, we are in a position to see that the story-teller in Genesis simply had this wrong: God does not, and never has, asked us to do anything so terrible as to sacrifice our children. The true God didn't ask Abraham, either. No, the voice of the true God is the one telling Abraham to stop!
He goes on to explain what he sees as a clue in the text.
In verses one and twelve, for example, the verses where God has asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, the Hebrew name for God is Elohim. In verses eleven and fourteen, however, the Hebrew name for God is that name, Yahweh, which became so special that Jewish people won't even say it aloud. Instead, they will say, "Lord," Adonai in Hebrew. What's significant about this? Let me briefly explain. Yahweh is the name that Moses receives before the burning bush. He is trying to make every excuse in the book not be the one to go to Pharoah and say, "Let my people go!" So among other excuses, Moses tells God, "I don't know what name to call you when I go to Pharoah." So God tells him, "Yahweh!" This is the special name for God that Hebrew people have in telling the world of the one true God.
Elohim, on the other hand, is the earliest Hebrew word for "God." Its simplest form is El, which you find in many Hebrew names, such as Beth-el, "House of God." Most significantly, Elohim is the word used to talk about all gods, even the other false gods. When the First Commandment says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," elohim is the word for gods.
So by providing that all important clue (the two different names for God/god in the original language) Paul N believes that it enables us.....
to see that Abraham first followed the voice of the tribal gods of the cultures surrounding him. We know from anthropology that it was common to sacrifice children in the Canaanite cultures of those days. Abraham thought he heard the voice of the God who had called him out of all that, but was now telling him to do the same thing. Then, at the last second, Abraham passed the test by finally hearing the voice of Yahweh, the voice of the one true God, telling him to stop.
2 comments:
Cindi, we know the Yahvists and Elohist were spuriously manipulating the names of God in the Torah a half millenia before Christ so I think in the instance using the name game makes for somewhat a weak case.
This below is a quote by a fellow named Brooks.
"The Yahvist did not change every name to Yahweh. And in fact, they did make a crucial mistake. They erroneously inserted the name "Yahweh" in Genesis over 100 times...but God said that He was not yet known by the name Yahweh until Exodus 6:2-3!
Exodus 6:2-3 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD (Yahweh) 3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almightv (El-Shaddai), but by my name JEHOVAH (Yahweh) Was I NOT Known To Them. (KJV)
Note: Abraham, Isaac & Jacob did NOT know Yahweh
The Yahvist had absolutely no right to change any scriptures, but they did. The Yahvist inserted the name Yahweh into texts before God was known as Yahweh. It was not until 500 years later that God revealed himself to Moses as Yahweh, for very the first time. The Yahvist were but one of three major Jewish sects of the day. Each had different views about God (much like denominations do today). They were the; 1) Priestly 2) Elohist 3) Yahvist.
Neither the Priestly scribes nor the Elohist scribes used the name "Yahweh" anywhere in Genesis. But the Yahvist wrongly inserted "Yahweh" as early as Gen. 2:4! While it was not a coincidence that the Yahvist corrupted the names of God, neither is it a coincidence that they overlooked Exodus 6:2-3 which gives us the truth."
Bless you,
Jack
Jack,
That is really interesting. I actually have not read that much about the different theories of the composition of the OT. Makes one wonder what else they might have changed to suit their fancy.
I found the following on line with just a quick check on google. The JEPD Theory....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Formally, the four author theory is as follows:
The Yahwist - a 10th or 11th century B.C. wrote what is now called the J Document.
The Elohist – a 7th century author added new material to the stories older YHWH stories. The Elohim stories present a more elevated and advanced God. The stories are called the E Document.
The Deuteronomist – 2 Kings 20 tells the story of Israel’s King Josiah recovering the Law and founding that it commanded that worship should only take place in Jerusalem. JEDP theory proposes that in fact Josiah had the Deuteronomist create these laws and add them to the Pentateuch in order to justify his desire to limit worship to Jerusalem. These additional laws form the D Document.
The Priestly Group – the temple was destroyed in 586 B.C. by the Babylonians. While Israel was in exile and after they returned, the Priestly group added additional laws to the Pentateuch. This is known as the P Document.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This seems like quite the can of worms to open doesn't it? It really calls many things...MANY things into question about the OT. As far as the "clue" buried in the story of Abraham and Isaac..perhaps even if the text was manipulated, there is no reason that clue could not have been divinely left there for the same reason there was the non "coincidence" in the verses you mentioned?? What do you think the word for God (as in angel of the Lord)was in the text before it was tampered with..if in fact is was?
Following is something I wrote a while back in a post about the "two gods in the OT" way of looking at things...
I randomly went through the Strong's meanings for some of the Hebrew words that are translated God....Lord in the OT. (It was very random.....and focused mainly on several verses in Exodus that were mentioned in the one article) It was interesting that one of the words (elohiym)can be traced back....as the singular form of a plural word that has "false god" as one of it's definitions. If you go back farther it can be traced to an unused root word meaning (among other things) "to twist". Not enough to base a theology on for sure but enough to pique my interest. I know how the names of God reveal the nature he is trying to demonstrate yet could the names not also reveal a nature that is not "his" (although he is responsible for what this entity/being/god does)?
Anyway...interesting comment. Much to think about. Thanks...
Cindi....
Post a Comment