how many times can you spot the letter "o" in:
 this text and the common accusations against it.
copan sketches a few common complaints: that this text records a “monstrous test” (what kind of god would “test” by asking one of his children to slay his own child?), that one has to wonder what kind of man abraham was to be willing to do such a thing, and then he probes a bit that kierkegaard explained this text in part by suggesting god suspended typical ethical obligations.
what do you find to be the fundamental moral problem here?
copan approaches this text and event — the aqedah — by sketching the big theme of the pentateuch, by sorting through the immediate context of genesis 22, by illustrating the kind of god at work in the aqedah command, and by exploring the conditionality of moral commands. then he sketches jesus as the second isaac and how this is not an act of divine child abuse.
i begin with the first of his points:
the theme of the pentateuch, and here he’s using sailhamer, is that abraham (pre law) is faithful while moses, who has the torah, is not as faithful. i’m unconvinced of the comprehensiveness of this abraham vs. moses theme but no one denies that abraham is an example of faith. the immediate context is that god is faithful to his promise; that ishmael will not be the true heir; that isaac will be.
a feature of copan’s sketch is the gentleness of the language at work when god commands abraham to offer isaac: it’s a test and god says “take, i beg of you, your only son.” and this “your son, your only son, whom you love, isaac” is endearing and covenant promise language. and even the place to which they are to go, moriah (“provide,” “see,” “show”), evokes the faithfulness of god.
another feature here is how moral commands work. moral commands arise in a world of assumptions. if we factor into this that god knows what abraham doesn’t, that god can raise from the dead, that this is a test … etc… god is both justified in his command and the accusation against god falls. and abraham’s statement to his servants that “we will return” suggests abraham somehow knows that god will be faithful to make isaac his heir.
i’ll stop here. i’m not entirely satisfied, but i think the moral commands point is a serious response. i wish copan had explored this more.
but there’s one more point i wish to consider before we let go of the chapter. more could be said here about child sacrifice. it was common in the ancient world and, though i don’t often see many discuss this it must be entered into this discussion. my contention is that the aqedah deconstructs child sacrifice for israel. not only does it do what copan suggests above, but god does three things in the abraham narrative that undoes child sacrifice: in a context where ancient folks offered the first child to appease the gods, god (1) commands abraham and israel only to wound the child with a cut in circumcision and (2) god removes the child, isaac, from the sacrificial altar, thereby undoing the legitimacy of the ancient mode. in its place, god (3) provides a ram as a substitute for child sacrifice. sure this is accommodation to the ancient world, but i find this dimension of the text a very important factor and part of the moral problem..”
follow patheos
evangelical:
user
The passage contains 212 "o"s.
assistant