?
Posted on 12/03/2010 10:07:31 AM PST by Olympiad Fisherman
Shockingly, this thirst for foreign nature worship is often described in graphic sexual language to heighten the shameful offensiveness of their actions. In Jeremiah, the kingdom of Judah is compared to “a wild donkey accustomed to the wilderness that sniffs the wind in her passion. In the time of heat who can turn her away? All who seek her will not become weary; in her month they will find her (Jeremiah 2:24).” In the same context just a few verses back, the text reads “for long ago I broke your yoke and tore off your bonds; but you said ‘I will not serve!’ For on every high hill and under every green tree you have lain down as a harlot (Jeremiah 2:20).” Worse is that the idols which Israel bowed down to in their pagan nature worship were compared to sexual toys ...
(Excerpt) Read more at theignorantfishermen.com ...
I am so sorry that I do not know who that photograph is of. Please fill me in.
If you understand the religious practices of the times in Canaan and Ur, you will understand much better the whole episode with Abraham and the sacrifice of his son Isaac.
His willingness to sacrifice his son was not a testament to his great faith but rather a testament to what he considered normal religious practice. Similarly, you could possibly conclude that his willingness to trade his wife to the local headmen was again, an indication of the climate he and she had grown up in.
Perhaps the urgency with which God told Abraham to get his sister out of Ur had something to do with keeping her from temple prostitution, though that is never stated.
The surprise, then, is not that Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac, but that God stopped it and instituted a substitute. That was revolutionary. I can imagine that when faced with actually sacrificing the son he waited his whole life for, according to the normal practice of his culture, Abraham sought another answer and God provided it.
God’s warnings against intermarriage with the surrounding tribes were never about racism, since the tribes were all of essentially the same stock, but about keeping devil worship and child sacrifice out of Israel.
As it is, Israel fell into it, at least a couple of kings sacrificed their own children on the altar. The final king had the high priestess for his queen, and together they instituted the slaughter of priests. As far as I can tell, it fell to the persians to finally put an end to the practice of child sacrifice in the middle east.
The elimination of human sacrifice is a subtext of history. When you read of the conquest of the Aztecs by Cortez and a couple hundred cut-throats and ruffians, that is the underlying subtext. Cortez probably only vaguely understood his role in God’s history.
That had "Ra", "Osiris", "Anubis" and "Apophis, as well ...
You wrote: “His willingness to sacrifice his son was not a testament to his great faith but rather a testament to what he considered normal religious practice.”
I disagree. Genesis, Chapter 22, verses 1 and 2 state: “God tested Abraham. He said to him, ‘Abraham!’
‘Here I am,’ he replied.
Then God said, ‘Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.’
It is clear that this was a test of Abraham’s faith
.
Cliff Simon, who plays the role of Ba’al in the Stargate SG1 tv series.
Of course. But you also have to understand that this was normal in the culture Abraham grew up in. This is something people did. The revolution came not when he responded willingly, but when God instituted the substitute and Abraham saw it and understood it for what it was.
It doesn’t take much faith to conform to the culture. It takes faith to recognize when God is directing you to not conform. The whole thing is a test of Abraham’s faith, but if you don’t understand that child sacrifice was normal for Abraham, you miss part of what happened there.
When you see them put a child in a suicide vest, what else is it?
You have an interesting theory, but it fails to satisfy the context of the Bible at many crucial points. It sounds like you are viewing it from a modern evolutionary standpoint of some sort without seriously considering the actual text itself - which has become an epidemic in most academic discussions about the Bible these days. Too many people read into the Bible their modern ideas which are far removed from the Biblical world in which men like Abraham lived.
First of all, Abraham did not sacrifice his son as the Angel of the Lord stopped him. The Bible never endorses human sacrifice. It is always considered an abomination rooted in Genesis 1 when Adam and Eve were commanded to subdue and fill the earth. There is, however, one exception to this rule - the sacrifice of God’s only-begotten Son Jesus Christ on the cross for the sins of the world (Isaiah 53; John 3:16) - which the entire episode between Abraham and Isaac prefigures and predicts.
Secondly, Abraham was not willing to sacrifice his only son as a part of some typical religious practice of the day, but expressly followed God’s command precisely because he knew that Isaac would have to be resurrected from the dead (Hebrews 11:17-19). In fact, right before Abraham left with Isaac to go up to the mountain, he told the men who were with him that “WE shall return to you (Genesis 22:5).” Abraham knew this precisely because God had already promised him that Isaac would be the seed that lead to great blessing for not only his descendents, but also the entire world (See Genesis 12:1-4; 15:1-21). This was exactly a test of faith, which is precisely why God rewarded him by justifying his actions (Hebrews 6:11-15; James 2:21-24).
Thirdly, Sarah was not Abraham’s sister, but half sister (Genesis 20:12). Keep in mind that the population coming out of the Great Flood was only beginning to rebound during Abraham’s lifetime. It is possible, but purely speculative that Sarah was signed up to be a temple prostitute before they got married.
Fourthly, God’s warnings about intermarriage were valid only under the Mosaic Law (for the reasons you stated), some 600 years after Abraham. The Mosaic Law was not in effect during Abraham’s lifetime.
Thank you for your comments even though I do not agree with them.
Thank you - all is clear!
Excellent article
Thats my point. Your whole article is an important reminder that this was the cultural context.
The Bible never endorses human sacrifice. It is always considered an abomination
Exactly. But it had become commonplace by the time Abraham was born. God used Abraham to re-start civilization. The first step was to get him out of Ur. For similar reasons he had to get Sarah out of Ur too. As you say, I merely speculate about Sarah's future had she stayed in Ur. But I'm not speculating about the normal practice for people in Ur. And I'm not speculating about Abraham's willingness to trade her away later, for which he had to be schooled by God. You might also note Lot's willingness to trade away his daughters later on. This is the culture of that time, which had to be broken and reshaped. And God explicitly rejects human sacrifice with Abraham and Isaac.
The cultural norm for the time was what we would call devil worship, and yet God reached into it and pulled Abraham out of it, and over time revealed himself to Abraham, and taught him.
right before Abraham left with Isaac to go up to the mountain, he told the men who were with him that “WE shall return to you (Genesis 22:5).” Abraham knew this precisely because God had already promised him that Isaac would be the seed that lead to great blessing
I don't disagree with anything you are saying. My point is that what God demanded of him was not out of the ordinary in Abraham's world. God used it as a direct shot, completing the work of separating Abraham from the surrounding culture. The work started by getting him out of Ur, teaching him to keep Sarah to himself only, and finally providing a substitute for human sacrifice.
Beyond that, I don't disagree with anything you write. Your article is important in reminding people of the culture that surrounded Israel, both Sumerian and Canaanite, from Abraham's time right up until Israel under Ahab.
God’s warnings about intermarriage were valid only under the Mosaic Law (for the reasons you stated), some 600 years after Abraham. The Mosaic Law was not in effect during Abraham’s lifetime.
No disagreement.
Thank you for your clarification. I hear you better now, but still not convinced. I will certainly give this some thought!
Thank you
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.