| |
|
So I'm taking a Bible class after my Harmony class got canceled (every music class I have ever tried to take post-high school, except my guitar II class last semester, has been canceled before I get to go to a single class. Message from God? Maybe...). I've had years upon years of biblical training from my catholic church and protestant high school, so I admit I wasn't expecting to hear much I hadn't heard already. The only interesting thing about the class was that it's taught by the same professor who teaches my World Religions class. But here it is, the night after the second class, and already my mind has been blown.
Dig this, cats. All these years I never once got the jewish perspective on the old testament. Thinking about it now, what the hell was I thinking then? Studying it from either a catholic or protestant perspective wasn't going to reveal the depths of profundity in the OT. well, it could have, but the perspective of the people who use it most often would certainly have been a better idea. Check it out:
So Abraham wanted a son by his wife Sarah, right? Simple request. He just wanted a kid by the woman he loved. God, in his infinte grace, grants him his wish. Sarah, although barren, bears Isaac.
Time goes on. One day, God calls out to Abraham, and reports that he wants Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac (or Ishmael, if you're of the Islamic tradition. Ishmael was the son of Abraham and his servant woman). Abraham, no doubt a little confused, agrees.
I imagine you have all heard the story, no doubt used in a sermon on obidience or blind faith. That's how I always heard it. Abraham, ignoring his own love for his son, does God's will anyway. Or: Abraham, knowing God would never do anything to hurt the boy that he gave to Abraham, goes ahead and raises the knife, only to be stopped by God.
I never liked either of these. To me, there was never any justification for God to toy with Abraham like that. No lesson Abraham learned would erase the torment he would have gone through the three days between God's message and the sacrifice. Except the one that my professor came up with.
First off, Abraham would not have found it odd that his god was asking for him to sacrifice his son. Is was fairly common at the time to sacrifice whatever was most important to you to your god. And what was more important to Abraham than his son? Human sacrifice was certainly not unusual among the pagan civilizations surrounding Abraham. Everything's perfectly normal here, move along...
Except that Abraham's god was supposed to be a god of love, right? Obviously there's something wrong with this picture. But he goes along anyway, you know, prepares for the trip, brings his servants with him, and he, his servants, and Isaac (or possibly Ishmael) head off to the mountain. Abe and Isaac go the last bit by themselves. At one point, Isaac asks Abraham about the noticeable lack of a sacrificial lamb. Abraham answers that the Lord will supply the lamb.
So Abraham straps Isaac to a rock, and prepares to sacrifice him to his God. Just before he is about to strike, the lord stops him and-...wait! How does he stop him? Like in that painting where an angel appears and stays Abraham's hand? No, although I was told that many times as a youth. If you read the biblical account, you'll notice that Abraham heard god calling out to him again, much like when He let Abraham in on the whole sacrifice thing. So he hears the voice of God telling him not to kill his son, and he doesn't. They all go home after killing a ram and renaming the mountain.
Now, the ending always seemed fucked up to me. There's no way that Abraham, God and Isaac could have survived that experience emotionally. There would definately be some trust issues from then on. There would have to be, unless my sense of the father/son relationship is much more fucked up than I think it is.
But it works out fine if you look at it like this: so Abraham hears that God wants him to kill his son. He's torn. He loves his son, so that makes the idea of sacrificing him to his god that much more sensible. Give what you value most to your god. Everyone's doing it. But his god is a god of love. Why would He ask this?
So Abraham, at the mountain with knife raised, hears the voice of God. But coming from where? No angel appeared to stop him, he just heard the voice. Where does God's voice come from? Well, God, obviously, so where is God? Heaven? Why not. Where is the Kingdom of Heaven? According to Christ, it's in each of us. And according to the Jewish tradition, it's our innermost heart. That's what Abraham listened to. With the knife raised, he looked inside himself for the answers. Listening to his innermost feelings, he tuned in to the Kingdom of Heaven and thus heard his God telling him that human sacrifice was no good.
Interesting note: the name "Israel" (which was given to Isaac's son Jacob later on) means "he who wrestles/struggles with God". According to the Jewish tradition, we are in a Living Relationship with a Living God. The story of Abraham isn't about blind faith or strict obidience. It's just the opposite. It's about a man's struggle with his God, it's about a man who listens to his own heart, his True Self, to hear God's voice. Because that's what it means to be in a relationship, right? A real, honest, full relationship isn't a stale or dead thing. There's struggle of all kinds going on in the healthiest of relationship. And in a relationship with a living God, the real relationship is done by the True Self. Come to think of it, Christ was always directing the questioners inward, telling people to look into themselves for the answers.
Isn't that just fucking cool? I mean, this gives me a new way to look at the Old Testament. Who knew Judaism could be so fucking neat? It doesn't even matter if it could be a lot of bunk that the professor made up. I think it works well as a decent interpretation of this particular part of Genesis. |
|
|
