Part 1
So we covered Genesis 22 on Sunday and some questions have been brewing in my mind. I read Genesis so desperately fast on the Bible in a Year track that I am delighted to be chewing on it a little more. Disclaimer: Texas is having all kinds of Pro Choice Vs Pro Life drama at the state capital right now. It is a sensitive topic for many. I came across some really interesting reading that caused me to view the story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac differently. I'm not getting political, and I hope my point is clear. I came across an article called "Abortion and the Ancient Practice of Child Sacrifice" by Andrew White M.D., who did his dissertation on researching this topic. It provided me with a historical context that helped me debunk a narrative I had. Stick with me and don't get cray. Dr. White argued that abortion has been happening for centuries within a religious context.
- Fulfillment of a vow was probably the most frequent reason an infant or child was sacrificed as witnessed by the third century B.C. Greek author Kleitarchos (paraphrased by a later writer):
- Out of reverence for Kronos (the Greek equivalent of Ba'al Hammon), the Phoenicians, and especially the Carthaginians, whenever they seek to obtain some great favor, vow one of their children, burning it as a sacrifice to the deity if they are especially eager to gain success.
- Occasionally, however, the upper class would substitute lower class children for their own by purchasing them from the poor and then sacrificing them as Diodorus Siculus reports: in former times they (the Carthaginians) had been accustomed to sacrifice to this god the noblest of their sons, but more recently, secretly buying and nurturing children, they would send to be sacrificed
- Two inscriptions at Carthage even show that occasionally the parents would sacrifice a defective child hoping to later receive a healthy one as a substitute. In one inscription a man named Tuscus says that he gave Ba'al "his mute son Bod'astart, a defective child, in exchange for a healthy one. "
- Child sacrifice probably became a standard practice for both religious and sociological reasons. Diodorus Siculus suggests
- It was also seen that many of the children sacrificed were a direct product of temple prostitution
My narrative has always been that Isaac was this precious, pure child that was the answer to Abraham's promise from God. He was his prized possession as a sacrificial lamb would have been. Or something else? After reading the historical background of child sacrifice above, it got me thinking. What if Isaac represented not an unblemished, perfectly behaved preteen to be senselessly slaughtered like livestock, but was a representation of sin.
When I hear the a-word I told you not to be distracted by above, I can't help but get a twisted feeling in my gut. I view some sin that way, but not all sins. Sin is equal to God. In that bullet point list above, I see a culture that regularly practiced sacrifice but what it really was broader than that. I see in that list...
1) to gain social status or favor
2)to gain economic status
3)to get something better than what God has given us
4)one of the first institutions of child trafficking or slavery (buy or selling of a human being)
5)delineation of socioeconomic statuses for gain of one group at the expense of another
6) prostituting our bodies
7)idol worship
All these things we do today with our stuff, our education, our ambition, our career, our money, our time. It was simply more primal and gruesome back then. I see Isaac now as a representation of all those things. He was a human sacrifice that should have been an animal sacrifice as the chosen people would be called to once the law was given. But here, I see a different picture. I see God being even more gracious with us that I thought before. He is not giving HIS only son for the pure, prized possession we call our life (really, how prideful is that thought anyway) but he is giving the only sacrifice that actually was that pure thing (Jesus) in place of all our yuck and depravity as a culture. Grace is elevated to a new level for me.
Part 2
One of the questions I had was why God provided a ram instead of a lamb? Was he trying to make a point that although Abraham said "God himself will provide a lamb" God was trying to show him that the answer to the dilemma is not always what we think should be used to solve it? Was a ram an adult sheep? Shouldn't that reinforce the Christ, son of man, was the grown adult sacrifice for our sins? That would make the crucifixion parallel infallible. I mean, if you do not see an image of Christ climbing the mountain to his death with a cross of wood on his back when you read that Abraham put the wood ON Isaac to carry, you might want a second cup of coffee. Was it a booming voice from God telling Abraham not to kill Isaac, or some angel? No. It was the Angel of the Lord (a pre-incarnate Christ). Can you image that moment?! As if the metaphor wasn't strong enough, Christ humself showed up to tell Abraham not to kill Isaac at the last moment and to check the bushes one last time. "God himself" was redundant on purpose. I then found this little treasure on a website called Refiner's Fire.
In Hebrew the "lamb" is SEH (sheen-hey), and it happens to be in MASCULINE form with MASCULINE verbs. Therefore, the "lamb" IS a "ram", rendered from AYIL (alap-yodh-lamed).
Now here is where it gets interesting. When the male lamb is just part of the flock it is called SEH, but when it is set apart for sacrifice (as a male lamb) it then "graduates" to the word AYIL. Thus, once the ram was designated after being caught in the thicket, he went from SEH to AYIL.
Hebrew Word: Lya Transliterated Word: 'ayil
Now imagine my face, blown...bquuuuuuh. Now on one hand, I can read the story and see the narrative where Abraham is asked to give up his only son in sacrifice as a test of faith. But when I read something like this, it just makes me recognize the inspired word of God was not just an inception of ideas, but specifically chosen words just waiting to be unveiled. You see, I see the lamb/ram connection to Christ and also the lamb/ram connection to our hearts for HIM.
Metaphorically speaking, Abraham's heart was still a lamb. He said, "God himself will provide a lamb." He was expecting a lamb that is just a part of the flock to be given. God sends a strong message that he does not just want part of our lives, but a specifically set apart, Christ wasn't just a man, but a specifically set apart man for the purpose of atoning for mankind's sins. I also see that ram as another form of renaming or giving of identity to Abraham. He had already been renamed and called, but were his heart and actions that sold out? Yes, he was acting in faith right at this moment and I just wonder if the message was clear to him that he and his developing chosen people would be set apart from the regular flock. Based on Abraham's life thus far...lying to the Egyptian's about Sarah's identity, Ishmael and Hagar, and actually begging for Sodom and Gomorrah to be spared (this was not a city with redeeming qualities), it seems that Abraham was still very much battling separating from his culture and its influences. His heart was one toe in and this act of faith in nearly sacrificing his son put him neck deep and transformed into a ram.
How often are we given an identity, called to take drastic measure, and still need to be reminded to what extent we should be living differently, interacting differently, and speaking differently?
Furthermore, what is your moment of moving from lamb to ram in your heart? Are you sorta set apart...on Tuesday because its convenient? What test of faith are you in? Is is a lamb's test or a ram's test? Have you been through a ram's test and come out a lamb still? (that one was directed at myself as I'm processing repentance for past faithlessness)
Whatever test you are or have faced, I hope you hear or remember with hope and joy...
Lev. 18:14 So Abraham called that place The Lord Will Provide. And to this day it is said, “On the mountain of the Lord it will be provided.”