-
†. Gen 22:2c . . and offer him there as a burnt offering
The Hebrew word for "burnt offering" is 'olah (o-law') which is a very
different kind of offering than those of Cain and Abel. Theirs were minchah
(min-khaw') which are usually gifts rather than atonements. They're also
voluntary and bloodless.
Some say that Abraham's offering shouldn't be translated "burnt" and others
say it should.
No doubt the best translator of 'olah within the context of the Akedah is the
prophet Abraham himself. The very fact that he hewed wood, took a source
of fire with him up the mountain, constructed an altar, put the wood on the
altar, and then bound and positioned Isaac upon the wood and the altar;
tells me that Abraham fully understood that when his divine master said
'olah He meant for the man to cremate his son.
The evidence that Isaac also fully understood that 'olah implied incineration
is when he asked his dad: "Father; here are the wood and the fire: but
where is the sheep?"
There are some who insist that Abraham misunderstood God. They say he
was only supposed to take Isaac along with him up on the mountain and
they together were to offer a burnt offering. What's the appropriate
response to that?
Well; as I stated: Abraham was a prophet (Gen 20:7). Also; Abraham had
three days to think about what he was asked to do. Had Abraham the
prophet any misgivings about human sacrifice-- any at all --he surely would
have objected and/or at the very least requested a clarification. I'm
confident that's true because of the example of his rather impudent behavior
recorded in the last part of the 18th chapter of Genesis.
God ordered Abraham to offer his son as a burnt offering. That means he will
have to slit Isaac's throat; and then cremate his remains. Why isn't Abraham
recoiling and getting in God's face about this with a vehement protest? The
inference is quite obvious. Abraham didn't believe human sacrifice wrong. In
other words: for Abraham, human sacrifice was a non-issue or he would
have surely objected to it.
NOTE: A technical point often overlooked in the "human sacrifice" issue is
that in every instance banning the practice in the Old Testament, it is
underage children that are condemned as offerings-- innocent children; viz:
babes; and in particular, one's own. (e.g. Lev 18:21, Lev 20:2-5, Deut
12:31, Deut 18:10, cf. 2Kgs 16:3, 2Kgs 17:31, 2Kgs 23:10, 2Kgs 21:6, Ps
106:34, Ezk 20:31, Ezk 23:37, Jer 7:31, Jer 19:4, Jer 32:35). I have yet to
encounter an instance where God expressed abhorrence at sacrificing a
consenting adult.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
†. Gen 22:2c . . and offer him there as a burnt offering
The Hebrew word for "burnt offering" is 'olah (o-law') which is a very
different kind of offering than those of Cain and Abel. Theirs were minchah
(min-khaw') which are usually gifts rather than atonements. They're also
voluntary and bloodless.
Some say that Abraham's offering shouldn't be translated "burnt" and others
say it should.
No doubt the best translator of 'olah within the context of the Akedah is the
prophet Abraham himself. The very fact that he hewed wood, took a source
of fire with him up the mountain, constructed an altar, put the wood on the
altar, and then bound and positioned Isaac upon the wood and the altar;
tells me that Abraham fully understood that when his divine master said
'olah He meant for the man to cremate his son.
The evidence that Isaac also fully understood that 'olah implied incineration
is when he asked his dad: "Father; here are the wood and the fire: but
where is the sheep?"
There are some who insist that Abraham misunderstood God. They say he
was only supposed to take Isaac along with him up on the mountain and
they together were to offer a burnt offering. What's the appropriate
response to that?
Well; as I stated: Abraham was a prophet (Gen 20:7). Also; Abraham had
three days to think about what he was asked to do. Had Abraham the
prophet any misgivings about human sacrifice-- any at all --he surely would
have objected and/or at the very least requested a clarification. I'm
confident that's true because of the example of his rather impudent behavior
recorded in the last part of the 18th chapter of Genesis.
God ordered Abraham to offer his son as a burnt offering. That means he will
have to slit Isaac's throat; and then cremate his remains. Why isn't Abraham
recoiling and getting in God's face about this with a vehement protest? The
inference is quite obvious. Abraham didn't believe human sacrifice wrong. In
other words: for Abraham, human sacrifice was a non-issue or he would
have surely objected to it.
NOTE: A technical point often overlooked in the "human sacrifice" issue is
that in every instance banning the practice in the Old Testament, it is
underage children that are condemned as offerings-- innocent children; viz:
babes; and in particular, one's own. (e.g. Lev 18:21, Lev 20:2-5, Deut
12:31, Deut 18:10, cf. 2Kgs 16:3, 2Kgs 17:31, 2Kgs 23:10, 2Kgs 21:6, Ps
106:34, Ezk 20:31, Ezk 23:37, Jer 7:31, Jer 19:4, Jer 32:35). I have yet to
encounter an instance where God expressed abhorrence at sacrificing a
consenting adult.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=