The last post ended with the assurance that, in this one, we would look at the concept of "types", or "foreshadows". Our shadows can tell certain things about us - our general size and shape (depending, of course, on the precise position of the source of the light that has caused the shadow!); what we are doing, and how we are doing it. However, our shadows are not us. They only 'point' to us; to the real you and me. In theological terms, your shadow is a "type" of you, and the real you is referred to as the "antitype".
In a similar sort of way, the Bible has many types, or foreshadows, that say a lot about their antitype in future time. They tell us, to a certain extent, what will happen and what it will look like. They are not prophecies that predict the future; but they can help us to better understand, and recognise, the antitype to which they point, when it comes into being. A 'type' of Messiah, for example, can help us to understand what Messiah will be, and what He will do - but that type is not Messiah! Obviously, Typology is not some kind of 'exact science', as identifying, and interpreting, types and antitypes can depend, to a large extent, on one's own perspective. However, typology is not confined to Christian theology. The Hebrew sages have a similar doctrine that helps them to understand how YHWH has been working in the Tanakh.
Okay, that's the theology! Now, what about Avraham who is asked to sacrifice his beloved son, Yitzchak - the one he loves; the one who brings him joy; the one named 'Laughter'? Is there any aspect of foreshadowing in this story? The answer, as you may have already guessed, is "Yes"! In this post, we shall consider the 'secular' view, and some Jewish views.
1. the secular view.
This view states that this story is just that - a story for its own time. It does no more than demonstrate how the Hebrew nation was established by YHWH to be different from the pagan nations that surrounded it. The implication is that YHWH was testing Avraham, in order to emphasise that human sacrifice - common in ancient times (and, many would say, common today under the name of abortion!) - was unacceptable, and that the one true God would have nothing to do with it.
Certainly, the Tanakh makes absolutely clear that YHWH does not condone child sacrifice. Some of the passages in which child sacrifice is condemned as an abomination before God are: Lev.18:21; Jer.7:31; Ezek.20:31. So is this story nothing more than that? I think not.
2. Jewish views
(a) the incident was a test prompted by the satan.
This view states that the Akedah (the Hebrew word for the incident) was a testing similar to that of Job, who was tested by the satan (the adversary) with the permission of YHWH. Certainly we read in Rabbinic literature that, in a similar scene to that of Job 1 and 2, the satan was accusing Avraham before YHWH: "Of every feast that Avraham made, he did not sacrifice before You one bull or ram" He [YHWH] said to him "Does he do anything but for his son. Yet, if I were to say to him, 'Sacrifice him before Me', he would not withhold him." (Rabbi Rashi). However, this is but a commentary by one man, and there is no such suggestion in the Tanakh. So is that really what happened? Again, I think not!
(b) the Akedah is a type (foreshadowing) of atonement.
God set up a system for the Hebrew people, even in the Garden of Eden, when animals had to be sacrificed in order to provide the covering for Adam and Eve after they had sinned.Their own attempts, with leaves, were not acceptable to the Creator. As the writer of the Letter to Hebrew disciples of Yeshua was to state, many centuries later: "... without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." (Heb 9:22). The Mosaic Law emphasise this requirement of blood for atonement (another word that is dealt with in "Great Words"!) in a system that involved a blood offering from a spotless, flawless, animal - usually a lamb, a goat, or a bull. (see, e.g., Lev. 4 and 16).
Many contemporay Rabbis teach that human blood has never been an accceptable offering to YHWH and cannot, therefore, atone for the sins of man. Therefore, they maintain, according to Judaism, the Akedah cannot foreshadow an atonement by a person such as Yeshua, as Christians claim. However, there are Rabbinic commentaries that seem to disagree.
In Gen. 22:13 we are told that Avraham "... took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son." Is it not sufficient that YHWH provide a ram? Rashi (quoted above), asks: "Why does Scripture say 'instead of his son.'? Those four words didn't have to be there - or did they?!
Rashi's explanation as to why it is important to know that the ram was sacrificed instead of Yitzchak was this: "Over every sacrificial act that he [Avraham] performed, he prayed, 'May it be [Your] will that this should be deemed as if it were being done to my son; as if my son were slaughtered; as if his blood were sprinkled; as if my son were flayed; as if he were burnt and reduced to ashes'"
Now, if Rashi was correct, then every time Avraham sacrificed a lamb or a goat, he thought in his mind and heart that he was slaughtering his own son, Yitzchak, and sprinkling his blood over the altar! But why would Avraham consider such a thing if YHWH does not accept human blood as a covering for sin?
A renowned Reform Jewish Rabbi (Wolf Gumther Plaut, 1912 - 2012) offers this answer to that question: "There was a remarkable tradition that that insisted that Abraham completes the sacrifice and that, afterward, Isaac was miraculously revived. According to this haggadah [telling], Abraham slew his son, burnt his victim, and the ashes remain as a stored-up merit and atonement for Israel in all generations." It would appear that some Rabbis believed that a single, willing, human sacrifice on behalf of mankind would, indeed, atone for sin!
One modern Jewsih scholar writes of "The notion of a dual godhead with a Father and a Son, the notion of a Redeemer who, himself, will be both God and man, and the notion that this Redeemer would suffer and die as part of the salvational process." He also states that "At least some of these ideas, the Father/Son godhead and the suffering Saviour, have deep roots in the Hebrew Bible as well, and may be among some of the most ancient ideas about God that the Israelite people ever held." (Daniel Boyarin; The Jewish Gospels).
That sounds remarkably close to the Christian interpretation of the Akedah - but that, DV, will be the subject of the next post.
In a similar sort of way, the Bible has many types, or foreshadows, that say a lot about their antitype in future time. They tell us, to a certain extent, what will happen and what it will look like. They are not prophecies that predict the future; but they can help us to better understand, and recognise, the antitype to which they point, when it comes into being. A 'type' of Messiah, for example, can help us to understand what Messiah will be, and what He will do - but that type is not Messiah! Obviously, Typology is not some kind of 'exact science', as identifying, and interpreting, types and antitypes can depend, to a large extent, on one's own perspective. However, typology is not confined to Christian theology. The Hebrew sages have a similar doctrine that helps them to understand how YHWH has been working in the Tanakh.
Okay, that's the theology! Now, what about Avraham who is asked to sacrifice his beloved son, Yitzchak - the one he loves; the one who brings him joy; the one named 'Laughter'? Is there any aspect of foreshadowing in this story? The answer, as you may have already guessed, is "Yes"! In this post, we shall consider the 'secular' view, and some Jewish views.
1. the secular view.
This view states that this story is just that - a story for its own time. It does no more than demonstrate how the Hebrew nation was established by YHWH to be different from the pagan nations that surrounded it. The implication is that YHWH was testing Avraham, in order to emphasise that human sacrifice - common in ancient times (and, many would say, common today under the name of abortion!) - was unacceptable, and that the one true God would have nothing to do with it.
Certainly, the Tanakh makes absolutely clear that YHWH does not condone child sacrifice. Some of the passages in which child sacrifice is condemned as an abomination before God are: Lev.18:21; Jer.7:31; Ezek.20:31. So is this story nothing more than that? I think not.
2. Jewish views
(a) the incident was a test prompted by the satan.
This view states that the Akedah (the Hebrew word for the incident) was a testing similar to that of Job, who was tested by the satan (the adversary) with the permission of YHWH. Certainly we read in Rabbinic literature that, in a similar scene to that of Job 1 and 2, the satan was accusing Avraham before YHWH: "Of every feast that Avraham made, he did not sacrifice before You one bull or ram" He [YHWH] said to him "Does he do anything but for his son. Yet, if I were to say to him, 'Sacrifice him before Me', he would not withhold him." (Rabbi Rashi). However, this is but a commentary by one man, and there is no such suggestion in the Tanakh. So is that really what happened? Again, I think not!
(b) the Akedah is a type (foreshadowing) of atonement.
God set up a system for the Hebrew people, even in the Garden of Eden, when animals had to be sacrificed in order to provide the covering for Adam and Eve after they had sinned.Their own attempts, with leaves, were not acceptable to the Creator. As the writer of the Letter to Hebrew disciples of Yeshua was to state, many centuries later: "... without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." (Heb 9:22). The Mosaic Law emphasise this requirement of blood for atonement (another word that is dealt with in "Great Words"!) in a system that involved a blood offering from a spotless, flawless, animal - usually a lamb, a goat, or a bull. (see, e.g., Lev. 4 and 16).
Many contemporay Rabbis teach that human blood has never been an accceptable offering to YHWH and cannot, therefore, atone for the sins of man. Therefore, they maintain, according to Judaism, the Akedah cannot foreshadow an atonement by a person such as Yeshua, as Christians claim. However, there are Rabbinic commentaries that seem to disagree.
In Gen. 22:13 we are told that Avraham "... took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son." Is it not sufficient that YHWH provide a ram? Rashi (quoted above), asks: "Why does Scripture say 'instead of his son.'? Those four words didn't have to be there - or did they?!
Rashi's explanation as to why it is important to know that the ram was sacrificed instead of Yitzchak was this: "Over every sacrificial act that he [Avraham] performed, he prayed, 'May it be [Your] will that this should be deemed as if it were being done to my son; as if my son were slaughtered; as if his blood were sprinkled; as if my son were flayed; as if he were burnt and reduced to ashes'"
Now, if Rashi was correct, then every time Avraham sacrificed a lamb or a goat, he thought in his mind and heart that he was slaughtering his own son, Yitzchak, and sprinkling his blood over the altar! But why would Avraham consider such a thing if YHWH does not accept human blood as a covering for sin?
A renowned Reform Jewish Rabbi (Wolf Gumther Plaut, 1912 - 2012) offers this answer to that question: "There was a remarkable tradition that that insisted that Abraham completes the sacrifice and that, afterward, Isaac was miraculously revived. According to this haggadah [telling], Abraham slew his son, burnt his victim, and the ashes remain as a stored-up merit and atonement for Israel in all generations." It would appear that some Rabbis believed that a single, willing, human sacrifice on behalf of mankind would, indeed, atone for sin!
One modern Jewsih scholar writes of "The notion of a dual godhead with a Father and a Son, the notion of a Redeemer who, himself, will be both God and man, and the notion that this Redeemer would suffer and die as part of the salvational process." He also states that "At least some of these ideas, the Father/Son godhead and the suffering Saviour, have deep roots in the Hebrew Bible as well, and may be among some of the most ancient ideas about God that the Israelite people ever held." (Daniel Boyarin; The Jewish Gospels).
That sounds remarkably close to the Christian interpretation of the Akedah - but that, DV, will be the subject of the next post.
No comments:
Post a Comment