Isaac - the son of the promise (2).

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.

Being a witness!

I have just been reading about a large law office in which someone was enjoying a birthday anniversary celebration. As the cake was brought into the room, everyone sang a rousing chorus of “Happy Birthday.”

At the end of the song, the woman leading the celebration said, “Now, let’s sing the second verse,” and proceeded to lead everyone in “How old are you …” And everyone laughed when the woman whose birthday anniversary it was declined to reveal her age. Then the leader suggested singing the third verse and began to sing, “May God bless you.” Politely, a co-worker interrupted and objected: “I thought we’re not supposed to bring religion into the workplace,” he said.

The leader quickly responded, “Actually, religion comes in when I do!”

How simple, and yet how profound, was that answer! Regardless of how people may talk about the division between sacred and secular; religious and humanist; even the separation of church and state; the fact is that God can never be removed or legislated away - He is present everywhere, and He enters specifically through the lives of those who trust Him.

Have you ever thought of the countless discussions there are about how Christians can make a difference in the world, sharing the gospel and witnessing to their friends and neighbours. The truth is that the most effective witness is Christians - disciples of Jesus -, like that woman, living for the Christ wherever they are, and then gently and lovingly telling of their faith when the opportunity arises.  It's called "witnessing" and is what every disciple of Jesus is called to do!   

Remember Jesus' final words to His disciples as He returned to the Father?  "... you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."? (Acts 1:8).  That same Holy Spirit power is available to you and to me.  That same command is to us, also!

What about you and your office, store, factory, classroom, warehouse, restaurant -wherever you work? Does God come in when you do? Has God made a difference in your life that others can see? What do your co-workers know about God, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, because of the way you live?

Rites of Passage.

In my teaching career, one of the units taught to S1 pupils concerned Rites of Passage.  This refers to the four major events in a person's life that are celebrated, in some way, by every culture known to mankind.  These are Birth, Coming of Age, Marriage, and Death.

These are also areas that, in recent decades, in some of the more 'civilised' nations in the world, have become increasingly under attack from a secular, atheistic, humanism that would have us all made in its own image - rather than in the image of the Creator God Who is responsible for our very existence.

Birth.  It was in 1967 that abortion became legal within the UK.  Since then, around 10 million babies have been callously murdered in the very place in which they ought to have been best protected - their mothers' wombs.  And that is in England, Scotland, and Wales alone!  By the way, if you missed my brief series on abortion - "Womb - or tomb?" - you can scroll down to the Blog Archive; click on "August", and then scroll down to Tuesday, 19th for the first article.  Birth, in far too many cases, is not being celebrated - it is being prevented!

Coming of age.  It is the case, as I type, that it is when one reaches the age of 18 years that, in the UK, one is considered to have 'come of age'.  Of course, as my pupils were quick to point out, the age varies for different activities - from joining the Armed Forces, to purchasing alcohol, to acquiring a mortgage.  However, for at least two - maybe three - generations, we seem to have been encouraging our children to 'grow up' far too quickly.  Beauty Pageants, at least in the USoA, for toddlers - dressed up by their mothers in 'sexy' outfits (must be some sort of paedophile 'heaven'!), to Clubs and bars being frequented by children who have barely left puberty, to 'under-age' sexual activity.  And much of this with the knowledge, and tacit approval, of parents/guardians!

Marriage.  In the UK, with the honourable exception of N.Ireland, marriage has been redefined as being the union of any two persons, regardless of gender.  This has been, effectively, a response by politicians to a sustained lobbying exercise by those representing (according to recent National Office of Statistics report) a mere 1.6% of the population.  A massive petition opposing the move, in both Westminster and Holyrood, was ignored.  Of course, it is arguable, given revelations since, that the reason for that is that the percentage of those who practise deviant sexual relations, is much higher in government circles than in the population at large!  Now, I read that an OFSTED inspection in a Jewish school resulted in pupils feeling bullied, and traumatised, by the questions asked - questions such as "Do you know that it is acceptable for two men to be married to one another?"  Marriage, instead of being a relationship in which a man and a woman fulfil God's plan for them, and produce a family (something that no two people of the same gender can ever do, on their own!), has become a declaration of deviance that is sanctioned by the state.

Death.  There was a time when death came to most people before they reached 80 years of age.  Today, in the western world, more and more people are living to be centenarians.  At least, that is what we would like to think.  However, the constant push by some for the legalisation of euthanasia, and assisted dying/suicide, shows that death is becoming a marketable commodity - think Dignitas in Switzerland, or the whole situation in the Netherlands!   The tragedy of such a situation was shown by a newspaper report just a few days ago: 

"An elderly husband and wife have announced their plans to die in the world's first 'couple' euthanasia - despite neither of them being terminally ill.

Instead the pair fear loneliness if the other one dies first from natural causes.

Identified only by their first names, Francis, 89, and Anne, 86, they have the support of their three adult children who say they would be unable to care for either parent if they became widowed.

The children have even gone so far as to find a practitioner willing to carry out the double killings on the grounds that the couple's mental anguish constituted the unbearable suffering needed to legally justify euthanasia.

… The couple's daughter has remarked that her parents are talking about their deaths as eagerly as if they were planning a holiday.

John Paul [their son] said the double euthanasia of his parents was the 'best solution'.  'If one of them should die, who would remain would be so sad and totally dependent on us,' he said. 'It would be impossible for us to come here every day, to take care of our father or our mother.'"

One commentator has responded like this:  "I wonder why no one considers the fact that the reason some elderly parents may experience “mental anguish” is that they have come to the sickening realisation that their grown children would rather find an executioner to dispatch them, than take on the responsibility of caring for their parents. Imagine the thoughts of a mother realising that the child she fed and rocked to sleep, played with and sang to, would rather have her killed than care for her; that their relationship really does have a price."

When I consider all of that, I confess to being glad that I am now out of the RME classroom.  My fear is that those who are in may be pushing the kind of agenda that is mirrored above!

Hypocrisy!

There is a well-known story about a man who informed a local minister of the Gospel that he didn't attend church because it was so full of hypocrites.  "Well, then," responded the clergyman, "another one won't be noticed"!

It is always wise, when pointing out the hypocrisy of others, to remember that three time as many fingers are pointing at oneself as are pointing at the other person!

Having said all of that, I was struck by two items that I saw on Facebook earlier this evening.  The first one was from a dear Canadian friend who makes no secret of her humanist sympathies, and her opposition to (at least, organised) religion.  It deals with the well-known American tele-evangelist, Pat Robertson who, it is claimed, read out a letter on his TV show - a letter from an elderly couple. The link informs us that the letter read: "My husband and I are in our 80s and have been tithing for many years. We both love the Lord and give willingly and our tithe is over 10 percent…but we never have an extra penny after our monthly bills are paid. Our old car just broke down and we had to borrow money to fix it. We both need dental work, but we can’t afford it. I constantly have to use our credit card to pay for medical needs… What could we be doing wrong?"  Pat Robertson's response, we are informed, was to suggest that "they sell their belongings on eBay or go back to work. He also told them that God would grant them a blessing if they asked for one. The one thing he didn't tell them is to give a little less of their income to church so that they can take care of themselves."

Now, as an advocate of tithing, and of giving a freewill offering over and above, I am not about to criticise the practice.  In fact, I am convinced that it is at least part of the reason why my wife and I always seem to make ends meet, regardless of circumstances.  As I learned a long time ago, the Lord's mathematics work on a different principle than mine!  However, I have a great deal of sympathy for my friend's only comment: "REALLY!!!"   Mr Robertson's response to this couple might have been better as a cheque towards the expenses that they are encountering - having checked, of course, that the letter is genuine!

A little further on, I came across another post that has to do with 'giving to church'!  This one displays a picture of another well-known figure - Richard Dawkins, the 'high priest' of secular, humanist, atheism.  Across the top of the picture (which is as unflattering as is the one used of Pat Robertson!) are the words: "THINKS PEOPLE GIVING MONEY TO CHURCHES ARE GULLIBLE".  Across the bottom of the picture are the words: "CHARGES $85 A MONTH TO JOIN HIS ONLINE 'REASON CIRCLE'".  This is not the information that any of my humanist friends is likely to disseminate.  Yet why not?  Is not Mr Dawkins being every bit as much a hypocrite as Pat Robertson?  

When it comes to the Christian aspect, I well remember my former minister, spiritual mentor, and friend - and the man who married my dear wife and me to one another, 44 years ago yesterday - saying: "Don't judge the Christians - they will fail; don't judge the church; it will let you down; don't judge the clergy, they are much too fallible.  Judge the Christ - and see if you can justly criticise Him."  That statement still stands.  My personal faith does not depend on my personal achievements - however good they may sometimes be.  It depends wholly, and solely, on the finished work of God Incarnate, at the cross on Calvary, when He paid the punishment that I deserved to pay, in order that I might go free.  He died there for you as well.  Why don't you take Him at His word: "Whoever comes to Me I will never drive away" (Jn.6:37) - that's acceptance; "I will never leave you , nor forsake you." (Heb.13:5) - that's assurance; "... if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and take you to Myself, that where I am, you may also be." (Jn.14:3) - that's anticipation.

Hypocrites!  Yes, Pat Robertson is one; Richard Dawkins is one; and you and I are in that same league!  Only One stands out in all of history as not having been of that ilk.  Come to Him; know the wonder and joy of sins forgiven; let Him rule in your life.  You'll still make mistakes (see I Jn.1:10), but you will no longer be under condemnation (Rom.8:1), and you will spend eternity in His nearer Presence.