Where are the Simple Thoughts?

I look around me and most people seem to ask simple questions and live simple lives. Yes, they have stress and are caught up in the 'soap opera'-ness of all that is their life. But, basically, it seems simple to me. And, at this point, that is not a bad thing. I long for a life like that. But no. I get 'blessed' with a life that appears to be simple. I get 'blessed' with the 'gift' of thinking. How many times have I been told, "You think too much!" ... and often I see that as a compliment. Right now, with the way my head is reeling and hurting, I wish I could turn it off. From another forum that is part of my current headache: I'm currently reading a book that is greatly affecting me and giving me a number of 'ah-ah' moments and a lot to ponder and contemplate. I am not that far into it, but would like to put forth some of the questions that the book poses ... partially to share, but also because I wonder how people here would reflect on this. I certainly have no answers at this point … how do these questions affect you? It has to do with Abraham ... I don't know how many times I've been told or read or in some other manner been informed of how we as Christians need to be like Abraham - to be obedient to God's directions, just as Abraham was in the case of giving his son as a sacrifice, to live up to this great ‘man of faith’. This seems to be an 'ideal' that is upheld and honoured throughout much of Christian character, that this type of obedience is what we should all subscribe to, that it is a mark of a true Christian. Apparently, the whole Abraham-Isaac-submission encounter with God is something that three of the great religions use as a pivotal point in their traditions and beliefs. In Judaism, it is the 10th and greatest test of Abraham, the father of their religion. In Islam, again, the submission is the crux. And in Christianity, it is a foretaste of the Father-Son sacrifice. And it was with Abraham that God made the covenant with, Abraham - the example of great faith. May I pose the questions that this book poses? (btw, it is from a Christian author - and he does include Biblical references to back up his questions.) (1) How did Abraham know that it was God and not a demon or madness that told him to sacrifice his son? And why did Abraham then listen to a voice that wasn't God's - it was an angel's voice - canceling God's command to sacrifice Isaac? (2) Why didn't Abraham argue with God about killing of his innocent son like he did when God told Abraham about God's intention to kill the Sodomites' sons and daughters? (3) Why did Abraham keep the planned sacrifice secret from those closest to him? Why didn't he tell Sarah, Eliezer, or Isaac about what God ordered him to do? (4) Why did the very Son of God, the perfect God-man, wrestle with his Father on the cross about his own death more than Abraham wrestled with God about the death of his entirely human son? (5) Why did God no longer speak to Abraham after the outcome of the test was known? God delivered the Mount Moriah test in person, but as Abraham was about to carry out the command, an angel intervened and stayed his hand. Why didn't God who up to intervene? And after the conclusion of the episode, God never spoke to Abraham again. The intimacy of their relationship was over. Likewise, from that point on, Abraham never speaks TO God, but only speaks ABOUT God. (6) How did Isaac deal with the fact that his father had to be forcibly restrained from cutting his throat? What went through Isaac's mind as he stared at his father with a blade descending? Abraham may not have wounded Isaac with a knife, but he wounded him nevertheless. (7) What did Abraham and Isaac talk about on their three-day journey home> In fact, it appears more likely that Abraham returned home alone to Beersheba. Abraham climbed Mount Moriah with his son, but he arrived alone when he returned from the mountain. And he never spoke to his son again. Isaac never saw his father alive again - only reuniting with his brother Ishmael to bury their dead father. Even though God gave Abraham back his son on the altar of sacrifice, Abraham never did get his son back. (8) How can it be a good thing that Isaac and Abraham no longer “walk together” after Abraham’s triumph of faith? Abraham didn’t pass on the blessing to Isaac in person. He didn’t even pass on his marriage instructions to Isaac personally. (9) Is it reading too much into the text to wonder why Isaac grieved for his mother when she died, but the Scriptures say nothing about his grief upon his father’s death? (10) What did Abraham say to Sarah when he got back from the high place? He never seemed to explain himself to those around him. Why? (11) Why did Sarah die at the end of this story? Remember that Abraham had not previously told her anything about the purpose of his trip with Isaac to the land of Moriah. Upon her husband’s return, did she die from shock upon hearing that her son had been spared execution? Was she devastated that her husband would do such a thing? It takes Rebekah to comfort Isaac after the death of his mother. There is no sign that Abraham’s even being there to console his son. (12) Why did God choose to name the people of God after Jacob, or Israel – “one who wrestles” – and not Abraham? (13) Why did Abraham call the place of the interrupted sacrifice “The Lord will provide”? Not Faithfulness. Not God-fearing. Only “The Lord will provide”. Isn’t that an odd name to come up with after the severity of the test? Also, the name refers to the angel’s act of intervention, which saved Isaac and substituted a ram. The name does not call to mind the radical obedience of a great man of faith. (14) How could it be good that in the end, Abraham was alone? He dwelled in Beersheba. Sarah was in Hebron. Ishmael and Hagar were in Egypt. Isaac was far from his father. God had withdrawn from Abraham’s life. Abraham ended his life separated from al those he loved the most. (15) The angel applauded Abraham for his “fear” of God. But the “fear” of God is the beginning of wisdom – not the end of wisdom or even the middle of wisdom. Shouldn’t Abraham have been further along this path? (16) Abraham told his servants to stay with the animals while “I and the boy” go to “worship.” This echoes a question from W. Dow Edgerton: Why ‘worship’ instead of ‘sacrifice’? The word seems a so cruel in its choice. To obey is one thing. To obey through clenched teeth is one thing. To sacrifice your son is one thing. But worship, that is another thing. The word becomes horrible in a way ‘sacrifice’ does not. (17) Isaac was of an age when he knew what was happening to him (he was strong enough to carry wood up a mountain). Why did Abraham make his son carry his own funeral pyre? Was this like Jesus carrying his own cross? (18) How does Abraham’s willingness to slaughter his son qualify him to be the founder of the faith? Why would such a thing as this be the litmus test? (19) Does God expect followers to commit immoral acts when commanded to do so by divine voices or holy prophets? (20) If God sometimes asks us to suspend moral judgments, how do we distinguish the true voice of God from counterfeit voices such as the one that spoke to Cristos Valenti, who took his trusting daughter to a park and killed her, or those that speak to Palestine teenagers to convince them to strap bombs to their chests and blow up busses? [If you are not familiar with this incident, do a search on it … the similarities between Abraham and Valenti are frighteningly striking. Not to mention the effect it has on those who are familiar with the story.] For me, it maybe it is not as much as giving an answer to each of the questions, be it a definitive one or a theoretical one, as it is reflecting on how the impact of these questions affects what the message behind it might be and what this might mean for me as a follower of Christ. I am wresting with the meaning behind these questions. I have no answers – but as I continue to read the book, something is dawning on me in a way that I have never ‘seen’ before … and when one’s journey in faith has covered a span of numerous decades, to have something amazingly new and fresh and wonderful come breathing into life is quite the encounter with the living God. What do you make of these questions? What do you think is behind them? The responses I got were varied and mostly about giving their 'answer' to the questions. Only one person stated what he thought was 'behind' the questions. I've struggled and struggled with the story of Abe taking Isaac to the moutain cuz God told him to kill him. It seemed so wrong, and for a long time I've stayed away from the OT wanting no part of that God. I still want no part of a God that demands that children be killed because he says so. Such blind obedience is the stuff that Hitler built ovens upon, and is not characteristic of a loving caring and most importantly a teaching God. Equally revolting to me is Abe. I've wondered how a guy that could argue with God on behalf of others go forward silently when it involved his own son?? I've got 2 takes. The first, and the one I prefer is that Abe was testing God as much as God was testing Abe. See God said earlier that he wouldn't flood the world again (assuming arguendo that this is true for purposes of this post). That reflects a sense of mercy for the innocent, not reflected in the previous flooding account. The account of S&G reiterates this with Abe picking up on the lesson and arguing for the innocent. So the way I figure it, Abe did not intend to kill his boy. He foreshadows this in v. 5: He said:"Both of you stay here with the donkey, while the boy and I go on over yonder. WE will worship and then COME BACK to you." Abe always intended that the both He and the boy would come back. Moreover, the fact that he never discussed God demanding Isaac's death with Sarah further corroborates this. Surely, he would have consulted with his wife if he contemplated taking Isaac's life. So Abe went up the mountain to see if God was truly a benificient God, unlike the gods worshipped by others at the time, who did demand child sacrifices to be made. Had God not recanted his demand, Abe would have simply come back down the mountain with the boy and been on his merry way. The fact that God proved up for Abe that he was different than the other gods being worshipped, reinforced His Goodness. Equally important, God was testing Abe to see if he truly understood the lesson of mercy that he taught with the S&G incident. God knew Abe would not kill the boy at his behest. The test was not to see if Abe would blindly and blithely engage in abhorrent behavior, but rather if Abe would put God to the test and apply God's teaching from the S&G lesson. Abe did. Both Abe and God passed the test. (There are problems with the above and the below with some comments following this from the messenger if correctly transcribed, but the above is by far my favorite interpretation) The second is that Abe flunked miserably. God wanted Abe to say to Him what kind of God are you? Are you no better than those other pagan gods that demand that tender children be slaughtered like hooved beasts? No!! You are the God that would save S&G if only 10 innocents could be found!! Rather than doing this, unthinking, uncaring, Abe proceeds to kill his own flesh and blood. However, God stops Abe before he can proceed forward like a pre-progarammed robot. After this is over. The words seem like they are rewarding, but the speaker is different. God never appears to Abe again. Instead it is a messenger that appears. Moreover, the text reflects (in translations other than the one I prefer) the clause "whom you love" is no longer referenced when the messenger is referring to Isaac. Could be interpreted from those bible versions that it was apparent to God that Abe did not love the boy or he would have stood up for the boy. Just my thoughts. And after great contemplation and deliberation on my part, I wrote a response. I should include another response I send to a friend based on this, but likely no one would read it for it is lengthy. Here is the the first ... (this is my reflection from a book I am currently reading called Out of the Question and Into the Mystery by L. Sweet. I read the intro and know I was there that night that he heard this title and 'stole' it from David Wilcox! The appreciation he gives to Tom Morris in his acknowledgements is my pastor.) I realized I have not shared the conclusion to this thread ... here is my reflection of sorts on the above questions. Remember ... I said it is not about the ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS as much as "it is reflecting on how the impact of these questions affects what the message behind it might be and what this might mean for me as a follower of Christ." I'm saddened to see how many lept to give answers to the questions ... not seeking the impact and motive behind them. My reflection on the questions ... It is part of relationships to ‘test’ those we care about, seeking certain responses … ‘response’ being the key. Without a doubt, God and Abraham were in a relationship. Abraham talked TO God regularly and God regularly tested Abraham. [Remember in the list of questions, one was on this … how Abraham talked TO God and WITH God prior to this test, and after, all he did was talk ABOUT God.] In this relationship, God and Abraham had deep conversations and they tested each other. God pushed Abraham out of his comfort zone and commanded him to wander with no destination. God tested him by commanding him to direct his children and his household to keep the way of the Lord by doing what was right and just. And likewise, Abraham tested God – perhaps not in the same way, but what about his laughter? His scepticism? His constant asking the Almighty for more details? Isaac was named for laughter, but not a laughter of joy!! (more like “God, you’ve got to be kidding … do you know how OLD we are? What kind of joke is this??) His continual asking for more proof that God meant what He said. (Why else would God repeat His promise 8 times?) It seems to me that the sacrifice God asked of Abraham on Mount Moriah was a test to beat all tests. And I am inclined to believe that there was more to it than a test of obedience. If relationship is ONLY ABOUT OBEDIENCE, then all would be good and that would be the end of the story. The questions I asked would not have become evident. Consider, what gives you pleasure and enjoyment in a relationship? How high would ‘obedience’ be on your list of traits in the other that you are in relationship with that give you joy? I don’t know about you, but I don’t think it would rank even in my top 10. Without a doubt, on the ‘multiple-choice’ part of the test God gave to Abraham, #1 – will you sacrifice your only son for Me? (a) yes (b) no, #2 Will you obey Me no matter what? (a) yes (b) no #3 Do you fear Me? (a) yes (b) no. Abraham came through with flying colors. He got 100% on this Obedience Test. But … what if there was another question? What if the fact that God withdrew direct communication with Abraham after is more significant than passing thought? What if … what if Abraham failed the relationship part of the test? When I read the entire narrative of Abraham and God, it was obvious that this theme was evident: Abraham is a story of the Divine and the human engaging in so strong a relationship that it leads to a covenant. And what a covenant it is!!! From this covenant comes MY SALVATION. Abraham did not go through a process of growing stronger in his beliefs about God, but grew in a relationship with God. They spoke with each other, they watched stars together, they laughed, they argued, they raged, they mourned together. They were as intimate as friends – best friends. This is relationship. God’s original design and purpose for creating humanity was/is for intimacy of relationship. And a thought could even be made that in the realm of this relationship, Abraham’s relationship with God and their interaction – Abraham’s asking of God – got God to reconsider His initial response. The Sodom and Gomorrah thing – “I will destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for they are evil” … “Um, God, please don’t … please think of the innocent children and those who are not evil.” “They are all evil” … “Um, God, if I can find 50 people who are not evil, will you save the cities?” “Ok, Abraham – for 50 people, I will save the towns.” … “Um … God, it seems I was a bit hasty – I couldn’t find 50 good people, but what if I found 20? Would you save the towns for 20 good people?” “Ok, Abraham … for 20 good people I will spare the towns.” … “Um God … I think I goofed again … what about for 15 ? … what about for 12??? … for 10? God, will you spare the town for TEN people?” … and each time God appeared to ‘change his mind’ – why? I can only speculate (and enjoy creating the dialogue!). It is amazing that the God of the universe would engage in such a dialogue, let alone revise His response!! But if the original design was for intimacy of relationship, suddenly a there is a shift in the paradigm. Abraham is lauded for his faith or belief, his obedience to biblical theology. This is the external. And I would surmise that to some degree this is important. What he seemed to fail was the internal – the relational, the dialogue. To be in relationship with God did not mean subscription to universal principals or rules but to live in a state of commandedness. ‘Ethical’ at that time had more to do with making decisions based on relationships and less to do with making decisions based on rules. There is a Jewish interpretation of this story that argues that God never wanted Abraham to kill Isaac and was testing Abraham to engage in relationship with Him, perhaps to the point of refusing to carry out the orders. This midrashic interpretation suggests that God wanted Abraham to engage with Him, to grapple with what it really meant when God issued a command, to plead his case for his only son. And there are 3 textual reasons for this. (a) Gen.22 is the first reference to ‘love’ as a relationship resonating with John 3:16. (as was mentioned in one of the above responses) (b) the Hebrew word for ‘test’ is more about exercising and training (relationship) than it is for tempting or proving (juridical). Will Abraham keep the ways of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice? (c) God’s instruction of ‘get-up-and-go' which began their relationship … about God’s relationship with Abraham. Now we learn about Abraham’s relationship with God – a double meaning for this word – to go outward and inward simultaneously. An outward journey to produce an inward maturation? Is obedience the ultimate sign of maturation? Again, as a relationship grows between two friends … is the maturation and growth of this relationship dependent solely on obedience of one to the other? And a 4th reason: a nontexual response. Consider how THIS ‘failure’ if you will, on Abraham’s part now is reflected in the questions in the list. Yes, Abraham should trust and honour God, that is a given, but every step of the way he should also have wrestled with God: that is relationship ... “Lord, you’ve got to give me more than this … Lord, I’m not going to do this until you talk to me … Lord, show me something that proves that the voice I heard wasn’t satan’s voice … Lord, you promised me descendants as numerous as the stars, how will that happen if I kill my only son? … Lord, you are no different than the other gods who ask human sacrifice … Lord, I just don’t get it!!! You are my friend! You are full of love and mercy! This is NOT love!!!! Help me!!!” But he didn’t. He lowered his eyes, did not engage in any discourse, and remained silent. It is almost as if Abraham demonstrated a stubborn misunderstanding of God’s nature. “Will the Ruler of the Universe not do justice?” he challenged God as he was willing to barter with God over strangers and intercede on their behalf, but he was willing to lay down the life of his only son without a murmur of protest. What is that about?? The author of this book says something that resonated within me … “If you give up the struggle of discernment and hearing, you are not in right relationship with God. If obedience does not take place in the context of a relationship, no matter how tumultuous the relationship, it is not true obedience. You cannot truly obey until you first listen. The struggle of hearing precedes the acts of obedience. What God wants from us, even more than our obedience, is relationship with Him. If obedience were all that mattered, God would not have created us in His own image. It is for this one reason – dynamic relationship – that the human species was created. We were designed by God for God. Sin is less rebellion against God’s laws and more a violation of our relationship with God. God wants our obedience in the context of relationship – which far exceeds unthinking obedience played out in a vacuum. God wants our hearts and minds and bodies and souls. God wants fully engaged obedience, not reflexive obedience.” Not a ‘yes, sir’, ‘no, sir’ but a two-way conversation … He could have created robots, but He didn’t. There must be a reason for this … and I side with the reason being dynamic relationship. It is to that that I long for and thirst after. I am not a robot and was never created to be one. I want to pass that 'Obedience Test', yes ... but even more, I want to pass the 'Relationship Test.' I want to live my life in a state of commandedness with Him; it is about the relational, not the rational. Faith is not something you have, but something you live. NOt something you believe, but something you practice, every day, in all of life - a lived relationship. Truth is right relationships. The right relationship is everything. And for me, that Truth, found in dynamic relationship is the Person, Jesus. Not a belief, not a doctrine, not a list ... but a Person. THAT is Truth. And I wonder why I have a headache most days .... Still no question from the previous post. And how can I give an answer if I don't have the question? Tonight's message was similar - the movie was The Truman Show, and the focus of the discussion was the impact of the media on defining who we are. My take-away was how Christianity has become our brand of the Truman Show - our illusion of what is real, our expections of what we think is what it is all about and what our lives will look like when we 'accept Jesus as our Lord and personal Savior'. I liked Tom's comparison to how that is sounding like a marriate where the husband accepts his wife as his bed-warmer and personal dishwasher. (Ok, Tom didn't say the 'bed-warmer' part, but it fits!!) And how we need to stop with the ideals and expectations and striving for our version of perfection, and instead say 'this one I choose to love and enter into the relationship journey with an attitude of 'I wonder what is going to happen on the rest of this journey? Enter into a relationship with Christ full of wonderment and mystery and anticipation and possibility. What if I give all of who I am to Him, what would be possible then? What could God do with me then? It's not about defining me by the outside, but creating the possibility from what is inside first. God's kingdom within me ... may His kingdom come within me as it is in heaven. Father in heaven, You are Holy. May Your kingdom come on earth (within me) ... ... as it is in heaven. Bless me so that I can bless others. Forgive me in Christ and so that I can have ... ... a right relationship with You. To You, I give my all ... from You, I receive my identity ... for You, I pledge my mission ... in You, I am found. When Jesus called me, He called me unto death ... death to me, to this world. If I die with Him, I rise with Him too ... what have I been resurrected to? To what am I resurrected for?