After years of hearing about Soren Kierkegaard's "Fear and Trembling", I finally decided to read it, and I found it excellent. This 150 year old book, for those who don't know, is about the Jewish story known as the "Akeida", where God commands Abraham to sacrifice his son. I find it very difficult to accept the fact that Abraham "proves" his faith in God by showing that he follows God's command without question. Thus Abraham is held up as a model "believer", as someone who doesn't question God's commands. I'm not the only one who struggles with passage. Kierkegaar'd book "Fear and Trembling" is all about the difficulties with this story. I feel he is a kindred spirit! My commentary here takes its cues from Kierkegaard's focus on Isaac.
Abraham is held up as a virtuous figure, yet we really don't know what kind of struggle he went through to bring himself to do this. But regardless, whatever the moral struggle Abrahem might have had, we know what his decision is: to sacrifice his son. I'll say it plainly: this is the WRONG answer. Abraham failed the test. I'm sure that God would have looked upon Abraham just as favorably had Abraham chosen to SPARE his son. If fact, by agreeing to sacrifice his son, Abraham has proven that he is a pagan. But God's command of Abraham is a test after all, right? Had Abraham rejected God's command that he kill his son, God could have just have easily praised him for his decision; for his independence of judgement, for his compassion, and for his moral courage. But no; Abraham is a lesser man because of his blind obedience.
As we read through the torah, we find plenty of examples where God proves to be open to suggestion. One can only wonder what might have happened had Abraham rejected God's command, or at least tried to strike a deal. My guess is that God would have regotiated with Abraham, saying, "tell you what, Abe, how about if you just sacrifice a ram instead?" Some things we just can't, in good conscience, ask people to do. God's request of Abraham, I feel, falls into that category.
Don't forget that Abraham had his son when he was a very old man. And now, he's commanded to kill his son? It's just gross. What's even more disturbing about this story is that no consideration is given to Isaac. How can Isaac have any faith in God, when God has basically sentenced him to die? And for no fault of Isaac's?
Kierkegaard is often held up an an existentialist writer, and surely, the person who is confronted with the existentialist dilemma is not Abraham, but rather, Isaac. Isaac has to live with the fact that God commanded him to die; not so, Abraham. How is Isaac to live the rest of his life, knowing that he's been used as a pawn by God? Abraham is commanded to kill his son, and he doesn't question it. For that, I feel, he is diminished. Isaac, on the other hand, must muster up the courage to go on with life know that God has singled him out to die (the subject of a cruel "test").
I feel that we could learn a lot if, when studying the Akeida, we focus on the existential predicament of Isaac. If you think about it, Isaac too, has been "chosen" by God. I'd say that Abraham represents the "old" faith (where he's commanded to obey), and Isaac represents the "new"; Isaac has to choose to follow God, when he's been given a really good reason no to.
Abraham is held up as a virtuous figure, yet we really don't know what kind of struggle he went through to bring himself to do this. But regardless, whatever the moral struggle Abrahem might have had, we know what his decision is: to sacrifice his son. I'll say it plainly: this is the WRONG answer. Abraham failed the test. I'm sure that God would have looked upon Abraham just as favorably had Abraham chosen to SPARE his son. If fact, by agreeing to sacrifice his son, Abraham has proven that he is a pagan. But God's command of Abraham is a test after all, right? Had Abraham rejected God's command that he kill his son, God could have just have easily praised him for his decision; for his independence of judgement, for his compassion, and for his moral courage. But no; Abraham is a lesser man because of his blind obedience.
As we read through the torah, we find plenty of examples where God proves to be open to suggestion. One can only wonder what might have happened had Abraham rejected God's command, or at least tried to strike a deal. My guess is that God would have regotiated with Abraham, saying, "tell you what, Abe, how about if you just sacrifice a ram instead?" Some things we just can't, in good conscience, ask people to do. God's request of Abraham, I feel, falls into that category.
Don't forget that Abraham had his son when he was a very old man. And now, he's commanded to kill his son? It's just gross. What's even more disturbing about this story is that no consideration is given to Isaac. How can Isaac have any faith in God, when God has basically sentenced him to die? And for no fault of Isaac's?
Kierkegaard is often held up an an existentialist writer, and surely, the person who is confronted with the existentialist dilemma is not Abraham, but rather, Isaac. Isaac has to live with the fact that God commanded him to die; not so, Abraham. How is Isaac to live the rest of his life, knowing that he's been used as a pawn by God? Abraham is commanded to kill his son, and he doesn't question it. For that, I feel, he is diminished. Isaac, on the other hand, must muster up the courage to go on with life know that God has singled him out to die (the subject of a cruel "test").
I feel that we could learn a lot if, when studying the Akeida, we focus on the existential predicament of Isaac. If you think about it, Isaac too, has been "chosen" by God. I'd say that Abraham represents the "old" faith (where he's commanded to obey), and Isaac represents the "new"; Isaac has to choose to follow God, when he's been given a really good reason no to.
Lately, I've been having second thoughts about my initial conclusion that Abraham failed the choice, by preparing his son Isaac to be sacrificed. Lately I've been studying Mesoamerican cultures, such as the Olmec, and it appears that they DID use human sacrifice. If you contrast those cultures to the story of the Akeida, I get a different perspective on Abraham: it's necessary for Abraham to prepare for a human sacrifice...but then to be interrupted, having the sacrifical victim spaced, and in his place, a non-human sacrifice is offered up instead. To simply judge Abraham as "wrong" would make sense only if you judge him by TODAY's values. But if you put yourself in the mindset of a pagan worshipper 4,000 years ago, human sacrifice would probably be understood as the way the Universe worked. The Akeida, when looked in its proper historical context, is actually revolutionary in the history of religion. It represents the first nudges towards HUMANISM: the value of human life. While there are still sacrifices, they'll be now be ANIMAL sacrifices...something that we moderns would still recoil from ...
ReplyDeleteI'd like to cut Abraham some slack. In today's world, his act looks incredibly abusive--and I'm sure it looked that way too way back when. But story is necessary to show the SHIFT away from human sacrifice...and the Akeida gives us a front row seat at the precise moment that that shift happened. Although it's easy to judge Abraham for being a mindless true-believing zealot. But the story isn't really about Abraham, nor is it about Isaac. It's about God. God needs the Akeida to tell the Jews (and thus, all the rest of the World) that human sacrifice is a cruel and unusual way of worshipping the Divine. Although the book first appears a catalogue of horrors, it's actually about a change in consciousness. Even Kierkegaard gets caught up in the psychological dynamics of it all. But I now think that the story is a giant red herring...because the real story isnt about Abraham or Isaac, but rather, in the Mind of God.