What if Abraham had said, 'no'?

[Mus Zibii]

The first time I read the Old Testament (no disrespect-had I said Torah, I would've been more in error, since King James didn't write the Torah) I was struck by what an apparent clown Abraham was. Had his role in Genesis remained the same, save for being penned by an anti-Semite it would've been no great surprise. On my first reading I took for granted that he was the adopted patriarch of three major religions. Secular scholars don't even bother dismissing his existence, and yet had he been a fiction surely the authors who invented him could've glossed his character.

What is it about any of the tales told about him that endears him as worthy of monotheism's first prophet?

 

[bananabrain]

What is it about any of the tales told about him that endears him as worthy of monotheism's first prophet?

perhaps it would be easier if you selected a particular thing about him that you don't like and then we could discuss that.

i imagine the first thing that pops up to abraham's discredit would appear to be going along with G!D's command to sacrifice isaac. not very compatible with a man who is supposed to be the quintessence of compassion. the 'aqeda is one of the great mysteries of judaism and for my money, only the mystics are right on the nose. what they say is that abraham's compassion and mercy were *so* great that to repress them as he did in order out of love to fulfil the Divine Command, he was actually able thereby to cause such an imbalance in the universe as to enable G!D to unleash an outflow of Divine Compassion, having mercy upon isaac and rewarding abraham for his faithfulness. what abraham does is, effectively a complete negation of the self - so much so that he has effectively made it possible for him to do something which would not normally be possible, namely sacrifice his only son. thus it is argued that abraham is working counterintuitively to realise a higher purpose. other interpretations refer to the fact that it was in fact common for religions at the time to demand the sacrifice of the firstborn son - and that, contrary to expectations, G!D was demonstrating that judaism was going to be a different kettle of fish entirely.

abraham's compassion is also demonstrated in his hospitality to strangers (as in the three angels that came to tell him he was going to be a dad) and his other qualities are attested to by his success as a warrior in the wars of canaan. the midrash also says that he led the resistance to the building of the tower of babel, which was an initiative of nimrod, history's first dictator, who had him thrown into a fiery furnace for his trouble, which he survived. there's a lot of midrashic stuff around the abraham/nimrod confrontation and around the spiritual ability that enabled him to deduce the Unity of the Divine and find the inner strength to rebel against his entire society and smash up his father's idol shop. the only thing we can find where he comes out with less than a creditable record is his decision to let sarah mistreat and expel their handmaid hagar - but he later tries to make good this mistake by marrying her after sarah's death under the name qeturah and giving her sons "gifts" and sending them to the east - this, in the mystical tradition, is where the wisdom of the oriental religions and systems of thought derives from.

islam tells similar tales of abraham - of course with just your king james you are going to come up with only a quarter of the story if that - like everything, you need the Oral Law to complete the Written.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Mus Zibii]

He's just an incredibly nuanced character/archetype. Not so much that I don't like him. There's also the story of Abraham giving up his wife to Abimelech - calling her his sister - more or less to save his own skin, and would've left it at that had god not intervened. And the story of his casting out Ishmael and his mother presumably after he (Ishmael) molested Isaac in some way. Not to mention his going to bed with Hagar his servant. He seems flawed, human. Not a bad thing, but difficult for modern minds to reconcile maybe. Granted, his actions and words were probably motivated by future politics and doctrine, but in story form it resonates as human frailty.

 

[bananabrain]

the avimelech thing is fairly nuanced too - for one thing, the commentators note that the word "sister" is sometimes used as a sort of uber-respectful word for wife, which abimelech doesn't understand and then acts on, which gets abraham off the hook by having G!D sort it out for him.

one of the things about biblical characters such as the patriarchs is that the Text does not generally protect them - although sometimes the commentators and sages try to. i suppose it's up to you if you expect our role models to be entirely perfectly or merely exceptional human beings.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[iBrian]

Actually, that's a very good point about Judaism - it's quite note-worthy that there was no attempt to whitewash the texts, even though there was surely opportunity for that kind of *ahem* redaction. That the warts and all is carried through is pretty distinguished - many other ancient texts are often directly propagandist (party manifestoes, and sycophantic praises), certainly when in public viewing.

 

[Mus Zibii]

Well, that's why I made this thread. I was reading The Harlot by the Side of the Road by Jonathn Kirsch (friend gave it to me, kinda young but an easy read) and among other things noted how the story of David is gradually 'cleaned up' in tradition. The Hebrew heroes don't look like heroes by todays uber-moral standards. I actually like that. Surprise, surprise, they're human.

 

[Quahom1]

Well, that's why I made this thread. I was reading The Harlot by the Side of the Road by Jonathn Kirsch (friend gave it to me, kinda young but an easy read) and among other things noted how the story of David is gradually 'cleaned up' in tradition. The Hebrew heroes don't look like heroes by todays uber-moral standards. I actually like that. Surprise, surprise, they're human.

Mus, I think that is the whole point of Scripture. With the exception of Jesus (in Christian lore), every hero in scripture is fatally flawed. Your original question was "What if Abraham (Abram), said NO. I suspect God would have pulled the same type of number on Abram, that He pulled on Jonah...until he finally said "Yes Lord".

Saul of Tarsus, said NO, but Jesus had other ideas, and set out to convince Saul to seriously consider them.

Some of us would think that these people were soooo much worse than we would ever be, yet God chose them, and walked with them, and did not leave them. So, what could God do with me???...

Lot said "wait a minute God! What if...?". Issac fought with God all night despite a dislocated hip. Peter denied Jesus three times before the night fell. Thomas doubted the ressurection. Moses tried to run from God.

Now that I think of it even Jesus himself hesitated, but his mother would hear none of it...and people witnessed water become wine.

Mus, God accepts we have will, but its the heart of man that God goes after, with extreme predjudice. And He is out to win us and win us over. at all costs, and it seems we are the prize of his goal, or the Apple of His eye. Sort of like a loving and passionate parent wanting the best for his children.

v/r

Q

 

[Mus Zibii]

Good answer. By coincidence (hmmm?) I happened to be listening to Bob Dylan's Highway 61 Revisited just now.

Oh God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
Abe says, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
God say, "No." Abe say, "What?"
God say, "You can do what you want Abe, but
The next time you see me comin' you better run"
Well Abe says, "Where do you want this killin' done?"
God says, "Out on Highway 61."