Just Following Orders?
Dear Reader, please note, it is most definitely not the intent of this study to even hint that Avraham’s doings were motivated by either foolishness or perversity. Apparently it was Avraham’s understanding that Yahweh required Yitschak as an ascending offering, which typically derived its character from its immolation, and would hardly have been burned alive by a righteous and merciful man. However, we will recall that Yahweh’s thoughts (Y’shayahw 55:9) are not our thoughts, and evidently not always Avraham’s thoughts either. Which returns us to the questions at hand. One; did Yahweh give a command to Avraham in Genesis 22:2, that, if literally interpreted, should have resulted in a bloodless, or a substitute offering? And two; was a derived and figurative interpretation absolutely necessary to justify the proposed slaughter and immolation of Yitschak?
Let’s look at two illustrations of these two questions. First, in 1Kings 12:27, Jeroboam king of Israel was considering if the people’s loyalty would revert back to King Rehoboam, when they “went up” to Jerusalem to sacrifice to Yahweh. In transliterated Hebrew, it would read “im ya’aleh ha’am hazzeh” (if this people go up.) This is a literal use of the word alah, “ascend.” Jeroboam was hardly concerned that the people might immolate themselves as sacrifices at Jerusalem, but only that their literal ascension to the normal place of the worship of Yahweh would influence them to remember favorably their former master. We find a second example in 1 Chronicles 15:12. King David instructed the Lewiim to cause the holy ark of the Elohim of Israel to ascend unto the place that he had prepared for it. Transliterated from Hebrew, “W’ha’alithem eyth ‘aron Yahweh”, or in English, “…and you shall cause the ark of Yahweh to ascend…” We need hardly affirm the obvious, that he was not commanding to incinerate the ark as an offering to Yahweh, but only have it elevated to a place of honor.
Had Avraham interpreted Yahweh’s command “w’ha’aleyhu sham l’olah” (…cause him to go up…to a going up) thus literally, he would hardly have considered binding Yitschak and placing him on the altar. Rather, he would have prepared for the both of them, both he and his son, to participate in, or observe, whatever “ascending offering” Yahweh may have had in mind, then presumably both of them return to “tell the story.” However, for reasons that perhaps only Yahweh knows, and no doubt they seemed like good ones at the time, he did not. Rather, as we see from the course of action that unfolded, it appears that he believed that he was required to cause Yitschak to ascend, not merely as an observer or participant, but as the sacrifice itself, in smoke, as an ascending offering. This belief could only have been justified if the less literal, more remotely derived, figurative interpretation, which he appeared to assume was required, was also justified. And so it appears to have been, since Avraham was not rebuked for being foolish, headstrong, or wicked, which evidently he was not, but was simply re-directed to the more correct course of action.
And was it just and reasonable for Avraham to have done as he did? For an example, let us select a perfect one: Yahshua. Beginning in Luke 2:22, we read of Yahshua being caused to go up to, for, or at, an ascending offering, almost as Yitschak had been obliged to do. Yahshua was caused to ascend (brought up) to the city of Y’rushalaiim, then the temple, and elevated into the arms of Shimon HaTzadik (the righteous), then figuratively, elevated in praises. The offerings that he was caused to go up to, were a pair of turtle doves, or two young pigeons, and figuratively, the prayers of Shimon and Channah (Anna) hanaviah (the prophetess), and presumably his parents also. We should not think the less, however, of Avraham our spiritual father, for his deviation from this perfectly benign and righteous approach, for he allowed himself to be “coached” into correction just in time, in the holy mount; and; would any of us have done better? It is not likely, in my opinion. Even as it is written, “All have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of Yahweh”. But his grace is sufficient for us, if we will receive it.
An interesting parallel to this incident is one that occurred closer to the end of Yahshua's sojourn. Just before he overthrew the tables of the vendors and money-changers, and after the disciples procured the donkey and colt, a very interesting account is recorded. In most translations of Matthew 21:7, and even in the Aramaic Peshitta, the implication is that after the crowds of jubilant people threw their outer garments upon the donkeys, Yahshua got on and rode. In the Hebrew account of Matthew, however, according to all known "Shem Tov" manuscripts, the account is different. Their uniformity is compelling, and there is no readily apparent reason for the scribes to have deliberately altered the text.
What we have here, and it is credible, is first; Yahshua got on the colt to ride. Only then did the crowds put their garments upon beasts, rider and road; perhaps at that point instinctively recognizing the magnitude of the event; that it was intrinsic to the restoration of the kingdom of Yahweh! And last, that they, according to the G. Howard translation (of the Hebrew book of Matthew, which was incorporated into the Shem Tov book, "Even Bohan"), made the ascent! This is monumental, in that the Hebrew words used, "wayya'alu l'ma'alah", which have the approximate literal meaning of "and they ascended to the ascent", almost exactly reflect the command with which Yahweh tested Avraham (in Genesis 22:2). It is as if Yahweh told Avraham "w'ha'aleyhu sham l'olah!" (and cause him to ascend there to an ascension!), and 19 centuries later Matthew records the account of the compliance of Yahshua, and the crowds of his disciples; "and they ascended to the ascension", wayya'alu l'ma'alah! Mere coincidence? You tell me!
And the diligent, wishing to further research the topic of Yahshua’s ascensions to manifestations of holiness, will find such similar use of the “olah-alah” verb in the accounts of the “transfiguration”, and the final ascent from Jericho. Yahshua told his disciples quite unambiguously; “we are olim l’yerushalem, (ascending to Jerusalem.)” Avraham saw his day, and rejoiced… So should we!
Anyway, yes, his grace is sufficient for us, if we are willing to receive it. And to receive the grace of Yahweh, of course, we need to remain steadfast in Torah. Can we now learn a lesson in Torah from one of Yahshua’s disciples, Kepha? No doubt he learned much wisdom and self control since thrice denying his master Yahshua, and that may be why he protested so vehemently upon hearing the paradoxical order, (Acts10:13) “Rise, kill, and eat.” However, what would have been the result, we might ask, had he set himself to comply as unquestioningly as had his forefather Avraham? Can this be seen as an example to caution? And should it not be cause for re-consideration among the proponents of the traditional interpretations? For in praising Avraham for his unquestioning resort to action, we encourage that type of response among ourselves. And as "Just following orders” didn’t count for much at the Nuremberg trials, so we may expect that at the judgement of Elohim, there will also be accountability for personal actions.
We may reasonably also wonder if in fact the popular Akedah tradition had its origin, its reason for existence, in historical attempts to promote unquestioning obedience to corrupted authorities? We can sympathize with cult adherents through the ages who would have normally, reasonably, and preferably, exercised caution, restraint, and good judgement, except for insistent prodding to unconscionability from decadent leadership. In other words, is the essential purpose of the common and prevalent Akedah tradition not in fact to promote a commando-ninja mentality among a robot-minded cadre of zealots (jack-booted thugs?) who are so eager to accept their ego inflating mercenary assignments that accountability is simply not on their list of concerns?
To those sadly afflicted souls, still in bondage to corrupted governments today: wise reflection on the personal consequences of obedience to unjust orders may seem for the moment to be an expensive luxury, but it will no doubt bear peaceable fruit when truth and righteousness are restored. Courage. Sometimes “he who hesitates” is not “lost,” but rather is very wise. Let’s look before we leap. As we are later admonished by another of Yahshua’s disciples, Paul: “…though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any ‘good news’ other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema.” And so even though a heavenly vision seemingly encouraged Kepha to defile himself, three times, he wisely exercised restraint and caution. And so in mercy, Yahweh soon revealed the re-affirmation, as Torah itself says, that those of the other nations can and will be cleansed, to be acceptable to Yahweh. And so in analogy, as it was in Gen.22:2, so also in Acts 10; in both cases, a seemingly grievous order, defiant of reason, prefaces not the need to apostatize, but the need to remember Torah, and in the end, see old truth made new again.
Not that we can fault Yahweh for showing Kepha the vision and the words, for it was not, of course, explicitly stated that the unclean things had been somehow, inexplicably, miraculously, wondrously, cleansed for human food, although apparently the implication was there. Nor can we fault Yahweh for testing Avraham as he did, for similarly, it was not explicitly stated that Avraham should kill, sacrifice, or immolate his son, (acts, which if executed, no doubt would have grieved the spirits of all the holy ones) yet, arguably, the implication there, too, was apparent. So the “potter” did with the “clay” as he saw fit, and we need to give Yahweh the glory, for concerning Avraham, or any other man, he cannot be more pure than his maker, nor should we try to pretend that he is so. As it is written, “he that loves father (Avraham?) or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and he who loves son (Yitschak?) or daughter more than me is not worthy of me…” And so is it not imperative, that even at the expense of the reputation of any man, Yahweh must be given the glory? And that, of course, is the aim of this writing.
And so what did Avraham prepare to do? Three things, in a progression: from pleasing, through neutral, to displeasing to Yahweh: one done in obedience, one done voluntarily, and one left undone. Yitschak was caused, in obedience, to ascend the mount, Moriah. The binding and placing up on the altar we have no explicit command for, as also the bringing to location of fire, knife, and wood, and may fairly guess that they were all voluntary. (An interesting question: we have no record of a command for Avraham to bring up fire or knife, but what then would have happened to the ram caught in the thicket without them? Perhaps even greater glories, and fire from heaven?) Avraham had been called up with Yitschak in anticipation of an ascending offering, but the details were vague. Surely though, to the pure in heart, an act of simple obedience would have sufficed to please Yahweh, for whom nothing is too wonderful. The third thing, also not explicitly commanded, the slaughter and immolation, was later forbidden, and remained “undone.”
This last “thing” could have violated the law of redemption, definitely would have violated Yahweh’s most recent will as expressed by the angel, and based on Yir-m’yahw (Jeremiah’s real name) 32:35 was probably never Yahweh’s intention at all. One may ask an academic question: “Would it have been out of order for Avraham to have asked Yahweh to clarify instructions, and to affirm the accuracy of his perceptions of their meaning?” One may remember the admonition, and perhaps use it as a guide, “if in doubt, ask your Rav.” (Rav—a term often used to indicate someone else’s Rabbi)
And as in another example of faithfulness, let us consider the blessed Queen-to-be Esther (Esther 2:15), who could have taken anything her heart desired with her to entertain the king, Achashwerosh. But what did she take? Only what Hegai her guardian appointed; nothing more, nothing less. And what did Yahweh appoint for Avraham? “Take now your son…” Of the written record of torah, we have nothing more, nothing less. Would it not therefore have been reasonable for Avraham to take only what he had been instructed to take with him to Moriah, namely, his son Yitschak? Or since he volunteered to take fire, knife, and wood, in addition to bringing his son as commanded, would it have been unreasonable then to have also volunteered to bring a lamb? Glory, please, to Yahweh!
We wish to please our father above, obey his laws in perfect love, but how deep would the reproof cut; his answer—“You thought I said... WHAT???”
O Yahweh, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy praise. For thou desirest not zevach; else would I give it: thou delightest not in olah. The sacrifices of Elohim are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O Elohim, thou wilt not despise. Do good in thy good pleasure unto Tsion: build thou the walls of Y’rushalaiim. Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, ascending and whole: then shall they offer bullocks, upon thine altar. (Psalm 51:15-19, by Dawidh hamelech; translation courtesy of the good psalmaritan)
next…
Praise Is Comely…
Index to all 7 segments of "After The Last Trial"
After the Last Trial ; an overview of the Akedah, “ looking beneath the surface”
Yahweh’s Private “Turf”; remaining within our prerogative, deference to Yahweh
Akedah!; .............................. remember, Yahweh chose the words
Torah on Guard! ; lechaiim! (to life) renouncing the “covenant with death”!
Just Following Orders? why not just follow the instructions? .
Praise Is Comely; a refining pot for silver,…and a man according to his praises…
Give Glory to Yahweh!; …”can’t we all just give Glory to Yahweh?”...