Here’s the challenge in Genesis 22, and don’t rush your reading of this text please. Feel what you feel. Think what you think. Wonder in your wonders. Gen. 22:1 After these things God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.”
"Israel’s God approves “vigorous” prayer, that is, prayers that engage back and forths with God." - I've noticed this in the Bible. I don't think I've ever seen a Christian negotiate with God the way that some OT characters did. So do you think God wanted Abraham to argue back and say "Hey, this is not a good idea!" God provided a lamb but - was he hoping Abraham would have asked for one? This does seem like God, that God wanted plan A but Abraham didn't realize he could have said "Hey God, you gave me this son, it makes no sense to ask for him back already!", and even so God gave him a plan B and told him to stop just in time. It's interesting that God didn't say "look, there's a ram over there". He just said "Stop!" - Abraham still has to find the ram and decide to use it instead of Isaac. Anyway, I shudder about the collateral damage caused to Isaac by Abraham not questioning God. Did they have to have years of father/son therapy after Abraham bound Isaac and literally stood over him with a knife? Should they have had? And speaking of silence, why didn't Isaac complain about this plan to Abraham? Was it because he was raised in a 'don't talk back' household, in which Abraham doesn't question God and Isaac is not allowed to object to Abraham's very cruel and weird plan? Does this incident have repercussions later with Isaac and his own children? Later on Isaac loves Esau because he gets tasty game to eat. That's not a very spiritual reason is it? Anyway Scot, unless I missed it, everything you said about the book (which does sound intriguing) is about people who protest vigorously to God. You didn't say what it says about Abraham. But maybe that's the point - you want us to read it for ourselves!
"Middleton, with others, refuses the “greater good” theory that evil is real but there’s a greater good in God’s plan." Not meaning to be obtuse, but how does this statement square with the idea of the victory of the cross and the resurrection?
Whoa! This is deep water! I'm sitting here thinking about all the ways I've rationalized this issue over the years! But it happens that I've been back thinking about this before you raised the issue, Scot, and so I'll risk scorn by what I'm again thinking at this point about Job and Abraham and what they faced. it begins with the apostle John's assertion that God is in very essence LOVE and it moves back to Genesis 2 and our creation in the image of God (which includes the love for God and for others as a part of our creation, built into our DNA but debatable?). We often ignore the fact that there were TWO significant trees side-by-side in Eden giving the first pair a choice of trees as well as a second choice about loving God or questioning God's demand. That test was important (even essential) with the first pair and it was essential whenever God was taking a major risk with anyone else. In Abraham's case, two loves were in play and with Gen 12:1-3 in the picture, a lot was riding on how Abraham responded. I know I'm jumping around a lot here and I should have simply passed on today's challenge. So I'll stop before I get into even deeper water. But bottom line: it's all about God's very nature as LOVE and our creation in the divine image - something that in times of crisis and change could be challenged.
"Israel’s God approves “vigorous” prayer, that is, prayers that engage back and forths with God." - I've noticed this in the Bible. I don't think I've ever seen a Christian negotiate with God the way that some OT characters did. So do you think God wanted Abraham to argue back and say "Hey, this is not a good idea!" God provided a lamb but - was he hoping Abraham would have asked for one? This does seem like God, that God wanted plan A but Abraham didn't realize he could have said "Hey God, you gave me this son, it makes no sense to ask for him back already!", and even so God gave him a plan B and told him to stop just in time. It's interesting that God didn't say "look, there's a ram over there". He just said "Stop!" - Abraham still has to find the ram and decide to use it instead of Isaac. Anyway, I shudder about the collateral damage caused to Isaac by Abraham not questioning God. Did they have to have years of father/son therapy after Abraham bound Isaac and literally stood over him with a knife? Should they have had? And speaking of silence, why didn't Isaac complain about this plan to Abraham? Was it because he was raised in a 'don't talk back' household, in which Abraham doesn't question God and Isaac is not allowed to object to Abraham's very cruel and weird plan? Does this incident have repercussions later with Isaac and his own children? Later on Isaac loves Esau because he gets tasty game to eat. That's not a very spiritual reason is it? Anyway Scot, unless I missed it, everything you said about the book (which does sound intriguing) is about people who protest vigorously to God. You didn't say what it says about Abraham. But maybe that's the point - you want us to read it for ourselves!
"Middleton, with others, refuses the “greater good” theory that evil is real but there’s a greater good in God’s plan." Not meaning to be obtuse, but how does this statement square with the idea of the victory of the cross and the resurrection?
Whoa! This is deep water! I'm sitting here thinking about all the ways I've rationalized this issue over the years! But it happens that I've been back thinking about this before you raised the issue, Scot, and so I'll risk scorn by what I'm again thinking at this point about Job and Abraham and what they faced. it begins with the apostle John's assertion that God is in very essence LOVE and it moves back to Genesis 2 and our creation in the image of God (which includes the love for God and for others as a part of our creation, built into our DNA but debatable?). We often ignore the fact that there were TWO significant trees side-by-side in Eden giving the first pair a choice of trees as well as a second choice about loving God or questioning God's demand. That test was important (even essential) with the first pair and it was essential whenever God was taking a major risk with anyone else. In Abraham's case, two loves were in play and with Gen 12:1-3 in the picture, a lot was riding on how Abraham responded. I know I'm jumping around a lot here and I should have simply passed on today's challenge. So I'll stop before I get into even deeper water. But bottom line: it's all about God's very nature as LOVE and our creation in the divine image - something that in times of crisis and change could be challenged.