-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Abraham and Isaac
- Thread starter The Revolting Man
- Start date
- Status
Yep! Well said Fred. Ive yet to find the passage that says that God, the Instructor, is bound by the Instruction. Heard lots of assumptions masquerading as logic, but no smoking gun yet.
I'm not going there either. Those quotation marks around "listening to God" mean everything. I'm certainly aware that Christendom has a plague of people who go approaching God looking for an answer to something and will take literally anything that happens or anything they feel or any stray thought that pops up as an answer which they expected to receive immediately. Whenever I hear "The Lord told me X, Y, and Z" I always make the attempt to not be cynical because my basic assumption is that they had a strong feeling that they should do X,Y, and Z and took it to be the very mystical leading of the Holy Spirit. I'm also aware of "listening techniques" that approach self hypnosis and divination, all in an effort to (as it were) force God into speaking to them in the time and place of their choosing by "attentive listening". I can hardly consider any of that. I don't even like the idea of casting lots in most cases, because I fear too much presenting the Lord with a handful of choices of my own design, and trying to force Him to work a miracle to stay my foolish hand. I have nothing whatsoever to do with "listening to God".
Now, if I were at prayer on the third day of a fast, and I hear the voice of the Lord with my actual ears deliver a message that I could write down word for word; I would not be at all in fear that I was "listening to God". At the moment I am merely listening to God. And I should not be shocked if the message does not square with my understanding of scripture. Isaac, right? Cooking over human poop, right? Bathing in the Jordan, right? Rise, Kill, and eat, right? Ye have heard that a man who divorces his wife must give her a certificate, right?
God has a true tendency for commanding things that will shock, annoy, perplex, or revolt His worshipers. And well He might; because His worshipers are often a thick headed bunch. If He commands me to do something that would be wrong for me to do, or cause me to be defiled in any way, yet I can still trust Him. If I object like Ezekiel, I might well expect Him to allow a substitute. If I obey like Abraham I can expect that He will stay my hand before I do something I can't take back.
The contradiction between what He says to me, (perceived or actual) and what I understand scripture to mean is almost assuredly there to elicit an emotional reaction that will underscore the precept that He's intending for me to have carved into my soul. And the Lord is clever. Clever is a thing He invented. If He wants me to be shocked and bowel shakingly disturbed, I will be. He knows His word way better than I do. I don't expect that I will understand the lesson until after I've obeyed. Abraham was about to put knife to child before His will was known. God did not want Isaac to be killed, and intended to stay Abraham's hand, but Abraham didn't know that. God told him "now I know that you fear Me, for you have not withheld your son from Me". He did not say "Now I know that you know me pretty well and can see through all of my cheeky shenanigans, so that at no time did you think you were going to have to do something truly abominable out of raw obedience"
You receive the BF Pulitzer for that one. Bravo!
But, I must clarify that I'm not saying that I can't listen to God when I see a possible contradiction to how I interpret or have been taught to interpret scripture. I mean point blank contrary to scripture. If I said God told me to divorce my faithful wife, become a Sodomite, while selling crack to little kids in Ethiopia, wouldn't you tell me to check my receiving device for God's messaging service?
Remember, most of us here were not raised in the ideas of polygyny. We had to let the spirit of God guide us...through SCRIPTURE...to show us a more perfect way.
But, I must clarify that I'm not saying that I can't listen to God when I see a possible contradiction to how I interpret or have been taught to interpret scripture. I mean point blank contrary to scripture. If I said God told me to divorce my faithful wife, become a Sodomite, while selling crack to little kids in Ethiopia, wouldn't you tell me to check my receiving device for God's messaging service?
Remember, most of us here were not raised in the ideas of polygyny. We had to let the spirit of God guide us...through SCRIPTURE...to show us a more perfect way.
"Allowed" doesn't mean that He will violate His own character, however. He could have whacked the 'nacash' ("serpent") and ended Adam 'n Eve in Genesis 3, too, but "knew the end from the Beginning" and had His reasons for playing by His own Rules. We see that consistently, from Job to His process for t'shuvah and redemption. A whole lotta hassle if He intended to just change the rules of His universe willy-nilly.
There's a far more consistent explanation. Most here recognize that "Thou shalt not kill" is really not a great translation of the Hebrew word better rendered "slay". Self-defense is clearly not "slaying". Killing every last Hittite, Perizzite, etc, in the land of Canaan was ultimately commanded ('for cause') and that was obviously not "murder", either.
Again, discernment of His true "Instruction" requires us to look deeper. It is what we see as "contradictions" in those instructions that really aren't that give us the ability to mature in our understanding.
(Hint, I suggest. We are appointed as a consequence of Rebellion to Him, Gen. 3, 'once to die'. But the timing is, was, remains, His prerogative, and not ours.)
PS> The "rebellious son" chuq is a Whole 'Nuther Thang...
there's a reason it's colloquially referred to as the 'Commandment that has never been executed.' But it's a great deterrent...
Last edited:
Oh yeah, for sure. Although my tendency is to believe that is I'm praying to the Father and seeking His face, if I have a vision or audible voice, it will be from Him. If we ask Him for an egg, He will not give us a serpent. I also take that to mean if we seek His face He will not substitute LITERAL SATAN.
In the above case, after I've triple checked my receiving device, I wouldn't just haul off and get a dope dealing boyfriend. I would say something like "Not so, Lord, Thou knowest I have kept my body pure that I might serve you in all simplicity"
After all, if Peter can be stubborn about his diet, I'm sure balking at utter degeneracy will not catch God by surprise.
I find I upset a lot of people because I take scripture literally. I always belevied that submission to God's will always supersedes mosaic law.
Unless the Mosaic Law was God's Will which isn't a completely absurd thought since He did deliver it in person from atop a flaming mountain surrounded in smoke and literally etched in stone by His Own hand. I'm sure smarter people than me will know why that means it was actually takesies backsies day but I have to admit that the sheer pageantry of it all leaves quite the impression of permanence on me.
I totally agree that and thanks for clarifying. Blessings.
I agree with part of Mosaic Law coming directly from God. Then you have to look at the parts of the law that came from Traditions.
1 Peter 1:18
18 knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold
Mathew 15:9
9 in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”
I have been struggling to separate the will of God from the traditions of man.
Very good. And very important! It was, I contend, PRECISELY why Yahushua was so SPECIFIC, starting from His 'first public address' on the Mount (Matthew chapters 5-7, et al) to distinguish what "Is Written" from what, as He noted repeatedly, "you have HEARD it SAID". Not the same.
That goes for the "traditions of men" (Mark chapter 7, Matthew chapter 23) for which He explicitly called those who "added to" His Word "hypocrites". (Because if they were such great 'teachers', why didn't they do what the Instruction said, at least twice: Deuteronomy 4:2, and 12:32?)
Arguably, the same goes for the 'church' today, which tends to focus at least as much on "subtracting from" as adding-to. (Think, His moedim, or the Appointed Times of YHVH, that He said to keep forever, "throughout your generations," and "in ALL your dwelling places!")
Once you see that the Messiah could NOT have "done away with the law" -- else He would have been a liar -- the rest of His actions that are often 'twisted' make a lot more sense; from picking up grain left for the poor on the Sabbath, to healing (there is no prohibition as doing mitzvot, or good deeds, on any day, especially His Sabbath), even to whacking on people who brought the abomination of "dishonest weights/'money'" into His temple.
It's even obvious why He never changed His own commandments about Covenant and marriage, either.
There is no doubt about that. But I believe you may be conflating the inaccurately styled Mosaic Law (which was God's Law) with rabbinical law which may or may not of had merit but was a tradition of men and should be viewed with skepticism. As should all traditions of men.
I believe you are correct. What I was talking about is the oral laws that I've read and been told go all the way back to the time of Moses I think there called Mishnah. The way it was explained to me was that they were used to explain Mosaic law. At one point I was told they were part of Mosaic Law though now I know that is wrong. I had to look it up for myself. I've been lazy for so long and just excepted what I've been told that sometimes I forget to double and triple check everything.
I don't have a problem with those oral laws traditions for the most part. I just don't treat them like scripture. In my home we try to do what is described in scripture without adding to it yet. We're new to all of this though and I would expect that we will develop or adopt traditions surrounding it all ourselves.
I feel that I have to lead my family according to God's Will without the influence the traditons, doctrines and customs that were condemned in the gospels. I understand, although I don't necessarily like it, that we'd probably develop traditions of our own. I would perfer just to follow God's will alone. That is without anybodies interpitation not even my own. The problem in that is I lack the wisdom to see the difference, even though I'm learning. Therefore I have to seek the wisdom of others, take what is shared, and see if God confirms it.
And for the most part I agree, Zec. That was, of course, "the rub," in many cases (both houses; roman paganism enforced similar 'traditions of men,' often under threat of death.)
Here's the "case in point" that helped clarify it for me. Saw it in Fiddler on the Roof. Wonderful tradition, both my wives used to do it -- lighting Sabbath candles. But look carefully at the prayers:
בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה אַדֹנָ-י אֱ-לֹהֵינוּ מֶלֶךְ הָעוֹלָם אֲשֶׁר קִדְּשָׁנוּ בְּמִצְוֹתָיו וְצִוָּנוּ לְהַדְלִיק נֵר שֶׁל שַׁבָּת קֹדֶשׁ
Transliteration: Baruch A-tah Ado-nai E-lo-hei-nu Me-lech Ha-olam A-sher Ki-de-sha-nu Be-mitz-vo-tav Ve-tzi-va-nu Le-had-lik Ner Shel Sha-bbat Ko-desh.
Translation: Blessed are You, Lord our G‑d, King of the universe, who has sanctified us with His commandments, and [Who has] commanded us to kindle the light of the holy Shabbat.
Trouble is, it was NOT YHVH Who 'commanded' the lighting of those candles! It was 'the rabbis' [Pharisees].
There's even a pretty rational explanation for it. After all, if you can't "kindle" a fire after sundown on Erev Shabbat, it'd be good to have some candles pre-lit.
But let's not kid ourselves: YHVH did NOT 'command' it. (We lost the prayer once that became clear.)
- Status