nshamah’s posterous

we are God's "divine inspiration" 
« Back to blog

Sacrificing Children

Where did we get the idea that we needed to offer something up to God?

 Though God gives guidelines and instructions for sacrifice, it appears that He is not the author of offering.

 The first children mentioned in the Bible - Cain and Abel - grow into men and take up a trade.  Cain becomes a farmer, Abel raises livestock.  And then, without any reasoning as to why, the two men offer up a portion of their earnings to God.

 Generations later, men have veered so far off God's intended plan for them that they break His heart.  And He wishes that men had never been created.  Long story short, God finds one man - Noah - who is still honorable and saves his family from a flood that wipes out the entire Earth.  After the waters recede, again (with no provocation from God) a burnt offering is given to God in appreciation for His grace and mercy upon Noah's family.

 Many years pass, and we find Abraham.  God tells Abraham that He will makes his ancestors into a mighty nation if he follows God into a new land.  And each time God leads Abraham to another checkpoint, a sacrifice is made.

  Still, God has yet to make any demands for an offering to Himself.

 At the same time, followers of a god named Molech were also making sacrifices to their god.  However, these were no mere offerings of crops or livestock - these were human sacrifices.  To show allegiance and appreciation to Molech, the people offered their most prized possession, their baby boys and baby girls.  A statue was made of Molech with his hands outward, awaiting to receive his gifts.  This idol was heated from within so that the babies would be burned to death, and drums would be played as fathers threw their children to Molech in order to drown out the screams of the dying babies.  [The picture displays this event]

 Then, for the first time, God asks for a sacrifice - He asks Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac.

 For Abraham, child sacrifice was nothing new in his day and time.  So he takes his son and makes a three day journey to the top of a mountain where he is to sacrifice Isaac.  When Abraham reaches the peak, he builds an altar, places Isaac on top of that altar, and begins to offer up his most prized possession to his God.

  Suddenly, an angel appears and says, "Stop!  Do not sacrifice your son.  God is pleased with your obedience."

  In this instance, God is setting Himself apart from all the other gods of the world.  He does not need anything.  He does not need your children, your cattle, your crops.  God's grace and mercy are not dependent upon what your bring Him.

  Paul puts it this way: "Human hands can’t serve [God's] needs—for He has no needs. He Himself gives life and breath to everything, and He satisfies every need."

  God doesn't need anything from us.  Rather, the sacrifice that God desires from us is for us to "do what is right, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with [Him]."

  God would later go on to set up a system of sacrifices, but this was for our sake, not His.  He doesn't need our offerings, but we need to offer them.  We are born with an inherent need/desire in our soul to sacrifice.  This is how we express gratitude, appreciation, and - more than anything else - repentence.  This is evidenced in Cain and Abel, Noah, and Abraham - all sacrificed without God's prompting.

  But this first system that God set up was not complete.  It still left us reminded of our shortcomings - people would repent in their hearts, but remained stuck in guilt until yet another sacrifice could be made.

  In fact, the author of Hebrews tells us that "The sacrifices under that system were repeated again and again, year after year, but they were never able to provide perfect cleansing for those who came to worship. If they could have provided perfect cleansing, the sacrifices would have stopped, for the worshipers would have been purified once for all time, and their feelings of guilt would have disappeared."

  And here we are.  We need to sacrifice to get rid of our guilt, and God wants us to live free from guilt (once we have repented in our hearts), so He makes a sacrifice on our behalf.

  God makes a sacrifice on our behalf.  And this sacrifice is so great, so revolutionary, that when we accept His offering, we are able to live freely - no more guilt holding us back, no more attempting to gain God's approval through offerings.  We are free to live as God intended: with our hearts, minds, and souls as the only sacrifices God desires.

  And all it took was the sacrifice of a son.

 

Comments (11)

Dec 19, 2008
Trey Lyon said...
hmm....somebody's been watching "the gods aren't angry"...it's beautiful really. when we were there, I wish he would have gone just a bit further on the whole covenant thing, but I know he was under pretty tight time constraints.

it turns out this is a pattern in the whole Abraham narrative--YHWH always distinguishing himself from the other gods...as rob points out, it's not revolutionary that Abraham sacrifice his kid--that's just what you did in that culture. most modern sermons focus on the existential anguish of Abraham while missing the point that YHWH is setting himself up on a totally different level than the other gods.

check out the whole "covenant narrative" in genesis 15:

YHWH tells Abram to cut the animals in two. in near eastern cultures, people making a covenant would do this and then walk between it, one holding a torch and the other a censer, or something to sprinkle the blood. as they walked to the end of the "aisle" they created, one would say "if I don't keep my end of this covenant, may it be unto me as it is to these animals." on the return trip, the other party would say that.

then notice where Abram is when he sees the firepot and the censer. up an a hill. asleep. he sees things moving but no form.

YHWH's covenant is not conditional. he will demand the allegiance of his people, but won't expect it. he knows they'll (we'll) be unfaithful. in fact, not only does he know we'll be unfaithful, he puts HIS integrity on the line, functionally saying "Abram, if I don't do this, may it be unto me as it is to these animals."

the book of Genesis is YHWH making his case for being the God of Israel. and he never, never, never gives up.

good post man :)

Dec 20, 2008
David Henson said...
Or, maybe, the desert bleached Abraham's brain a funny color and he thought he heard God telling him to do that. And, all the time, God is speaking through Isaac, who is saying, hesitantly, "Hey, where's this sacrifice?"

And, it takes a bloody angel staying Abraham's hand to keep him from going completely crazy.

And, then, when Sarah finds out about it, her heart breaks and she dies.

I don't find a lot of hope in this passage, unfortunately. And I shudder to think that this event has been credited to Abraham "by faith."

Dec 20, 2008
Trey Lyon said...
I feel the tension there David. Maybe it's misogyny, but I never read Sarah sympathetically. I've got more love for Hagar than her, and while her heart would break, I've always thought she'd just cuss out Abraham.

I think the hope isn't in the text as much as it's in the community behind the text. Admitting there are more than a few ways to look at it the text, I don't think it's so much about what "God" is or isn't saying. I think it's more about how Israel saw it and recorded it. They're God didn't require it. To us, it's barbaric, but to them, it was a HUGE step forward. The fact that they could envision a world where the gods didn't require those kinds of sacrifices was/is revolutionary, and incredibly hopeful.

Dec 20, 2008
David Henson said...
I've got more love for Hagar, too. But, in this case, I've got more love for Sarah than for Abraham.

My take is that the system of sacrifices god sets up later is related to this instance. God doesn't demand sacrifices. Humans demand to sacrifice to god. The sacrifices are meant to slake our bloodlust, not God's.

So, in my eyes, God doesn't send Jesus to be sacrificed for our sins. God sends Jesus to show us how to live in love and community. We sacrificed Jesus for our sins.

Dec 20, 2008
David Henson said...
But, your take is probably more historically and theologlically accurate. :)
Dec 20, 2008
David Henson said...
You wouldn't happen to know Stephen Ingram would you? I went to undergrad with him and I think you guys might have been contemporaries in seminary.

Just curious.

Dec 20, 2008
Trey Lyon said...
yeah! steven is a great guy--we didn't have a whole lot of classes together, save one--suffering and evil--it was a blast, as weird as that sounds. I haven't talked to him in awhile--we used to run into each other on summer youth trips.

I'm with you--I think there's HUGE problems with traditional models of atonement. I also think the sacrificial system was bad for the Hebrews, hence trying a sort of de-volution of the system. I think Paul just hosed us by picking up on that metaphor to pacify the Jewish audience he was trying to convert.

A friend of mine doing PhD. work and I always argue b/c at McAfee we did philosophical theology, for lack of knowing where to go in a post-systematic era. not that barth and moltmann don't wrestle with that stuff, but they could only go so far within the institutional church. Our professor used W. Paul Jones Theological Worlds and I found that to be helpful--speaking more categorically of atonement--seperation/reunion--alien/warrior/outcast/refugee.

I think that's where Girard helps out a lot. I wish there were more of a school within his time to give some more historic legitimacy to that pursuit...

man, I miss this stuff...

Dec 22, 2008
Joe Turner said...
But this begs the question, if the sacrifice was always for man (rather than to pacify an angry God), then how does that fit with our understanding of the atonement?
Dec 22, 2008
Trey Lyon said...
I think that's a fair question. Some cite Hebrews and Corinthians as making the case for sacrificing as a concrete action to ease the conscience. This seems to track with the prophets, which Jesus reminds the people of--"go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'"

Humanity desires absolution always. Just try to give something to someone. They'd rather not receive it. they feel indebted, impotent, helpless. Brennan Manning really helps when you're talking about receiving this grace. It's absolutely free, but it can take you prisoner if you keep trying to atone for yourself.

Also, Matt Thiessen of Relient K says it quite well "The beauty of grace is it makes life not fair."

Dec 22, 2008
Joe Turner said...
This is dangerous thinking, but I like it :)

I don't think God ever needs sacrifice - what is one life to him? Sacrifice has always been about the person not God.

As you say, we need to know that repentance costs something. Basically because something that costs nothing is worth nothing. If our repentance costs us something of great value (eg a perfect lamb to someone in an agricultural community), we might actually remember and apply ourselves to the change.

But when we try and apply this to the atonement, we get into some choppy water. God doesn't actually need a sacrifice to forgive sin. He can - if he wants - just forgive it. Hence the sacrifice is more about people than about God. Therefore the message moves away from 'You're so evil that God had to give his own Son on your behalf' and towards 'if you want to be Godly, here is your perfect example - you must take up your cross and follow wherever it leads, even when that is the death of a thief'.

Leave a comment...

 
Got an account with one of these? Login here, or just enter your comment below.
Posterous-login    Connect    twitter