Akidah: Genesis / Beresh'it 22 - The Binding of Isaac

[simchat_torah]

This is a bit lengthy, even with my efforts to keep it short, but it is a very interesting subject and I think is worth your prayerful consideration. Rebuttal is encouraged.

"Jesus died to save our sins," the evangelist tells us. "Accept Jesus, and you are absolutely guaranteed salvation. Reject Jesus, and you are just as sure to inherit damnation!" The Jew is often asked, "Since sacrifices are no longer offered in Judaism, where do you expect to find G-d's grace?" His answer might be that sacrifice was never the focus but rather repentance and teshuvah, or that prayer is the sacrifice offered. If you examine Jewish liturgy, you find that the Jews seek pardon from G-d daily, and more especially in the observance of Rosh haShanah and Yom Kippur, the high holy days. Judaism teaches that no man can presume to be without sin, and therefore we all come to ask for forgiveness above and beyond the measure of justice. Yet in the liturgy, again and again we mention "the binding of Isaac" as a cause for G-d to forgive our sins.

What is the binding of Isaac? Since most people are familiar with the text, I will summarize it here. The L-rd calls upon Abraham and asks him to take his son Isaac and offer him as a sacrifice upon Mount Moriah. Abraham follows G-d's command and is just about to slay his son when he is stopped and told to do the boy no harm. A ram is found caught in thicket and is offered in Isaac's stead. The lesson the Jews have derived from this story is that G-d does not wish to have human offerings made to him as sacrifice. The lesson the christians derive is that G-d provides the substitute that we are incapable of providing ourselves.

While the story may be simple and straight forward, the text is fraught with questions.





quote: "and it came to pass after these things that G-d tested Abraham ..."

Why does an omnipotent G-d have to test? After all, he knows the answer ahead of time, or he is not omnipotent. Since Abraham had been told by G-d Himself:





quote: ...for in Isaac shall thy seed be named...

-- the faithful Abraham knew for a certainty that G-d would not go back on his word! Thus, the very idea of a 'test' becomes meaningless. The answer may lie in a change in the English text, based on a different translation of the Hebrew word "tested" (Nisa). If we accept the root of the word not as "n.s.h." but rather "n.s.", we see the word "ness - banner." Then the verse reads:





quote: And it came to pass after these things that the L-rd raised Abraham as a banner...

..which is to say, G-d made the faith of Abraham an object lesson for mankind.

Consider, if you please: G-d is going to make a special example of the man of faith, Abraham. How will he do it? Surely not by having him go up a mountain with no witnesses other than an "interested party" and there be stopped from making a sacrifice offering! G-d Himself spoke to Abraham and told him to offer his son, Isaac. Once the son was upon the altar, the angel of G-d spoke to Abraham and said, "Lay not your hand upon the lad." What is the significance of this added feature to the story? Would Abraham allow a mere angel to countermand the instruction of the Almighty G-d? I don't think so. Maybe THAT was the test, if there was one -- do you know my voice? Can another persuade you away from me? There are several other instances in Scripture where G-d uses angels in an adversarial position.

I present the following points in considering the text:

(1) Abraham spies the ram in the thicket. The text says in Hebrew, "A'yil ahar" which means either 'another ram' or 'an afterram'. Either way, Abraham offered the ram "tahat bno" -- which literally means UNDER his son! In all fairness, it CAN also mean, "in the place of." Check out all the verses in scripture where it is used as "under." You'll see many interesting correlations.

(2) The text says, "So Abraham returned to his young men..." Had Isaac been spared, one would expect that the text would have mentioned his name, or at least the plural, "they returned."

(3) What does the text say concerning the death of Sarah?





quote: And Abraham came to mourn for Sarah and to weep for her....

Surely if Isaac had been alive, as the only child of the woman he would have come to mourn for her.

(4) The matter of the servant Eliezer going to get a wife "for my son, for Isaac," does not harm the thesis. Abraham believed G-d's promises to come through Isaac, and his faith in G-d's ability to resurrect the dead made him aware that there was still part of the promise left undone. Abraham was doing his part to prepare for the promise to be fulfilled.

(5) The text continues





quote: ...and Isaac came from the way of the well 'laha'y ro'i' ...

Beer lahay ro'i is translated, "The well of Life of Him who sees me" , which is to say the place where G-d resurrects to life. There is in traditional Judaism a constant reference to G-d as He who resurrects the dead. It is spoken in the Amidah and is the central theme of Rosh haShanah. Note that the term used is in the present tense, not the future or future conditional, not "who will resurrect" or "who could resurrect."

When Rebecca saw Isaac, she FELL off her camel. This was a strong woman, capable of watering many camels, an accomplished rider no doubt. What did she see that surprised her so?

(6) Why did Isaac not play a part in finding his bride? Why did Eliezer have to clue him in on everything?





quote: ... And the servant told Isaac all the things that he had done.

(7) Is it not strange that the very same young man who did not bother to come to his mother's funeral is now said to be suddenly grief stricken and recovering from his bereavement?





quote: ...and Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent and took Rebecca and she became his wife; and he loved her; and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death

For those of you who require "new testament" corroboration, let's examine the Greek in Hebrews 11, the chapter that speaks of the faith of Abraham.

1. Verse 12



quote: Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born as the stars of the sky in multitude....

The words "as good as" are not in the Greek text. They were imposed by the translators because they, like myself, took for granted that the angel successfully stopped the sacrifice of Isaac.

The Greek reads Kai tauta Nenekromenou, which should be translated, "having been put to death."

2. Verse 13



quote: all these died in faith...

The Greek word "Pistei" occurs two dozen times in the chapter and is translated "by faith." There is a change in verse 13 to "Kata Pistein." The preposition "Kata" means "in contrast to" or "in opposition" to something. So the verse should read, "All these died against the faith."

All these what died against the faith? All these people? No! The word "these" in the Greek is "pantes," which occurs in the neuter gender which means all these PROMISES died when Isaac died:

a. the promise of Abraham's progeny being as numerous as the sand of the sea,

b. the promise of the reconciliation of the gentiles, the strangers and pilgrims from afar off,

c. the promise of a country, Eretz Yisrael, and a city with foundations built by G-d.

So all the rambling verses from Hebrews 11b-16 are directly related to Isaac's sacrifice. Not only was Abraham asked to sacrifice his only son whom he loved, which was all his past and present, he was asked to sacrifice all the future promises.

3. Hebrews 11:17



quote: By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac, and he that received the promise offered up his only begotten son

Twice in one verse it states that Abraham offered up Isaac. However, in the Greek they are not the same words. One of them is proseferan, which means a holocaust or cremation. "Afer" is Hebrew for ashes. Abraham had faith that G-d would keep the promises He made through Isaac, and by his power he could even raise Isaac up from the Ashes.



quote: ...accounting that G-d was able to raise him up, even from the dead...

4. Abraham called the name of the place "Jehovah Jirah" according to the King James. This name does not in the slightest way suggest "G-d will provide" as the christian commentators indicate. The phrase is Adonay-Yi-Raeh. It means, "The L-rd will look (stare) upon this place." On Yom Kippur, the Jew prays to G-d, "When you look upon the ashes of Isaac, forgive us our sins."

-------------

There is ALOT more to the story. Every word, every verse has valuable information, but I tried very hard to "hit the high spots" without the length being burdensome. Thank you.

[simchat_torah]

The rabbis taught that the binding of Issac was more than that of a "near death experience." Traditional literature has a story in which Isaac actually died of terror while bound upon the altar and was revived by the voice from heaven telling his father to stray the knife (Pirke de Rabbie Eliezer 31). With this thought, Isaac's death was a reality, and his life from that point on became a resurrection life. A variation of that tradition tells us that Isaac was burned to ashes upon the altar but then was resurrected to life. (Roesenberg pg. 387) The belief that Isaac was resurrected and that his death brought atonement and forgiveness to Israel is held by a minority of rabbis (Canticles Rabbah 1:14). But is still argued to this day.

The Mekhilta identifies the blood of the Pesach lamb with the blood of Isaac (Mekhilta 8a, ed. Lauterbach, tractate Piska, chap. 7, pg. 57) and in another work the daily morning and evening sacrafices in the Temple were spoken of as memorials of the offering of Isaac (Leviicus Rabbah 2).

This thought can also be found in an ancient paraphrase of Leviticus 22:27, "The lamb was chosen (as the sacrificial animal) to recall the merit of Abraham who bound himself upon the altar and stretched out his neck for the sake of HaShem."

The Jewish writers fo the Brit Chadasha echoed this traditional belief, as they spoke of Isaac as a type of Moshiach. The author of Hebrews wrote, "He (Abraham) considered that God is able to raise men from the dead; from which he also received him back as a type."-Hebrews 11:19

With all of this under consideration, it no longer is fanciful fascination as to whether or not Isaac was actually offered up that day. But either way, we know of the prophetic tale it tells. Yet it remains a mystery to be solved, and to me is more fascinating if it were true.

Shalom,
Yafet

[simchat_torah]

Shibbole ha-Leket (13th c.)

When Father Isaac was bound on the altar and reduced to ashes and his sacrificial dust was cast onto Mount Moriah...

[simchat_torah]

Rabbi W. Gunther Plaut:



There was...a remarkable tradition that insisted that Abraham completed the sacrifice and that afterward Isaac was miraculously revived....According to this haggadah, Abraham slew his son, burnt his victim, and the ashes remain as a stored-up merit and atonement for Israel in all generations. --The Torah: A Modern Commentary (New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1981), p. 151 n. 5.

[simchat_torah]

Genesis 22 is the story. You'll notice that when the angel of the L-RD comes to Abraham, he doesn't tell him not to kill him. He says, "Do not lay your hand on the lad or do anything to him." So the angel is actually telling Abraham not to TOUCH him. He goes on to say, "Because you have done this thing," so perhaps Isaac has already been offered by the time the angel speaks. This makes me think of another verse:




quote:
JOHN 20:17 - Yeshua said to her, Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my father...

This may connect with Leviticus 7:21

quote:
LEV 7:21 - Moreover the person who touches any unclean thing such as human uncleanness, any unclean beast...that person shall be cut off from his people.


At the time Y'shua spoke those words in John, he was not yet ascended to the father. He was still wearing our filthy rags and was covered in sin. He was the ultimate of human uncleanness.

I can't locate the verse right now, but I believe there is a verse somewhere that indicates that if you touch a sacrifice after it has been offered up and sanctified, you invalidate it. This may have something to do with what's going on.

[simchat_torah]

I always pondered why, if Isaac was not offered up on that mountain, that the Akeidah was read on Rosh HaShanah. Especially since there seems to be an importance ginen to the "ressurection of the dead" if Isaac was not truly "dead" and "ressurected", even when the ashes of Isaac are discussed, there seems to be no other explanation.

Quite a ressurection if brought forth from ahses, eh?

[simchat_torah]

No wonder Rebeccah lost her equilibrium "and she fell from her camel" (v. 64) - for what she perceived was Isaac coming down from Paradise, and he walked the way the dead walked, head down and feet up.

---Minhat Yehudah, by R. Judah bar Eliezer ad Gen 24:64 and Paaneah Raza by R. Isaac bar Juda ha-Levi, 29a

[simchat_torah]

Here is something else to consider...


Genesis 22:13

"And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns; and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in place of his son."


In the Hebrew language, the word "tahat" has 2 connotations, one spatial and the other temporal. Therefore "tahat his son" may mean either "in place of" or "after" his son. See also 2 Kings 15:7 where "tahat" means after.

[simchat_torah]

R. Judan b. R. Manasseh and R. Samuel b. Nahman disagreed. One maintained: [The ashes were to recall] the merit of Abraham, for it is wntten, I WHO AM BUT DUST AND ASHES.6 But the other maintained that they were to recall the merit of Isaac7; he learnt 'ashes' only.8




(6) Thus either dust or ashes might be sprinkled on the heads of the people
(7) Who might have been reduced to ashes as a burnt-offering.
(8) Not dust. ---Genesis Rabbah 49:11

[simchat_torah]

"And I shall remember My covenant with Jacob, and also My covenant with Isaac, and also My covenant with Avraham and I shall remember the Land (Lev. 26:42). Why does it not specify "remembrance' in connection with Isaac? Because [G-d says], 'The ashes of Isaac are visible before Me, gathered together, lying atop the altar.'"

---Toras Kohanim

[simchat_torah]

Gen 22:1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, [here] I [am].

Why is G-d tempting Avraham?

The answer may lie in a change in the English text based on a different translation of the Hebrew word "tested" (Nisa).If we accept the root of the word not as "n.s.h." (in Hebrew the roots of words are 'consonants without vowels which one can pronounce differently in different forms) but rather "n.s." we have the word "ness" (banner).

Then the verse reads, "And it came to pass after these things that the L-RD raised Avraham as a banner," which is to say, he made an object lesson for mankind of the faith of Avraham.

Where else in scripture do we see banners/ensigns/standards?


quote: Num 21:8 - Then the L-RD said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole; and it shall be that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, shall live."

Psa 60:4 - "You have given a bannerto those who fear You, that it may be displayed because of the truth.

Isa 13:2 - Lift up a banner on the high mountain, raise your voice to them; wave your hand, that they may enter the gates of the nobles. I have commanded My sanctified ones; I have also called My mighty ones for my anger.

Isa 62:10 - Prepare the way for the people; build up the highway. Take out the stones. Lift up a banner for the peoples! Indeed the L-RD has proclaimed to the end of the world, "Say to the daughter of Tzion, 'surely your salvation is coming; behold his reward is with him...

The L-RD has given his Messiah as a banner, to be lifted up, for all to see. The story of Avraham and Isaac fits this "take" like a glove.

[simchat_torah]

Some say that the age of Isaac is important. Many Jewish scholars say that the L-RD would never require human sacrifice and use the example of people offering their children to Molech. First of all, I disagree with that argument, because I don't see G-d as one who would command anyone to do something that was against his will; he has revealed himself through his Word. His word does not change, and his "Nature" does not go against itself. It's like when Y'shua was accused of acting in concert with demons, and he said that demons do not cast out themselves. Neither does G-d act contrary to what he stands for. He continually upholds his word, so I don't think it's within the realm of possibility that he told someone to do something that was a violation of his "nature." However, there are instances of his sending an adversary to test love and obedience.



quote: Deut 13:1-2 - If there arises among you a prophet and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes to pass.... you shall not listen to the words of that prophet.... for the L-RD your G-d is testing you to know whether you love the L-RD your G-d with all your heart and with all your soul.

Numbers 22:34 - And Balaam said to the Angel of the L-RD, "I have sinned, for I did not know you stood in the way against me. Now therefore, if it is evil in your eyes, I will turn back."

Job 1:8 - Then the L-RD said to Satan, "Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blamless and upright man, one who fears G-d and shuns evil?" ..... So the L-RD said to Satan, "Behold, all that he has is in your hand, only do not lay a hand on his person."

Matthew 4:1 - Then Y'shua was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

However, Jewish scholars are also very aware that Isaac was not a child. He was not a baby, helpless and innocent as those who were offered to Molech. There are two very important concepts to the binding of Isaac -- one is that he, as a strong adult man, had to be WILLING to be offered up. Obviously, he could have easily overcome his father if he had chosen to. And if you DO apply this story to the offering of THE Father of His son whom he loved, then it would not have been enough for the father to simply be WILLING to do it and stop short of the act; he had to COMPLETE the act.

There is evidence to indicate that Isaac was 37, and here is how it can be calculated.




quote: Gen 17:17 - Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed and said in his heart, "Shall a child be born to a man who is 100 years old? And shall Sarah, who is 90 YEARS OLD, bear a child?

Then, immediately after the story of the binding of Isaac, we see that Sarah dies. Some Midrash says she died when she learned the news of Isaac's death, and that she left Avraham as a result. That's why he was not living in the same location as she was and came from another place to mourn for her.



quote: Gen 23:1 - Sarah lived 127 year; the years of the life of Sarah.

If you take 127 minus 90, you get 37. I realize there is some conjecture, but it is as valid a possibility as any other. Now, how does that compare to the life of Y'shua? Hmmm, well, maybe you can give me details on that. All I can see in a review of the Renewed Testament is that Y'shua was 30 years old when he began his ministry. You can't necessarily map the chapters and be able to tell how many years he lived. For example, just because scripture only documents three Passovers doesn't mean there were ONLY three. It's circular reasoning to ASSUME he was 37 because Isaac was 37, but I am a believer in the Word of G-d being there to reveal MANY LEVELS of information. So you read it, take it for what it's worth, file it away in your brain to consider during future studies. It is a very powerful story that is at the heart of Torah and I believe the heart of the plan of G-d.

[simchat_torah]

You notice that when Avraham went up the mountain, that he was carrying the knife and the fire. The knife represents the power of life and death, and the fire represents judgment. Of course, it could mean other things, too. Any ideas?

[simchat_torah]

R. Judah said: ‘Isaac purified himself and in intention offered himself up to God, was at that moment etherealised and, as it were, he ascended to the throne of God like the odour of the incense of spices which the priests offered before Him twice a day; and so the sacrifice was complete. For Abraham felt distressed when the angel said to him, “Lay not thy hand upon the lad”, thinking that his offering was not complete and that his labour, his preparations and the building of the altar had all been in vain. Straightway, however, ABRAHAM LIFTED UP HIS EYES AND LOOKED AND BEHELD BEHIND HIM A RAM, ETC. We have been taught that that ram was created at twilight (on the sixth day of Creation), and he was of the first year, as it is written, “one he-lamb of the first year” (Num. VII, 63), thus being according to requirement. But if so, how could he have been created at twilight? The truth is that from that time it was pre-ordained that that ram should be at hand at the moment when Abraham should require it. The same applies to all those things said to have come into being “at twilight”, which in reality means that they were then predestined to appear at the requisite moment.

---Zohar Vol. 1 Page 120b

[simchat_torah]

R. Simeon here discoursed on the text: A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master (Mal. I, 6). He said: ‘A conspicuous example of a son honouring his father is presented by Isaac at the time when Abraham bound him on the altar with the intent of offering him up as a sacrifice. He was then thirty-seven years old, whilst his father was an old man; and though he could easily, by a single kick, have liberated himself, he let himself be bound like a lamb in order to do the will of his father.

---Zohar volume 1 p.103a

[koilias]

Absolutely stunning achi...and extremely well-documented.:clap:

There is too much here to even begin pondering for all our lives.

Folks, the prominent place the Akedah held in early Judaism is well documented and can be evinced by the sheer number of frescoes solely dedicated to it on the walls of ancient synagogues. The view that YitzHak was sacrificed is very, very ancient.

On YitzHak:

"Now my soul has become troubled (tzar li me'od) and what shall I say, 'Father, save me from this hour (hoshi'eini min ha'et hazeh)'? But for this purpose I come to this hour ('et--appointment): 'Father glorify Your name'" (i.e. Show Your promise: in your seed all the earth shall be blessed).

THEN A VOICE CAME OUT OF HEAVEN: "I HAVE BOTH GLORIFIED IT, AND WILL GLORIFY IT AGAIN."

Yohannan 12:27-28

[Hix]

Wonderful study Yafet, I enjoyed that immensely. Just reading my Rashi on the sacrifice of Isaac and its rather interesting, Avraham says that HaShem will provide a "lamb", however the sacrifice that is finally brought in the place of Yitzchak is a "ram" ie a full grown sheep. When Avraham says that HaShem will provide a lamb, Rashi records he is speaking prophetically of the Pessach lamb. Which indeed, like Avrahams sacrifice was not a sin sacrifice, but instead a test of the peoples faith and if they would obey HaShem regardless of the consequences.

Todah achi!

Shalom and G-d bless
~Hix~

[JewishHeart]

Simchat,

Very interesting, thank you for you research.

[simchat_torah]

Shalom Koilias,

On YitzHak:

"Now my soul has become troubled (tzar li me'od) and what shall I say, 'Father, save me from this hour (hoshi'eini min ha'et hazeh)'? But for this purpose I come to this hour ('et--appointment): 'Father glorify Your name'" (i.e. Show Your promise: in your seed all the earth shall be blessed).

THEN A VOICE CAME OUT OF HEAVEN: "I HAVE BOTH GLORIFIED IT, AND WILL GLORIFY IT AGAIN."

Yohannan 12:27-28

Are you saying this is the same voice, or done in the same manner, as that of Yitzhak?

-Yafet

[simchat_torah]

Just reading my Rashi on the sacrifice of Isaac and its rather interesting, Avraham says that HaShem will provide a "lamb", however the sacrifice that is finally brought in the place of Yitzchak is a "ram" ie a full grown sheep. When Avraham says that HaShem will provide a lamb, Rashi records he is speaking prophetically of the Pessach lamb.

This is fascinating Hix. Where do you see the parrallels between the "lamb" of Yitzak and the lamb of Pesach?

curious,
yafet

[INOrder]

Hello all,

since I am convinced that the book of John is a writing of the 4th degree, that it is in fact speaking of Isaac, not Jesus at all, but personified through the name "Jesus".
So I expect that Koilias is correct in saying that this is actually concerning Isaac and not Jesus by the pen of John.

bye

[simchat_torah]

That's a pretty hefty claim INOrder, could you provide some backup for it?


shalom,
yafet

[INOrder]

simple, writings dedicated to the 4th degree of Jewish interpretation cannot be read literally, but it is read by symbols and translated by interpreting the symbols.
I believe that his work is of the 4th degree because of his other book, the book of apocalypse wich is heavy in symbolism.
Another, evidence I find within the gospel of john is verse 1:14 which is symbolism, the 4th degree.
and Jewish writers do not like to make "traile mix" of interpreting degrees in one book, unless it is a responsa which will tell the reader of each degree they are writing in. This is easily seen with Paul's writings, such as an example I have mentioned before, "a mystery.." he tells us that he is not at all in the first 3 but at the 4th when he mentions this.
But, as I have read so far in the book of John there is no mention of, or alerting of this.

hope I have explained myself well in a quick response.
Over time I believe I can show more and more of how these apply, I am only a novice to the New Testament of course.

bye

[simchat_torah]

Oh, I absolutely agree that Yochanan's (john's) book is by far the most esoteric of them all! However, I fail to see the symbols you speak of illustrating Y'shua as Yitzak.

I think that there are many prophetic parrallels given in the story of Yitzak to the life of Y'shua, but I don't see that Yochanan was writing about Yitzak, but instead of a historical Jewish figure that lived in the first century.

-yafet

[INOrder]

Hi Simchat Torah,

hey, you may be correct in what you say.
When i wrote the post to Koilias, I had in my mind that I will indeed have to study this book more in depth to see if what Koilias says about YitsHak in this passage may just be about that.
I should have made that more clear from the beginning, *chuckle" :-)
So I am not completely convinced that this passage is speaking about Isaac
as I said, "I expect that Koilias is correct..." but I am not completely assured.
:-)

bye

[simchat_torah]

I do have to say though, Yochanan is by far and away the most esoteric/mystical book in the infamous "new testament".

Keep in mind he also wrote Revelations, another highly esoteric work.

I think its absolutely vital to recognize this when reading these manuscripts. So, I am not opposed to viewing your claim, I just haven't seen it justified as of yet. ;)
shalom,
yafet

[koilias]

Shalom Koilias,

[/size][/font]

Are you saying this is the same voice, or done in the same manner, as that of Yitzhak?

-Yafet
Dear me, I must have assumed everyone would know the speaker is the Father!

We could have here a Bat-Kol, but since Yohannan is an adept of Merkavah mysticism, it may be HaShem's voice (as perceived at Sinai). A voice, not an angel.

[koilias]

I believe Yohannan is speaking of YitsHak's sacrifice (which led to the first glorification--Sinai) and Yeshua. It is literal! Nevertheless, we must see it symbolically linked to the Akedah.

Note that when Yeshua says "Hoshi'eini" ("Father save me") he is making an ironic word-connection to his name.

[koilias]

Hi Simchat Torah,

hey, you may be correct in what you say.
When i wrote the post to Koilias, I had in my mind that I will indeed have to study this book more in depth to see if what Koilias says about YitsHak in this passage may just be about that.
I should have made that more clear from the beginning, *chuckle" :-)
So I am not completely convinced that this passage is speaking about Isaac
as I said, "I expect that Koilias is correct..." but I am not completely assured.
:-)

byeI do agree that there are varying levels within the brit Hadasha corpus, but they are far too early to systemize as a strictly one or the other. But thanks for sensitizing me to the problem...I'm starting to see your point more and more.

However, I will say this concerning YoHannan. It was for a very long time kept strictly oral as is evinced by the remarkably flat and unvaried prose style of the writer. The writer is recounting it from memory and not culling from previous documents and/or witnesses. Its organization around the seven days of creation also suggest what's called a "mnemonic structure" (a structure created for memory retention--therefore time is "eliptical".) Our YoHannan was never meant to be penned, because it was forbidden. In ancient Rabbinic Judaism, all Sod writing was banned. Somebody did pen a copy, but it was probably against the original author's wishes. We could call it a Merkavah oral tradition.

[simchat_torah]

Hey Koilias,

I know you often take breaks for the MJ forum, but could you shed some light on this:
Its organization around the seven days of creation also suggest what's called a "mnemonic structure" (a structure created for memory retention--therefore time is "eliptical".)


thanks!
yafet

[simchat_torah]

The following number of posts will examine Jewish sources speaking of "vicarious atonement"....




On the binding of Issac....From "The Midrash Says--Book of Beraishis"


"My father, my father," he (Isaac) cried. "Here are both fire and wood but where is the lamb for the sacrifice?" "Hashem Himself will choose the lamb for the sacrifice, my son, and if not, you will be the lamb! " Yitzchak put his face between his hands and wept. "Is this the Bais Hamidrash about which you spoke to my mother?" he sobbed. When Avraham heard this, he wept also. But Yitzchak controlled himself and comforted him, "Do not feel distressed, father. Fulfill your Creator's will through me! May my blood be an atonement for the future Jewish people."

[simchat_torah]

MY BELOVED IS UNTO ME AS A CLUSTER OF HENNA. CLUSTER refers to Isaac, who was bound on the altar like A CLUSTER OF HENNA (KOFER): because he atones (mekapper) for the iniquities of Israel.

---Song of Songs Rabbah 1:14:1

[simchat_torah]

In the course of time ever greater importance was attributed to the 'Akedah. The haggadistic literature is full of allusions to it; the claim to forgiveness on its account was inserted in the daily morning prayer......even in the Talmud voices are raised in condemnation of its conception as a claim to atonement...These protests were silenced by the persecutions in which Jewish fathers and mothers were so often driven to slaughter their own children in order to save them from baptism. This sacrifice is regarded as a parallel to that of Abraham....The influence of the Christian dogma of atonement by vicarious suffering and death, it has been suggested, induced the Jews to regard the willingness of Isaac also to be sacrificed in the light of a voluntary offering of his life for the atonement of his descendants.

---Rabbi Max Landsberg (1845-1928)
"Akedah," Jewish Encyclopedia

[simchat_torah]

Rabbi W. Gunther Plaut:



There was...a remarkable tradition that insisted that Abraham completed the sacrifice and that afterward Isaac was miraculously revived....According to this haggadah, Abraham slew his son, burnt his victim, and the ashes remain as a stored-up merit and atonement for Israel in all generations. ---The Torah: A Modern Commentary
(New York: Union of American Hebrew
Congregations, 1981), p. 151 n. 5

[simchat_torah]

and some more:"Said R. Ammi, Wherefore is the account of Miriam's death placed next to the [laws of the] red heifer? To inform you that even as the red heifer afforded atonement [by the ritual use of its ashes], so does the death of the righteous afford atonement [for the living they have left behind]."

---Talmud, Mo'ed Katan 28a
"...As a result of this principle, suffering and pain may be imposed on a tzaddik (righteous person) as an atonement for his entire generation. This tzaddik must then accept this suffering with love for the benefit of his generation, just as he accepts the suffering imposed upon him for his own sake. In doing so, he benefits his generation by atoning for it, and at the same time is himself elevated to a very great degree. For a tzaddik such as this is made into one of the leaders in the Community of the Future World, as discussed earlier.


Such suffering also includes cases where a tzaddik suffers because his entire generation deserves great punishments, bordering on annihilation, but is spared via the tzaddik's suffering. In atoning for his generation through his suffering, this tzaddik saves these people in this world and also greatly benefits them in the World-to-Come.

In addition, there is a special, higher type of suffering that comes to a tzaddik who is even greater and more highly perfected than the ones discussed above. This suffering comes to provide the help necessary to bring about the chain of events leading to the ultimate perfection of mankind as a whole................"

...............""According to the original Plan, the sequence of worldly events required that man undergo at least some suffering before both he and the world could attain perfection. This was required by the very fact that one of the basic concepts of man's predicament was that G-d should hold back His Light and hide His Presence, as discussed earlier. This became all the more necessary as a result of the corruption and spiritual damage caused by man's many sins, which held the good back even more and caused G-d's Presence to become all the more hidden. The world and everything in it are therefore in a degraded evil state, and require that G-d's unfathomable wisdom bring about numerous chains of events to achieve their rectification.

Among the most important elements of this sequence is the requirement that man be punished for his wickedness until the Attribute of Justice is satisfied. G-d arranged matters, however, so that select perfect individuals could rectify things for others, as discuss earlier. The Attribute of Justice therefore relates to them rather than to the rest of the world in general.

Individuals such as these, however, are themselves perfect, and are therefore worthy only of good. The only reason they suffer is because of others, and the Attribute of Justice must therefore be as satisfied with a small amount of suffering on their part as with a large amount on the part of those who actually sinned.

Beyond that, the merit and power of these tzaddikim is also increased because of such suffering, and this gives them even greater ability to rectify the damage of others. They can therefore not only rectify their own generation, but can also correct all the spiritual damage done from the beginning, from the time of the very first sinners.

It is obvious that individuals such as these will ultimately be the foremost leaders in the Perfected Community, and the ones who are the very closest to G-d." ---Derekh HaShem


Column 4 (1) ". . . his Wisdom [will be great.] He will make atonement for all the children of his generation. He will be sent to all the sons of (2) his [generation]. His word shall be as the word of Heaven and his teaching shall be according to the will of God. His eternal sun shall burn brilliantly. (3)The fire shall be kindled in all the corners of the earth. Upon the Darkness it will shine. Then the Darkness will pass away (4) [from] the earth and the deep Darkness from the dry land. They will speak many words against him. There will be many (5) [lie]s. They will invent stories about him. They will say shameful things about him. He will overthrow his evil generation (6) and there will be [great wrath]. When he arises there will be Lying and violence, and the people will wander astray [in] his days and be confounded."
---DSS, 4Q541

And when his flesh had been burned away to the very bones, and he was on the point of expiring, he lifted his eyes to God and said, "You know, O God, that though I could have saved myself I am dying in these fiery torments for the sake of the Law. Be merciful to your people and let our punishment be a satisfaction on their behalf. Make my blood their purification and take my life as a ransom for theirs." (g)



(g) The most explicit statement in 4Mac (cf. 1:11; 9:24; 12:18; 17:20-22; 18:4) of the concept of the martyr's death as a vicarious atonement for the people, a concept absent from 2Mac (6:30-33). ---4 Maccabees 6:26-28
(edited by James H. Charlesworth) R. Eleazar said: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to the Angel: Take a great man [rab] among them, through whose death many sins can be expiated for them.29



(29) According to the dictum that the death of the righteous is an atonement. ---Talmud, Berachoth 62b Moses said to God: 'Will not the time come when Israel shall have neither Tabernacle nor Temple? What will happen with them then? ' The divine reply was: ' I will then take one of their righteous men and retain him as a pledge on their behalf, in order that I may pardon all their sins.'


---Exodus Rabbah 35:4 And He said to the Angel that destroyed the people, It is enough28 [rab]. R. Eleazar said: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to the Angel: Take a great man [rab] among them, through whose death many sins can be expiated for them.29 At that time there died Abishai son of Zeruiah, who was [singly] equal in worth to the greater part of the Sanhedrin.



(28) Ibid. 16.
(29) According to the dictum that the death of the righteous is an atonement.
---Talmud, Berachoth 62b

[simchat_torah]

Hence the righteous man is, of a truth, himself an offering of atonement. But he who is not righteous is disqualified as an offering, for the reason that he suffers from a blemish, and is therefore like the defective animals of which it is written, "they shall not be accepted for you" (Lev. XXII, 25). Hence it is that the righteous are an atonement and a sacrifice for the world.'

---Zohar, Section 1, Page 65a

For we have learnt that so long as Israel are in captivity, and cannot bring offerings on that day, the mention of the two sons of Aaron shall be their atonement. For so we have learnt, that Abihu was equal to his two brothers Eleazar and Ithamar, and Nadab to all together, and Nadab and Abihu were reckoned as equal to the seventy elders who were associated with Moses; and therefore their death was an atonement for Israel." '

---Zohar, Section 3, Page 56b When God desires to give healing to the world He smites one righteous man among them with disease and suffering, and through him gives healing to all, as it is written, "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities... and with his stripes we are healed" (Isa. LIII, 5). A righteous man is never afflicted save to bring healing to his generation and to make atonement for it, for the "other side" prefers that punishment should light upon the virtuous man rather than on any other, for then it cares not for the whole world on account of the joy it finds in having power over him. Yet withal another virtuous man may attain to dominion in this world and the next; he is "righteous and it is well with him", because God does not care to make atonement with him for the world. I said to him: If all suffered alike, I could understand, but we see a righteous man in one place who is sick and suffering, and a righteous man in another who enjoys all the good things of the world. He replied: One or two of them are enough, since God does not desire to smite all of them, just as it is sufficient to let blood from one arm; only if the sickness becomes very severe is it necessary to let blood from two arms, and so here, if the world becomes very sinful all the virtuous are smitten to heal all the generation, but otherwise one is smitten and the rest are left in peace. When the people are healed the righteous are healed with them, but sometimes all their days are passed in suffering to protect the people, and when they die all are healed.

---Zohar, Section 3, Pages 218a-b


The ancient pillars of the world were divided in opinion in regard to Job, some holding that he was of the saints of the Gentiles, and some that he was of the saints of Israel, and that he was smitten to make atonement for the sins of the world.

---Zohar, Section 3, Page 231a


That wraps up the quotes I have for now concerning vicarious atonement... now have at the discussion ;)

[Sephania]

Once the son was upon the altar, the angel of G-d spoke to Abraham and said, "Lay not your hand upon the lad." What is the significance of this added feature to the story? Would Abraham allow a mere angel to countermand the instruction of the Almighty G-d? I don't think so. Maybe THAT was the test, if there was one -- do you know my voice? Can another persuade you away from me? There are several other instances in Scripture where G-d uses angels in an adversarial position.

From what I can see so far this theory invalidates the theory that the "Angel of the L-rD" is the Metatron or as we know him it was Y'shua incarnate, the same one who came to speak with Hagar before and told her what to do? Was that also an angel with no authority? This angel stated that "I will greatly increase your descendants............"
How could only an angel do this?

It says that Hagar even recognized who this was because she called him El Roi, G-d of seeing,
" Have I really seen the G-d who sees, and stayed alive?"

[simchat_torah]

Angel of G-d is not the metatron, the angel that bears the name upon it is.

However, I don't see how this invalidates the Metatron theory???? It seems this particular angel has more authority than what is typically understood to be in the 'angelic' realm, which only further supports the metatron theory.

shalom
yafet

[muffler dragon]

Just to push the envelopes on correlations or the lack thereof, I had a few questions:

Following the premise that Isaac was indeed sacrificed:

1) How long can we infer that he was dead before resurrection? Would it be wise to consider three days in this instance as well?

2) I was under the impression that coincidental cremation was acceptable to the Jewish mind; however, intentional cremation is not to be performed, correct? How does that play into the passage if this is correct?

3) What would be the purpose of birthing Jacob and Esau from a man who was resurrected? Do we see any understanding as to what a 'new life' would afford Isaac and Rebekah as husband and wife and father and mother?

4) What would be the purpose of sacrificing the ram? Would it be a sin offering for 'the killing of Isaac'? I'm not trying to be over the wall, but since it is pre-meditated, it could be considered murder. Just go with me on it, and help me to understand the first question in this paragraph.

5) Granted, a high deal of restraint would have to be given and much more study would have to be done in order to grant this theory as being sound; however, my fear that arises is the potential 'justification' it can give to people we now know are clinically insane who kill their children. I have always been able to accept the sacrifice of Y'shua by HaShem, because He is G-d. He knows absolutely everything, has a purpose, and so on. This just poses a few ethical dilemnas. That's all.

I'll stop with these thoughts for now.

Nathan

[Sephania]

Once the son was upon the altar, the angel of G-d spoke to Abraham and said, "Lay not your hand upon the lad." What is the significance of this added feature to the story? Would Abraham allow a mere angel to countermand the instruction of the Almighty G-d? I don't think so. Maybe THAT was the test, if there was one -- do you know my voice? Can another persuade you away from me? There are several other instances in Scripture where G-d uses angels in an adversarial position.


I believe this is Metatron, you have referred to it as a "mere angel" someone that Abraham shouldn't listen to because the voice wasn't that of HaShem, but isn't Metatron, or the Memra what represents him as he is too holy to come down here himself? All authority is given to Metatron/Memra to speak for him, no?


Angel of G-d is not the metatron, the angel that bears the name upon it is.


I dont' believe I understand what you are saying here, The "angel of the L-RD" is who then?

[simchat_torah]

I believe this is Metatron, you have referred to it as a "mere angel"
In this case I don't think it was the Metatron. I believe HaShem was merely using an angel.

I could be wrong, and it wouldn't impact the Metatron theory if it is him, but I'm thinking along the lines this was merely an angel. I haven't read any Judaic passages that think this particular angel is the Metatron.

I dont' believe I understand what you are saying here, The "angel of the L-RD" is who then?Not in every instance that "the angel of the L-RD" appears is it the Metatron.

[simchat_torah]

1) How long can we infer that he was dead before resurrection? Would it be wise to consider three days in this instance as well?
I haven't heard from any sources that cite how long it was until the ressurection.
2) I was under the impression that coincidental cremation was acceptable to the Jewish mind; however, intentional cremation is not to be performed, correct? How does that play into the passage if this is correct?
This is an interesting paradox. To be honest, there is no mitzvah in the Torah forbidding cremation, it comes from halacha. The interesting paradox comes in because G-d hismelf commanded the sacrafice of Yitzak. Of course, G-d is never bound to the mitzvot, but are we able to break the law of G-d if he commands us to?

If G-d said to eat pork, for no apparent reason, should we follow and obey? My thoughts are that this would not be G-d speaking... but in this case, it certainly was.

m.d. you have brought up an interesting and perplexing thought. I truly don't know.

3) What would be the purpose of birthing Jacob and Esau from a man who was resurrected? Do we see any understanding as to what a 'new life' would afford Isaac and Rebekah as husband and wife and father and mother?
I don't think this has any impact. There have been numerous others who have tasted death, yet came through. Y'shua himself ressurected a few ;) As well as Elijah, and still others according to Jewish history.
4) What would be the purpose of sacrificing the ram? Would it be a sin offering for 'the killing of Isaac'?[/qoute]
(to your second question there) No. I think that the sacrafice was the establishment of the covenant.

As far as "killing" Isaac, I think Abraham was free and clear of guilt... it was not murder, but obedience.
[quote]5) Granted, a high deal of restraint would have to be given and much more study would have to be done in order to grant this theory as being sound; however, my fear that arises is the potential 'justification' it can give to people we now know are clinically insane who kill their children. I have always been able to accept the sacrifice of Y'shua by HaShem, because He is G-d. He knows absolutely everything, has a purpose, and so on. This just poses a few ethical dilemnas.
Well, those possibilities exist even without the Jewish tradition. The story exists in the Bible, and that's enough for crazy people ;)

But I'm not going to form theology around "Who will take this out of context and abuse it?" I will form theology around what is right and good. :D



Shalom,
yafet

[Sephania]

4) What would be the purpose of sacrificing the ram? Would it be a sin offering for 'the killing of Isaac'?[/qoute]
(to your second question there) No. I think that the sacrafice was the establishment of the covenant.
Which covenant was the ram for?

I am having trouble with ram vs lamb here. Also human sacrifice ( Isaac) , then animal ( the ram) , then lots of animals ( first Pasache then the commemoration) then human/G-d ( Y'shua of course) .

I have read through all you have written, and that of others on this subject, but I don't remember if you or they said what "kind" of sacrifice this was? This was before the implimentation of the sacrificial 'system' so under what was it given? and also did this make Abraham a priest? because only priests made the sacrifices, right? And this was after his encounter with Melcheztzedek, but if this was Shem would he have still been alive?

Hmm, lots to ponder, old walls shattered, windows opening, worlds colliding...............................hmmmmmmmmm

[Sephania]

Also did Abraham, know Sarah?

[Sephania]

What are all the possibilities of translation of this verse?:


God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son

Here it refers to Isaac as a boy, now I know this can be up in teen years but close to 40?

"Stay here with the donkey. I and the boy will go there, worship and return to you."



11 But the angel of ADONAI called to him out of heaven: "Avraham? Avraham!"He answered, "Here I am."
For some reason I always thought the angel was there, goes to show........ anyway, he calls out from heaven then again...

15 The angel of ADONAI called to Avraham a second time out of heaven.
Now this is after he has told Abraham to not lay a hand on him or touch him and this is what is written:

16 He said, I have sworn by myself - says ADONAI- that because you have done this, because you haven't withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will most certainly bless you; and I will most certainly increase your descendants to as many as there are stars in the sky or grains of sand on the seashore. Your descendants will possess the cities of their enemies, 18 and by your descendants all the nations of the earth will be blessed - because you obeyed my order."

1. We know it is the same angel because it says "the second time"
2. Now is this translated properly? ( He said, I have sworn by myself - says ADONAI)
3. What order was obeyed?

[Sephania]

In this case I don't think it was the Metatron. I believe HaShem was merely using an angel.



Any thoughts then as to why this angel did not appear to him, like the two before Sodom and G'morah? Why the calling from heaven, and which heaven would this be? Do you think this was Mikael?

[Sephania]

ST, I took three days to read all through this thread and study it and digest it because I believe you present a good case. It does leave questions though and I thought you would want to discuss them, or were you not ready for disputes? or questions regarding this theory? I am not trying to be argumentative, just posted some questions that come to mind and looking to see how you would "get around them".

[Sephania]

Doing another study I came across this which kinda flies in the face of the ressurection of Isaac theory...........
Rev 1:5
And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

...................Unless they are one and the same?

Yochanan with Elijah's "spirit" who Yeshua said was Elijah come again, Elijah appearing at the transfiguration. Also The two witnesses to come..................

Also this passage asks the question, what was Yeshua a witness of? or the faithful witness of what?

:scratch:

[simchat_torah]

Sorry I haven't been around the past couple of days, I'm currently taking a short vacation with my wife. It is our 5 year anniversary.

[Sephania]

Really? Mazel Tov! Have a wonderful time away and we'll chat when you get back. DH and I just celebrated 18 years yesterday, our Hebrew date is 1st of Av, ( try not to think of Aaron) . :)

[Sephania]

Are you familiare with the Beth Alpha synagogue in the Galil, Jezreel valley? There is a huge mosaic floor there that has a zodiac, the Aron HaKodesh and a few other symbols and also the binding of Isaac. Some contentions are that it really wasn't a Jewish synagogue but I thought it might be interesting to speculate as to why this particular subject was chosen.

http://www.williams.edu/jewishstudies/7.htm

[Sephania]

OK, Yafet, how was your second Honeymoon and can we resume our study here? I have waited patiently for a week now......................;) Good to hear you took some time off to spend with your wife, I am sure she appreciated it, if you didn't get on her nerves that is. ;)

I really am very interested in exploring this are you, still?

[simchat_torah]

Interestingly, I have found that Islam holds similar traditions concerning Isaac's sacrafice. It seems that this interpretation crosses cultural borders.

[Talmidah]

Interestingly, I have found that Islam holds similar traditions concerning Isaac's sacrafice. It seems that this interpretation crosses cultural borders.
Which interpretation? (You can just direct me to which post # ... I'm too tired to read the whole thread :cool: )

[simchat_torah]

ah... not a post, but the general concept, that Isaac was actually sacraficed and ressurected.

[Talmidah]

ah... not a post, but the general concept, that Isaac was actually sacraficed and ressurected.
Ah ok...that interpretation. Yep, it is commonly held regarding Ishmael and believed in some Jewish sectors regarding Isaac.

[visionary]

New thought for me to wrap my mind around and consider....that is for sure. For in accepting such concept it opens up avenues briefly touched on here. Children, abet adult children sacrificed to God. Since humans are unclean by nature, how can they be an acceptable sacrifice? It has been argued that Yeshua's sacrifice is unexceptable because he was human. Circular questions. I am not sure of a way out of that one.

They were advised back then not to be like the idolaters and sacrifice humans. So how can this sacrifice be acceptable?

THen the issues of "thou shall not kill".

This is not a nice and tide package you have presented. It is a can of worms, with all kinds of implications. Great presentation. Great piece of research and study into the matter, BUT ... I am going to let the Lord work on this one for me.

[simchat_torah]

Since humans are unclean by nature, how can they be an acceptable sacrifice?
There are a number of sacrafices that were actually "unclean" such as donkeys. There is an interesting discussion in Rabbinic literature as to how G-d will often use the unclean. He is not bound to Kosher, etc. as though He were a man.

[visionary]

[/font]
There are a number of sacrafices that were actually "unclean" such as donkeys. There is an interesting discussion in Rabbinic literature as to how G-d will often use the unclean. He is not bound to Kosher, etc. as though He were a man.
Where in scripture?

[koilias]

[/font]
There are a number of sacrafices that were actually "unclean" such as donkeys. There is an interesting discussion in Rabbinic literature as to how G-d will often use the unclean. He is not bound to Kosher, etc. as though He were a man.That bears out historically. In fact, all movements in Jewish Messianism, as Gershom Scholem observed, involved some injection of the divine into the profane realms...The Messiah uses the tools of the profane in order to transform it. "Messianism" as some might see it, is in this aspect "heretical".

[talmidim]

C'mon you guys, I have been checking back for days to read more! You've got me really invested and then you just quit posting? There are donkey questions to answer for pitys' sake!

[debi b]

What are all the possibilities of translation of this verse?:

Bereshit/Genesis 22:8 And Abraham said, My son, G-d will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering...

If you want to be real literal you could look at it this way;

hFh AL hary ~yhla

~yhla Elohim hary he will look/see AL to himself hFh the lamb for a burnt offering...

I find it interesting that only burnt offerings are mentioned in Bereshit. Kinda makes me think it would be a benefit to understand them better.

[Sephania]

;) Seems this is a weakness in this forum. Some really good meat comes to the table, all start salivating and then when the host comes back only crumbs are served up.

:eek:

[Sephania]

Could burnt in any way refer to a refinement? A drosh purging? A purifying?

[visionary]

Could burnt in any way refer to a refinement? A drosh purging? A purifying?...and only ashes are brought into the temple to be placed on the altar of incense to be sprinkled there. When we are cleansed of our sins, sins are burned off from our heart and mind, so that they may never return and we are refined as you say. Since that is all that is left of the sin offering by the time it is in the sanctuary, isn't that interesting that in the presence of God is not only the symbolic that the ashes of the sin offering is present, but in the last days when sin is cleansed off the earth, sin and sinner is again nothing but ashes.

[Sephania]

But did you know that ashes and water make soap? When ashes are mixed with water ( parts before burning were washed in water) you get lye, and when you mix lye with fat ( fat is for the L-rD only) you get a process called soapafication which makes soap.

I have been studying on this craft lately and that struck me as awesome in light of the sacrifices.

[talmidim]

But did you know that ashes and water make soap? When ashes are mixed with water ( parts before burning were washed in water) you get lye, and when you mix lye with fat ( fat is for the L-rD only) you get a process called soapafication which makes soap.

I have been studying on this craft lately and that struck me as awesome in light of the sacrifices.Interesting observation. One of those things I knew that I knew but didn't register until placed in context.

[debi b]

There is an order to the sacrifices (a burnt offering is not the first one). What strikes me -

The one offering derives no benefit from it

It is changed from one form to another

When it is complete there is nothing left of its original form

Hmmmmm.......offer yourselves as living sacrifices - I can see paralells.....

[Sephania]

Ashes to Ashes, dust to dust.