This is the first I've heard of this, and let me just say that this interpretation goes against everything both judaism and christianity have taught for thousands of years.
well, christianity, maybe. but i first heard about that particular reading from jewish midrashim, so.
The test was to see if abraham would argue with god?
sort of. the test was to see if abraham had faith that god had fulfilled his promise to give him an heir. look at how willing abram is to argue with god in genesis 18. god says he'll destroy sodom, and abram says "wait a minute, lot lives there," and argues god down for the sake of his nephew. why not for his own son?
So... this interpretation would make Abraham out to be a heartless bastard. He's heartless enough to blood sacrifice someone else's child.
i fail to see the difference, actually. either way, he's pretty heartless. the idea really comes about in thinking that god doesn't want blind obedience, something that seems to be evidenced with all the patriarchs and early prophets, at least one of whom
literally wrestles with god. but all talk, and dispute, and quibble, and argue with god, for the sake of their people.
it's like god is the judge -- satan is the prosecution. the prophet or patriarch is supposed to be the defense. abraham fails in that regard.
it's a little bit of a strange way to look at the bible when all you've been taught is blind obedience. but i think it's probably more accurate to the times and more faithfully represents the attitude of the text. this is just another in a long line of "evil god" paradoxes, such as the one i pointed out in genesis 2 and 3.
™ Version 4.2
