As we concluded our study of Genesis 22 the other day, Bro. Baron raised a VERY interesting theory and after explaining it to us, I can say that I can accept his viewpoint and agree with it because of the evidence presented.
When studying a chapter of Scripture in the depth that we studied it, smaller nuances of the individual verses pop out more clearly. This was the case in our class studies - as it took us over 7 weeks to translate 9 verses...not that we translated every class nor did we spend our entire lives doing it, but it was stretched out over time for a reason. Bro. Baron in his infinite wisdom decided to hold his theory until we got to the end of the chapter as to not corrupt our outlook of the chapter.
We all know the "popular" story of Abraham and Issac - Abraham is commanded to take his son Issac to the mountains and place him on an altar and sacrifice him. Just as he's getting ready to do so, a messenger of the Lord speaks to Abraham and tells him not to sacrifice Issac, and because of his faithfulness he gets all these blessings and lives happily ever after. Is that really what happened though? Bro. Baron's theory (which has been supported by multiple people and sources - so its not just a Bro. Baron thing) suggests that it not only is not what happened, but that there is a "second" story within the verses that we overlook even though its so plain.
To understand this theory we must examine several scriptures. First, we start with Genesis 22:5 which reads: "And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and [we will]] come again to you"
Now, quickly jump down to verse 19 of the same chapter that reads: "So Abraham returned unto his young men, and they rose up and went together to Beer-sheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beer-sheba." WHAT?!?! Where's Isaac? Let's just say that this theory here suggests that Issac didn't exactly "make it"...at least not initially.
Our first supporting scripture comes from this same chapter, which is the 16th verse which reads "And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and has not withheld thine only son;"
Okay, not convinced yet? Yes, its a fairly weak argument. But the next three scriptures will support this progressively more. Go over the Book of Mormon and turn the book of Jacob - Chapter 4, verse 5 which reads "Behold, they believed in Christ and worshiped the Father in his name, and also we worship the Father in his name. and for this intent we keep the law of Moses, it pointing our souls to him; and for this cause it is sanctified unto us for righteousness, even as it was accounted unto Abraham in the wilderness to be obedient unto the commands of God in offering up his son Isaac, which is a similitude of God and his Only Begotten Son" (Emphasis added).
Still not buying it? Fine, try this block of scripture here. Doctrine and Covenants 132: 34-36:
God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. this therefore was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.
Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.
Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac: nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.
Warming up to the idea perhaps? Well, the next block of scripture should be the clincher here. Hebrews 11: 17-19:
By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered p Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
I don't know about anyone else, but that last one seems pretty black and white to me!
There is it though, straight from the scriptures - I'll leave you guys to say yea or nay on it!
3 comments:
I don't know who this Bro. Baron is, Brandon, but if he is teaching that the act of actually sacrificing Isaac was completed by Abraham (as in The Lord did not stay his hand), then he is teaching false doctrine. Plain and simple. It wouldn't be the first time a seminary teacher, religion teacher, or institute instructor in the CES has passed off personal speculation as truth.
It may sound intriguing and even seem to be supported by various scriptural passages -- when taken out of context. But it does not coincide with ancient or modern scripture IN context or the published words of His living prophets and apostles.
Bro. Baron is my Hebrew professor - or should I say Dr. Baron
Note that I'd said that it was simply a theory. There has been absolutely nothing said by the Brethren one way or the other as to the plausibility of this theory. Additionally, we translated the text of the story from the Hebrew manuscript, so our p.o.v.'s were taken in the context of the manuscript itself.
One thing I also failed to mention is that the theory included that Isaac was raised from the dead soon after - as was Lazarus from the dead - which isn't the first time such an occurrence has occurred scripturally.
Just some things to think about.
Okay, so it was presented merely as a theory in a language class... I've found when personal speculation and doctrine are mixed in a setting where teaching occurs, there is often little difference between the two made. Too often, seemingly innocuous speculation can taint and obscure understanding of pure doctrine.
If the speculation is rooted in translating one account from a Hebrew manuscript, let me ask this -- why would the ancient Hebrews have gone to that length of recording the story and not include the part about Isaac actually being sacrificed and then being restored to life? Think about it... it is a pretty miraculous event (and they recorded a donkey talking to an apostate minor prophet), and for even an oft apostate ancient Israel, this wouldn't seem to be something that would purposely be excluded from scripture over the generations since they took great pride in being the seed of Abraham. Hence all things concerning Abraham and Isaac were engrained into the cultural tradition as well, much like the law of Moses.
On the other hand, if it was indeed something that was omitted from the hebrew scriptural texts over the generations, when the Prophet Joseph Smith retranslated the Bible under the inspiration from The Lord, why wasn't it restored in his translation?
Could it have happened as indicated in the speculative theory? Sure. The Lord has the power to raise one from the dead. But, it doesn't seem to be in His economy to avoid intervening when He has tested Abraham to the point He knows Abraham will go through and obey the commandment to sacrifice Isaac.
Post a Comment