Chapter 7 Chapter 6 Abraham Failed to Kill—But He Was Praiseworthy
After these things God tested Abraham and called him, "Abraham!"
He replied, "I am here."
He said, "Take your only son, Isaac whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah, and sacrifice him as a burnt offering on the mountain I will show you."
Abraham got up early in the morning, prepared his donkey, took two servants and his son Isaac, split wood for the burnt offering, and set off to the place God had shown.
On the third day, Abraham looked up to his destination.
Abraham said to his servant, "You stay here with your donkey. The boy and I will go there and worship and come back."
Abraham took the firewood for the burnt offering and gave it to his son to carry it, while he himself took the fire and the knife, and the two walked together.
Isaac said to his father, "Father!"
Abraham replied, "My son, here I am."
Isaac said, "There is fire and wood, but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"
Abraham said, "God will provide himself a lamb for the burnt offering."
So the two went together.They arrived at the place that God had shown, and Abraham built an altar there, arranged the firewood, bound Isaac, and put him on the firewood on the altar.Abraham reached out for the knife, and stabbed Isaac.
The angel of Jehovah called to him from heaven: "Abraham! Abraham!"
He replied, "I am here."
The angel said, "Do not lay hands on the boy, do not harm him at all. Now I know that you are God-fearing - because you have not been reluctant to give me your son, even if it is an only son."
"Genesis" Chapter 22 Verses 1-12
In the Bible, this is the story of God asking Abraham to sacrifice his only son Isaac as a burnt offering.What kind of God would want a father to do such a thing?What kind of father would accept such a request, even if it was God's command?Why was Abraham able to plead for the life of a stranger without any hindrance in his eloquence, but remained silent when faced with his son being wronged?Why did God praise Abraham for his willingness to perform this act of human sacrifice?What can we learn from this patriarch who blindly followed the instructions of heaven and killed innocent children?
Jews, Christians, and Muslims throughout the ages have passionately discussed these and other questions that arose from them, and inevitably there have been some hard-nosed answers that tried to justify God and what Abraham did.Some apologists think that Abraham knew God was just trying to test him and figured he wouldn't actually let him kill his son.There is a derivative version of this interpretation: God never explicitly said the word "kill", but commanded Abraham to offer his son as a sacrifice.These commentators point out that Abraham knew that God would not accept the sacrifice and would stop him in time, because he told the servants to wait for himself and Isaac with complete assurance: "You wait here with your donkeys, The boy and I will go there and pray and come back.” As it is said in a certain chapter of Midash, God let Abraham inadvertently inform him by predicting the future. "In other words, this is the revelation that God said slipped his tongue.
The problem with this "justification" is that if Abraham knew the result in advance, it would not be a real test, at least not fair - knowing the answer before the test is considered cheating.What's more, judging from God's past behavior, why did Abraham believe that his son could escape?After all, the God who sent the flood to destroy the world had planned to kill all the people in Sodom, regardless of good or evil.For such a God, it is not incomprehensible for believers to kill a boy to sacrifice to him, right?
On the surface, Abraham seemed to believe that God wanted him to kill his son, and that the patriarch really wanted to do it.Why is he willing to intercede for a stranger, but without even a word of protest, he is ready to kill his own son?
Of course, it is also possible that Abraham obeyed God's command, all for his own safety.Abraham believed that if he disobeyed God's direct command even slightly, God might kill him immediately, as he had killed Lot's wife.Abraham killed his son to protect himself.Remember, this Abraham sacrificed Sarah's virginity twice to save his own life.In addition, don't forget that in the case of Sodom, God took the initiative to ask Abraham's opinion, but this time he sacrificed Isaac as a burnt offering, but he only issued an order.But if you fail to fulfill the orders directly issued by God, there is only one end, that is, you will be struck by lightning.Let's not think of Abraham as being so selfish. Maybe he was the lesser of two evils: disobey God, and both he and Isaac may die; obey God, and God will spare at least one of them.
Of course, we have no way of knowing what Abraham was thinking when he raised the knife to stab his son, but judging from his past behavior, especially his attitude towards Sarah, it is impossible to rule out the motive of self-preservation. There is a passage in Midash that presents another interpretation of Abraham's self-interested behavior.
It turns out that our ancestors believed in an afterlife (olam haba) after death.If Abraham did not believe in an afterlife, then he would not have been willing to sacrifice his only son and live a life without hope and future.He listens to God's admonitions at all times because he knows that the sacrifices he has made in this life will be compensated by God in the next life.
In this way, Abraham's big experiment became a simple cost-benefit decision.It is true that the word "compensation" has more advantages than disadvantages if you chew its meaning, because this equation seems simple and clear on the surface, but there is no scripture to prove that the patriarch believes in the theory of afterlife.If obedience to God's command does not guarantee eternal reward, then Abraham's decision to kill Isaac is even more shocking, because doing so will make him live "a life without hope and without a future." He is willing to accept such a life only because One reason, that God commanded him.
Maimonides refuses to explain Abraham's obedience as pure fear of consequences.Said Maimonides: "Abraham did not kill him sooner, not because he was afraid that God would kill him or make him poor, but simply because it is the duty of man to love God, even if there is no hope of reward or fear of punishment. If so, why is Judaism (and other religions) based on rewards and punishments in this and the next life?I believe that a person's true morality can only be seen in the absence of coercion and commitment.An atheist who, despite the danger of being run over by a car, runs into the middle of the road to save a child is acting purely morally, because he expects no reward from heaven.The pious believer that he will be rewarded for his good deeds and punished for his bad deeds in this life is nothing more than a long-term cost-benefit analysis.
Blaise Pascal, a French philosopher and mathematician in the seventeenth century, believed that belief is a gamble worth taking. If we believe in God and he does not exist, we have nothing to lose. If we do not believe in God and he does exist , then we may have to take the risk of falling into hell forever.The fallacy here is that God may despise such self-serving gamblers and favor those who honestly doubt or even believe.Maimonides vehemently criticizes this derivative interpretation of "Pascal's Wager":
"Let no one say such things. I will keep the precepts of the Book of the Law, and devote myself to the wisdom of them, in order to obtain all the blessings written in the scriptures, or to have a life after death. I will abstain from transgressing the Law The sins for which the book warns, to avoid the curses written in the scriptures, or death without life after death.” It is not right to serve God in this way, and it is really out of fear.This is not the standard set by the prophets and saints, it is the illiterate, women and children who serve God in this way.We educate them by making them fearful, and when they grow in wisdom, they serve God with love from their hearts.
Some interpreters believe that Abraham did not think of the afterlife, that is, the reward and punishment after death.If so, the stakes are even higher, because Isaac's death will become a permanent fact rather than a passage from this life to the next.
Even though Maimonides and other commentators believe that the son burnt offering arose from Abraham's noble motives, Abraham was somewhat selfish.Abraham placed his devotion to Almighty God above his duties as husband and father.He never asked his wife what she thought of sacrificing their son.Of course, Sarah is not entirely wrong, after all, she intends to sacrifice Abraham's other son, Ishmael, to fulfill her ambition for Isaac.For this, Maimonides called her a "sinner." Later, it was only God who intervened to save Ishmael's life.
So what was the nature of God's test of Abraham?The best answers are in the words of God himself.After Abraham passed the test, he said to him, "Well, now I know your fear of God." The original Hebrew word is y'rei, which literally means "fear" or "fear." "God.But what kind of moral experiment is this?There is little courage or virtue in yielding to immoral orders out of fear.Instead, a powerful king gave Abraham the same problem and killed your son, or I will kill you. "Do we praise a father who fears the king? Or praise the act of killing his own son because he fears the king? Of course not. At best, we can understand the difficulty of such a father making such a choice.
During the Holocaust, many parents abandoned or even sacrificed their crying children in order to protect themselves.We all find it hard to condemn them, but to praise them?But there is no such reason.So why do we praise Abraham?He may have met God's standard of justice and justice, but he fell short of his own standard of justice and justice, which is what he used to plead for the lives of the people of Sodom: killing innocent people, no matter what It's not right, even if it's God's command.
Abraham failed the standard of every modern axiom of justice, except his own.No one in this day and age thinks that God's command is sufficient reason to kill a child.If Abraham were alive today, he would be prosecuted for attempted murder, and his defense of "I was only doing things according to the will of God" would of course be dismissed.If we hear someone today claiming that God gave him a command, we would think him crazy.Even if we could accept that statement, we would still condemn anyone who enforces this order by killing children.In fact, some religious fanatics do cite the Bible as a basis for beating and disciplining children. However, we have a correct position against them replacing their legal obligations with the Bible, especially in matters related to children.
My Harvard colleague, Jon Levenson, a seminary professor, makes a powerful argument against viewing Abraham's actions through the modern lens of child-hate murder.In patriarchal times, killing a child was not the same as sacrificing a child as a burnt offering.The former is a heinous crime in almost every culture in the world, but the latter is generally used to express gratitude to the gods (as late as five hundred years ago, the Incas in South America still offered child burnt offerings to gods, while The evidence is the mummies of these children) Actually, God did not order Abraham to "kill" Isaac, because such an order would violate the prohibition of killing innocent people in Noah's law.God ordered Abraham to sacrifice his son as a burnt offering, and burnt offering is not the same as killing. The difference is that only what you love can be called a sacrifice, including "your loved ones" you will kill you "hate" ", but would sacrifice his dearest as a burnt offering.
Professor Levenson makes an interesting argument that we should not judge historical figures by the standards of future generations.The nineteenth-century Danish philosopher and theologian Soren Aabye Kierkegaard expected him to say this and prepared a counterattack:
Perhaps in Abraham's day, it made sense to do so.But if this is the case, why do we mention him?Why bother to remember a character who cannot be used to describe the present?
However, Abraham is not just a historical figure. People don’t just describe his behavior as an event. He is a biblical figure. His actions should be valid for thousands of years and all generations, regardless of time and space.Abraham should not just be a man who adapts to local conditions, he should be regarded as an object that human beings can always emulate.Levenson admits that Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son violated the Torah's express prohibition against killing children, but Levenson, like other traditional commentators, believes that Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac as a burnt offering was early. the Torah as taught at Mount Sinai, and that "any attempt to draw immediately and directly from the works of Abraham as the norm for our own conduct...is to reject the Torah rather than practice it"
Such an argument is more than clever, but it forgets to stop where it should stop.If this argument is accepted, then all of Abraham's actions, from his opposition to idolatry to his plea for Sodom, are irrelevant to modern life.We do, however, develop actual behavioral norms from Abraham before Mount Sinai.Indeed, Levenson himself developed a very important norm from akeidah, praising Abraham as a man who scrupulously obeyed God's commandments and feared God.So how do we determine which behaviors are applicable to all generations and which ones are time-limited?
On a more basic level, why is the burnt offering so important while ignoring others, including the biblical code of conduct?Abraham may have had the right to sacrifice everything he held dear, as long as it was his, including his life, his wealth, his health...whatever.But what about the son?He has no right to decide!Not to mention that the son also belongs to the mother!What right did Abraham have to sacrifice Sarah's only and last son?Not to mention that because he is a man, he can still have children with concubines!No, he had six more children with the concubine he married later.According to Levenson, by the standards of the time, Abraham had sons as much as he had wives, and Isaac belonged to him, and he could do whatever he liked.In offering Isaac to God, Abraham sacrificed his own, not Sarah's.However, this argument takes moral relativism too far.
Regardless of the moral standards (as opposed to the storytelling) that Levenson or anyone else may concoct, Abraham was wrong to sacrifice Isaac.The reason why Levenson did not propose some kind of moral standard to exonerate Abraham's act of sacrificing his son, but only compared it with the immoral customs at that time, naturally had his intention.
Although in Abraham's time there were indeed people who were willing to send their children to the altar, this does not mean that Abraham's behavior is worthy of praise.I daresay there were people in those days who refused to sacrifice their children, perhaps at the expense of their own lives.Why should we judge Abraham by the standards held by the average man in his day, or the lowest class?Abraham, as an eternal and universal moral model, shouldn't we have higher expectations of him?Levenson's praise of Abraham's fanatical obedience to the commandments of heaven and his complete trust in God is where Levenson expresses his criteria most clearly.
"Trust" has multiple meanings in such a storyline.It could refer to Abraham's belief that God was right in commanding him to sacrifice his son as a burnt offering, and that he was willing to carry out this terrible thing; this is moral trust.And "trust" could also refer to Abraham's belief that it was impossible for God to actually allow an innocent young child to be killed; this is empirical trust.The second meaning of trust can be verified with the following game: You ask the person you love to fall back into your arms.If they trust you to catch him, they'll let go; that's empirical trust.And moral trust is, even if you know you won't catch him, you are willing to fall down, because they believe that it is definitely not a bad thing for you to ask them to hurt their back!We cannot be sure what kind of trust was in Abraham's heart when he offered up his son.
Kierkegaard's famous article "Fear and Trembling" discussing child burnt sacrifices focuses on Abraham's "faith", arguing that Abraham put his own moral principles aside in order to highlight himself faith.However, Kierkegaard also said that he was not sure whether Abraham believed that God would not ask him to really sacrifice Isaac (empirical belief) or whether he believed that God was right to ask him to do so (moral belief). However, Kierkegaard still fails to make a convincing argument why it is admirable to place faith above the duties of a father.Likewise, Kierkegaard fails to clarify whether he means "God did not want Abraham to actually sacrifice his son" (experimental belief) or "Abraham thought God did so, and for things" (moral belief) and if Kierkegaard meant the latter, then he cannot make a strong argument, let us agree, that placing faith above parental duties is admirable.
How, then, do traditional commentators explain God's destiny and Abraham's actions, and why they should be praised?And what should we learn about justice and axiom from this story about injustice?
First, how do we measure God's command?Advocate-type Bible interpreters use simple ideas and simplified reasons to find a plausible basis for God's commands.One of them wrote: "Obviously, the Almighty God would not try a mortal man to prove whether he can withstand such a test. And God is omniscient and has no doubts about everything, so The nature of this test necessitates an explanation." However, the scripture itself is much richer than this causal statement, for the angel sent by God said that because I now know that you fear God (or fear God) )” This shows that the result of the test is not a foregone conclusion. For example, some commentators pointed out that neither God nor the angels knew what the result would be in advance. Just as God believed and hoped that Job could pass the cruel test designed by Satan; Hopefully Abraham will pass the test God has set for him.
Some commentators believe that this was Satan provoking God to test Abraham, as was the case with Job.However, God does not determine the outcome, because since Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and were able to distinguish between right and wrong, human beings have the ability to make choices according to their own will.Perhaps, if the test had simply been to discern between good and evil, then God had confidence that Abraham would choose the good and reject the evil.But what part is "good" and what part is "evil" in an event like God ordering the killing of his own flesh and blood?Even God and his angels weren't sure what Abraham's answer was.They had to wait for Abraham to act before the angel could declare "Because I know now..." This view that God himself is not sure about the results of the experiment is also supported by some contemporary interpreters who believe that Abraham's "decision There is no way to know it in advance, even God can’t help it, everything has to wait for Abraham to stab his son with a knife, and then the mystery will be revealed.”
Other commentators have sought to synthesize the two theories.Even though Abraham had free will, God certainly knew what he would do.The purpose of this experiment is: "to put into action the potentialities in Abraham's personality, and to reward his good deeds as well as his good thoughts." In other words, God rewarded good deeds more than good thoughts.However, this leads to a key question. If Abraham really fulfilled God's command and killed his son as a sacrifice, would it be considered a good deed?Was the killing of Isaac a reward for Abraham's good deeds?Instead, Abraham got both the fish and the bear's paw: he got character points for obeying God's commands, and he didn't have to lose his son.
However, to judge the right or wrong of Abraham's actions, we must decide whether he actually stuck the knife in Isaac's neck.Does that happen in the Bible?If not, why is there such a plot in the Bible?Since Abraham's state of mind and behavior should essentially coincide, would he have killed his son?
Some interpreters who like to deduce the content of the scriptures even believe that Abraham did kill Isaac, but God immediately brought Isaac back to life.Isaac then "stands up, saying the prayer of blessing: 'Blessed be you, Lord who raised the dead.'" These commentators did not draw conclusions from this statement, discussing whether Abraham should be killed or not. to be praised for his actions - if he did.
The twentieth-century rabbi and commentator Abraham Yitzhak Cook contrasted the story of Abraham with "the idolatrous quality of absolute self-giving."According to Kukrabi, primitive idolatry requires believers to ignore the love of their parents if God commands it and "makes the mutilation of children a key element in the worship of Molech." The fire god of the southern people, he asked believers to sacrifice their children as burnt offerings.I confess that I do not understand how, in Kukrabi's argument, the behavior of Abraham differs from that of those who worshiped the god Molech at the same time.Like those Moloch believers, Abraham's complete obedience to God's unjust commands also outweighed his love and obligation to his son.Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son is arguably important because this willingness made the act of cruelty to his son, or at least the intent to do so, a keynote of Jewish worship.
The God of Abraham is of course different from the god of fire of the Canaanites, for the former cries out in time to save the dead, while the latter lets the ritual be completed.However, as far as Abraham killed his son and sacrificed, Abraham was not much more civilized than the Canaanite parents who sacrificed their son to Molech, unless Abraham did not intend to fully carry out God's order, but in this way, he was in faith Points will be deducted in the evaluation.
To avoid such strict conclusions, modern interpreters offer an extreme interpretation of the story of Abraham.Lippman Bodoff, a Jew who studied in the Orthodox tradition, took a different approach and believed that God's test of Abraham was to hope that Abraham would refuse the command to kill Isaac.According to Bartov, the idea conveyed by this story is that "God does not even want believers who fear him to commit murder in the name of God or to obey his commands." Will Abraham be able to abide by God's moral code that prohibits killing, even if he ordered to kill?" In Bardov's view, as long as Abraham said to God, "Forgive me, because this kind of thing violates your law." So he passed the test.
How did Abraham state such an objection?He could have reminded God of the covenant he made with Noah, because it clearly stated the principle that Cain wanted to say after he killed his brother, that it was wrong to kill.Even if it is the will of heaven, it cannot be wronged to kill innocent children. The Talmud narrates a miraculous legend that presents the idea that once God has given His laws to man, He can no longer interfere with the process of human interpretation and application.The content of this legend is a debate between Rabbi Eleazar-ban Shulkham on the one hand and other members of the seminary on the other over a mysterious and obscure incident:
That day, Rabbi Eleazar Banshulkan put forward every argument he could think of, but the others could not accept it.He said to the crowd: "If the oral law is in my opinion, let this carob tree prove it."
At that moment the carob tree moved a hundred cubits. "The carob proves nothing."
They retorted.Then he said to them again: "If the oral law is in my opinion, let the streams prove it."
At that moment, the stream flowed backwards. "This brook doesn't prove anything either."
they answer.Finally, he said to them: "If the oral law is my opinion, let heaven prove it. At that moment, God's voice from heaven rebukes you why you are bickering with Rabbi Eleazar ban Shulkham , to see if all the oral laws are in line with his opinion?"
But Rabbi Joshua stood up and explained, "It's none of God's business!" What did he mean by that?Rabbi Jeremiah thought: "Since God has given the book of the law on Mount Sinai, we don't care what God said in heaven, because God wrote down the law already on Mount Sinai."
The Talmud goes on to relate that a rabbi asked the prophet Elijah what God did next.The development of the story is that God smiled heartily: "My people have defeated me." If you change the small rules in the ceremony, you can't follow what God said, then if killing people is not allowed, then such human nature is fundamental. The law cannot be overturned just because of what he said.Abraham should have at least pointed out to God his covenant with Noah and asked God to resolve the conflict between God's own written and spoken commands in ordering him to kill his son.It is not disrespectful to point out where an authority contradicts itself and ask for guidance.When Abraham argued with God for the sinful citizens of Sodom, he had no arguments other than his own intuitive view of justice and axioms with which to oppose God's authority.
There is a very insightful passage in the Midrash about the contradiction between God's broad command against killing and God's specific killing of a child in this case.When Isaac asked his father why he did not bring a lamb for a burnt offering, the evil angel Samael appeared and scolded Abraham: "What is this, old man! Are you stupid? Are you really going to kill you?" Is it hard to give birth to a son at the age of 100?" Abraham replied decisively: "I still want to kill." Then the angel predicted that once Abraham sacrificed Isaac as a burnt offering, he would be punished by heaven, "Tomorrow God will follow him." You said: 'You murderer, you are guilty!'" However, Abraham remained unmoved and replied, "I will." According to this interpretation, as long as God himself ordered, Abraham was not only willing to sacrifice his son, but also willing to violate the law. God's law against killing.
The eighteenth-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant could have taught Abraham to respond to God's command in a more direct way with the written injunction "Murder is guilty," "I should not have killed my son, there is no doubt about it. But you come out in the form of God, and I suspect you're a fake..." Or as Bob Dylan sang:
God said to Abraham, kill one of your sons for me.Abel said, come on, you must be fooling me.
However, neither Kant nor Dylan solved a key problem, that is, what if Abraham believed that it was really God, and also believed that God was not joking with him?
Bardolph even makes a harsh statement: If Abraham really killed Isaac and was rewarded for this act, then this religion "maybe no one, not even half of people, can agree with it." A nagging question is, why do so many people accept this religion, which praises Abraham's willingness to obey God's immoral commands?On this point, Bartov's interpretation can be said to be the most extreme one.According to Bardolph, Abraham never intended to fulfill God's command from the beginning to the end.He expects God to stop at the last moment, relying on his experience rather than moral trust.He was willing to lie back and trust that God would catch him and not let him fall to the ground.If God thought killing Isaac was the right thing to do, then it was not acceptable to Abraham.Bardolph believes that Abraham was determined to wait until the last moment, and if God did not intervene, he would disobey God's order.
In other words, not only was God testing Abraham, but Abraham was also testing Almighty God.It is understandable that Abraham wanted to test God. This God once sent a great flood to wipe out people regardless of good and evil, and he also accepted Abraham's argument and agreed to spare the innocent people in the city of Sodom.Which god is he?Has he learned not to bring disaster upon the innocent?This experiment will give Abraham an answer.If God failed the test, that is, did not intervene in time to stop Abraham, then Abraham would break the contract and say: "If the God I believe in commands me to do the immoral things in pagan society, then I must Wrong, I have to consider whether to believe in this God again."
Bartov tells us that God sent an angel to command Abraham to keep people under the knife, so that he passed the test, in order to tell Abraham and all the world that God does not want people to obey his orders blindly.God's behavior is a model for justice and axioms, which will eventually develop into a procedure for judging right and wrong.This process includes codification, like the Law of Noah, and debate, like the story of Sodom.However, this does not include accepting all immoral orders from heaven.
This kind of clever and positive interpretation makes both God and Abraham appear just, but it really doesn't fit the scriptures.God should have sent an angel to speak for him, after all, to praise Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac.If God really wanted Abraham to refuse his command, why did his messengers praise Abraham's willingness to fulfill his command?This point can be said to be the "cover door" in Bartov's theory. Bartov had to claim that angels are only God's messengers, and they are not omniscient, so they failed to understand God's true meaning, and could not detect that Abraham actually intended to refuse to complete. God's command.The following chapter of Midas is more faithful to the original text:
When God told Abraham to stop sacrificing Isaac as a burnt offering, Abraham said, "A man tests another because he does not know what is in his neighbor's heart. But you must know that I am ready to sacrifice my son!"
God said: "You have shown that you can't be more clear, and I have foreseen it beforehand, and you will not even give me your soul."
Abraham said, "Then why did you torture me like this?"
God replied: "My desire is to let the world know your deeds and know that I have chosen you from all living beings, not without reason. Now the world has witnessed your awe of God."
This chapter pointed out that there is actually a more fundamental problem in Bartov's fascinating interpretation, that is, how did Bartov know that if God had not sent an angel, Abraham planned to stop at the last moment?Judging from Abraham's actions, it is more likely that he carried out God's command thoroughly.Why shouldn't we assume that he intended his actions to have the consequences they deserved (ie reaching for the knife and killing his son)?In this case, the legal provisions on attempted murder in the criminal law can come in handy.
The law of attempted homicide in criminal law can deal directly with this question: how can one determine what one's real intentions are in situations where someone does not commit an act but appears to have done it on purpose?Much literature has developed around this topic.I recently took on a case that, from several points of view, resembles the story of Abraham.My client was charged with attempted murder for being on top of another man with a knife when the police arrived.The policeman drew his gun and asked my client to put down the knife, and he dropped the knife.My client claimed that he had no intention of killing, but merely wanted to scare the other person into submission.Even if the police hadn't intervened, he wouldn't have stuck a knife into someone's body.According to Bartov, this is probably what Abraham had in mind when the angels appeared and stopped him.
How should the law evaluate such claims?我们永远也不可能确定，如果警察没有出面干涉，我那位客户会做出或不会做出什么事情来。这个案子的各种相关证据，也都显示出两种可能。我客户所攻击的这个人，正在与我客户的妹妹交往，然而这对男女朋友却时有冲突，后来有人放火烧了女方的家，害她烧成重伤。检方认为，我的客户相信妹妹的男友正是放火的人，于是想杀他报复。而我客户则坚称，自己去找对方，只是要责备他怎么连到医院探望一下也不肯。于是两人扭打起来，警察抵达时，他正好压制住对方，要其认错（或者是要杀了后者报仇，不得而知）陪审团采信检方的说法，判决我的客户有罪。即便我后来以不相关的理由赢得上诉官司，可是关于未遂罪行的法律却支持检方的说法。
简单地说，法律认定，一个人如果在没有外力干预的情况下改变想法（不管是警察或是天使）那么他的行为就必须从宽认定，因为法律会假设他想法的改变是出自于内在。不过，要是他放手不做是因为受到外力干预（不管是警察或是天使）那么法律依然会假定，如果外力不曾介入的话，他将会实施罪行。
在我这个有警察介入干预的案例当中，即使警察没来，我的客户当然也有可能阻止自己做出傻事。不过，我们却不认为这样，因为从外在的证据来看，他似乎真的要狠下·心来杀人，不过我们永远无法得到真正的答案，因为我们不可能进入他的内心。不过，以当时的情况看来，他很有可能真的要杀人报仇，而这足以排除无罪的一般假设以及合理怀疑之外的证据。我十岁的女儿相信亚伯拉罕内心也在挣扎，天使则代表他的“善良直觉"（yetzer hatov），而且最后终于占了上风。假如是这样，这个天使便是来自于内心，而非外在的力量。
如果把这些原则运用在亚伯拉罕的故事里，我们便会觉得巴铎夫的诠释难以接受。从经文叙述与常理两方面来判断，亚伯拉罕都确实有意杀自己的儿子。这当然是试验本身表面上的目的，这点巴铎夫也承认。巴铎夫形容他的诠释是“条文化的反面概念”而他有权这么诠释，是因为圣经拥有诸多伟大之处，其中有一点正是在于，它有“看图说故事”那种心理测验的特质。圣经有七十个面向，可以响应各种《米大示》的解释，也就是能够多方面地加以诠释。
巴铎夫的分析也点出一种较为负面的诠释，也就是说，亚伯拉罕并没有通过上帝的试验。要是上帝没有派天使阻止亚伯拉罕，他就真的会杀死自己的儿子，上帝对于他竟然会愿意听命杀人感到愤怒。这种诠释在经文上就找得到支持，因为毕竟一开始是上帝亲自向亚伯拉罕下达命令，假如他顺利通过考验，我们猜想上帝应该会亲自现身赞美他，结果上帝却只派了个信差传话。此外，上帝当初命令亚伯拉罕献上儿子时，他形容以撒是亚伯拉罕“挚爱的独生子”；后来亚伯拉罕没有通过考验，天使两次提到以撒时的说法就变成为“你的独生子”舍去了“挚爱”两个字。这显示天使不相信，一位愿意把儿子献为潘祭的父亲是真的爱儿子。
此外还有一点，上帝从此再也没有亲自对亚伯拉罕说话了。撒拉在这件事之后不久就去世；以撒经历这次事件，身心俱碎，到死前都难得开口说话（他在弥留时还被儿子所骗）想想看，一个儿子知道自己的父亲打算杀死自己，会造成什么样的心灵创伤。我真想听听他们父子从祭坛下山时的对话。儿子或许会问父亲：“爹，难道您本来真的打算把我……”老实说，亚伯拉罕的确得到长寿、财富、第二位妻子、更多子女，以及族长地位等奖赏。不过，从某些观点来看，这一切似乎只是奖赏他尽心尽力服事上帝的苦劳，而上帝对于亚伯拉罕恐怕还是不够满意。亚伯拉罕与上帝的关系就此结束，原因是他让他的契约合伙人失望。
根据这样的诠释，上帝利用亚伯拉罕作为后代学习的对象。那时代的人有着遵从神明指示，把子女献为燔祭的习俗，而亚伯拉罕也愿意做同样的事情，只是天使出面阻止了他，以显示这位上帝与其他所谓的神明并不相同。其实，有些现代的解经家根据以撒的寡言，以及他受到自己的父亲与儿子欺凌，再加上他是父母年迈时才出生的事实，猜测以撒有可能在智能或情绪上有些问题。自有历史记载以来，做父母的便一直把智能障碍与情绪失调的子女当做祭品，这也许可以解释亚伯拉罕为什么会愿意接受上帝的命令。
亚伯拉罕通过服从的考验，但却没有通过道德自主能力的试验。亚伯拉罕就像把某次考试考砸了的学生，他从这次经验中得到的许多教训，都可用来教导后代子孙。
还有一个更令人不安的结论，是作家暨诺贝尔和平奖得主维瑟尔（Wiesel）所提出的，他认为不但亚伯拉罕没通过试验，连上帝也没有。就算是上帝也不该命令父亲杀死自己的子女，而任何父亲也都不该同意做这种事情。上帝也许最后救了以撒的身体，不过却让他心灵破碎，同时还一道带走他的母亲。《米大示》中有个篇章写道：“亚伯拉罕独自回家，撒拉看到他，便厉声高呼：'撒旦说得没错，以撒被牺牲了！'她由于灵魂受不了悲恸，而魂消魄散。”
就连巴铎夫也承认，这则故事里夹带了许多错误的观念。或许，最糟糕的一个概念是daat torah，也就是指个人放弃自己的心智辨别能力，盲目服从圣人或充满群众魅力的拉比所说的话，这种情况在哈西德教派里更为严重。以色列前总理拉宾遭犹太教基本教义派教徒杀害，而这个凶手就是相信自己在执行上帝的命令。这可以说是无知地诠释这段亚伯拉罕的故事所造成的最著名的后果了。
有一则较为净化人性的隐喻式诠释，类似我女儿的说法，是由哈洛德·舒威滋（Harold Shu Weizi）这位当代保守派的拉比所提出。哈洛德·舒威滋认为亚伯拉罕已经通过试验，因为他不肯杀害以撒。他认为“要亚伯拉罕刀下留人的天使，正是亚伯拉罕道德良心的象征”这是亚伯拉罕的观点，而不是上帝的。“亚伯拉罕接受上帝使者的声音，将它放在上帝亲口所下的命令之上，显示他相信一位道德超然的上帝不可能有意让无辜的人丧命。”
我个人最喜欢的诠释，则是经由命令，亚伯拉罕把以撒献上，上帝等于告诉亚伯拉罕，虽然接受了契约，但他并未拥有人生必然完美的保证，差得远呢！经由这个可怕的试验，上帝以任何语言都无法表达的强烈方式，传达了一件事，那就是身为犹太人，常常需要牺牲自己最珍贵的事物，甚至是子女。在犹太人的历史里，这当然是司空见惯。在十字军东征、宗教大审判，特别是在纳粹对犹太人大屠杀的期间，许多“亚伯拉罕”做了杀害自己“以撒”的决定，有时候是为了不愿意放弃信仰，有时候则是为了要避免自己遭到折磨、强暴及杀害。
对于akeidah的传统观念，让犹太人愿意把圣经中禁止杀人的律法，转化成把它视为对上帝致敬的行为。在十字军东征期间，就有父亲杀死自己的妻小，然后再自杀，以避免被迫接受洗礼成为天主教徒，这也许是把宗教热诚发挥得过火了。但是，在纳粹对犹太人大屠杀的期间，就连洗礼也拯救不了“基因不好”的犹太人。犹太人为了不让前来搜查他们的纳粹警察发现他们的藏身之处，有时父母得杀死或放弃哭闹的婴儿。
在那段大屠杀期间，还有一则锥心刺骨的故事，有九十三位少女，她们是在波兰克拉科夫的犹太教会学校的学生，据说在得知她们一群人要被送往德军部队当营妓，便集体自杀。她们在服下毒药之前，共同创作了一首诗死亡并不可怕，我们要去见他。我们生前服事上帝，我们知道要如何一死以显上帝的神圣……我们通过了试验，捆绑以撒的试验。 "
这些都是犹太人生命中的悲惨事实，而上帝警告亚伯拉罕，那份人神之间的契约并不保证这种牺牲必定不会发生，有时他会干预，有时则不会，这便是那份契约的本质。因此，假如有位犹太人目睹悲剧，甚至是惨绝人寰的那种悲剧——如约伯或是在十字军东征和纳粹大屠杀中目睹子女遇害的人所遇到的——不要以为上帝毁约了。宗教并非一切人生悲剧的解药或万灵丹。
以色列有位拉比，因为他的国家无时无刻不在与敌国进行战斗，于是提出类似的论点：“每位送儿子从军的以色列父母，都听到上天的命令：“带着你的儿子，你的独生子，你们挚爱的一个……”
关于亚伯拉罕愿意为所多玛城的罪人与上帝争论，却不肯为自己的儿子请命，我有一个自己喜欢的诠释。好人有时候并不肯为自己的私利争辩，他们替别人伸张正义，却以沉默面对自己的冤屈。我见过我的犹太同胞为公民权利走上街头，却坐视自己的权利受到侵犯。许多在本世纪六十年代为黑人权利请命的犹太人，却在纳粹对犹太人大屠杀期间什么事也没做。为别人辩护，总是比为自己的利益辩护要来得高贵伟大。老实讲，有些犹太人只为那些与犹太人相关的事仗义执言，不过却有更多的犹太人为世界人权问题而奋斗。
圣经教诲我们：“邻人遇害，岂可坐视！”公元一世纪解经家希勒尔（Hillel）把这句话诠释为人不为己，谁能为己？人仅为己，禽兽无异。”亚伯拉罕为所多玛城民请命，以及亚伯拉罕杀子献祭这两则看来冲突的故事，教导我们要在为别人与为自己家人伸张正义这两者之间，找到一个适当的平衡点。
就算有人认为亚伯拉罕的这两个面向怎么说也无法相连在一起，然而它们同样传达了重要的道理：《创世记》有多重声音来源，它并非只要传达单一概念。与上帝争论的亚伯拉罕代表一种声音，而对上帝盲目信仰的亚伯拉罕则代表另一种。新约圣经摆明具有多重的声音来源，比如马可、马太等不同人所撰述的福音书，然而旧约圣经则是以隐晦的方式来表达。就拿十诫做个对照，《创世记》并非以上帝的语言书写；各篇故事并非单以上帝的角度来呈现。老实说，上帝只是诸多角色之中的一个，而多重观点必然带来多重诠释。
无论读者最后发现哪种诠译具有意义，然而有一个结论却显而易见，那就是谁也不能以字面上的意义来解读这桩杀子献祭的故事，并且作为明确的人类行为指南。这个故事需要读者诠释、否定、省思，并用心去体会。它不提供答案，只有永远解答不了的疑问。从这个观点来看，它已成为一个完美的教材，用来教导神人之间正义公理的实况、限制及不完美。亚伯拉罕与以撒的故事放大了平凡人生，并凸显了人生当中所面临的不幸抉择，以及存在模棱两可与不确定性的因素。
Notes:
Notes: