Philosophical Thoughts

[Christian Soldier]

The Meanderings of the Philosophical Mindset:

The following is also posted on my main blog at www.glyshull.com

Kierkegaard, a philosopher, posited that belief in God, and following His will, suspends ethics and logic and transcends into a new area. This sounds... dangerous, and, indeed, it is, but he has a point. Think of Abraham. God tells him to sacrifie his only son. Did he ask anyone else before he left to do so? No. He did not, nor did he need to. What would you say if your spouse came and told you that they were going to go to that mountain in the back yard and sacrifice your only son? Yeah. Me, too. So he sets out with Isaac with the intention of returning alone, and his heart was heavy for it, but listen: Abraham's faith caused him to put aside his ethics and follow the narrow path. True, God spared Isaac, but the lesson wasn't that Isaac was to die, but that God Himself transcends ethics themselves, and so do His commands.

Now, let's fast forward to another instance and see if you can find it. Jesus is praying in the Garden, just before he was taken. The disciples are asleep outside. He knows it, but He also understands that they were exhausted. He comes out, begs them to pray for themselves, but wait, here it comes.
Now, let’s fast forward to another instance and see if you can find it. Jesus is praying in the Garden, just before he was taken. The disciples are asleep outside. He knows it, but He also understands that they were exhausted. He comes out, begs them to pray for themselves, but wait, here it comes.

Jesus emerges from the Garden. He is ready. He wakes His children, looks at them one last time, and sees another of His children kiss him on the cheek. Did Jesus feel betrayed? I’m sure He did, but wait, we’re almost there. The Roman guards step forward to sieze Jesus. Peter, realizing their intent, engages with the sword he bought earlier at Jesus’ instruction.

Jesus stopped him. Did you catch it? What could be more ethically wrong than not defending your saviour? What could be more wrong than letting Him die? Yet, this is what Peter was required to do.

Who do you think had it harder? Peter or Isaac?

[waldenwriter]

I think Peter had it worse because Isaac may or may not have understood what was going on, but Peter did.

I think the whole idea of Jesus saying he was going to be handed over to the Gentiles and die was hard for the disciples to understand (even though he said it at least 3 times). The Jews' idea of the Messiah was of a mighty king who would wipe out the Roman oppressors and set up a kingdom like David's in Jerusalem. But Jesus didn't do that. He came in a way that no one would expect the Messiah to come -- as a baby born to a carpenter and his betrothed in a stable. Even the Wise Men expected to find him in a palace (why else would they have gone to Herod first?). He associated with the worst of the worst ("tax collectors and sinners"), he elevated women, he healed those who came to him, and he even reached out to the Samaritans, something no other good Jewish rabbi of that time would've done. In many ways, he wasn't the Messiah people expected. That's why some Jews are still waiting for the Messiah, even though Jesus fulfilled all the Old Testament Messianic prophecies.

Peter knew of this idea of what the Messiah was to be like, I'm sure, and so he wanted to defend his potential king. So he fought the guards and accidentially cut off a servant's ear. Jesus then healed it and rebuked the disciples, saying the Scriptures regarding his death would not be fulfilled if he called down legions of angels to protect him from arrest, something he could have easily done.

To refuse to defend a potential ruler does seem to defy ethics and logic; but Peter had to do so in order for things to go the way they were prophesied to go. So, I think he had it harder.

[Christian Soldier]

I've always felt that Peter and I share a lot of similarities, like hoof in mouth syndrome, and I know how I would feel if I were told NOT to defend someone I love. But again, it goes so much deeper than that. In Peter's mind, they were in Jerusalem to set up shop. The Earthly reign would begin at last! Three years is a long time to follow someone around in the dirt and dust, and it was finally to be over.

Peter went through a time during which his god (note the little "g") died inside his heart. His god was nailed to the cross while he cowered, hid, but Jesus rose from the grave! Peter's concept, image of God, the god as it were, died to make way for Jesus to return and guide his children home, but Peter had to have his part in that death. We all did.

[lexkx]

I read a pan-galactic gargle-blaster of an essay once (in a secular university, no less!) that asked if I was believing in Jesus or following Christ. "Belief" has become such a flexible word. So many things can be excused or waived when the B-word comes into play. Following Christ is a harder thing to do, because we wind up having to put our feet in the same path. Even though it was centuries before that stormy afternoon on Golgotha, Isaac's journey up the mountain was not so very different. Peter had believed in Jesus, but he did not yet understand what following Christ would mean. I also think Isaac was blessed not to know the full impact of the sacrifice until he and his father reached the top. (Abraham's understanding of the sacrifice also helped, I think. "God will provide himself the lamb.")

There's another argument, that I really like, regarding Peter, James, and John. Jesus spent more time with them than the rest of the disciples, explaining as clearly as he could the parables and teaching with patient, explicit simplicity. The argument goes that these three did not receive this treatment because they were special or further in their understanding of the Lord's work--they were Jesus' remedial students.

Jesus, it seems, knew Peter did not understand what was going on--and that Peter would not understand until later--and did everything He possibly could to help Peter's understanding. Thus began four days of the most bitter and shameful doubt young Pete had ever faced. Time enough for every stone, every timber of the altar of his heart to be dismantled. So there was room for a new one when the women came back Sunday morning with news. I can't imagine anyone more glad to be wrong than Peter in that garden, when he was finally ready to surrender his own understanding.

[tris]

We forget that at the time of Isaac's adventure, child sacrifice was a common practice. It was widespread and a generally accepted part of society. Then here comes Abraham with a new perspective on God and how He relates to human beings. I'm sure there was a sense of relief in little Isaac's heart that his dad would never sacrifice him because their God was very different.

Can you imagine what was going through his mind on that long walk up the mountain? I read a whole lot more into "where's the lamb?" Isaac was a smart young man. He saw all the elements of sacrifice (had watched and maybe participated in the sacrifices Abraham made to God) and possibly known some friends whose families sacrificed them for various reasons. Where's the difference in his faith? Where's the God of love his dad was always talking about?

What a wise answer Abraham gave and what a permanent impact that had to have been on young Isaac afterwards. To actually be laid on an altar then released. A perfect picture of our redemption.

Except we're so far removed from that time in history we have difficulty relating to the symbolism.

I'm not sure it's an either or situation. I think both serve to illustrate that God's ways are higher than ours and it turns our world upside down when we follow Him.

[metalikhan]

Was Isaac a child? I've read that was a modern idea and that his age was closer to either mid 20's or 30's according to more traditional or Talmudic sources.

Regardless of his age, I think it says a lot about his obedience to Abraham (as well as to God) to allow himself to be bound for sacrifice, even though Genesis focuses on Abraham's obedience to God. In a way, it almost seems like a dynamic, human foreshadowing of the sacrifice our Father made for us and Jesus' obedience to God in being a sacrifice on our behalf.

And then, there's Peter, ready to come to armed defense for Jesus but told to stand down and not resist His sacrifice. How much doubt and confusion, how many if only's must have torn Peter's mind and heart until Jesus arose from the grave to reveal His victory over death.

Is it easier to be a sacrifice in obedience to God or to stand aside to watch a sacrifice in obedience to God?