During the creation story of
Genesis I, it is repeatedly said that God’s actions are good. Following the
creation of light, the seas, and the fruit bearing trees, God saw that “it was
good,” (1:4). This repetition establishes a sense of God’s inherent goodness.
However, as Genesis progresses, some of God’s decisions prompt questioning of
His morality. Such unjust and arbitrary actions serve as God’s self-conscious
reassurance of His divine omnipotence, contradictory to “the way of the Lord to
do righteousness and justice,” (18:19).
Two commands in particular
represent the injustice that God occasionally yields. Chronologically, the first
incident is when He wishes to destroy the city of Sodom due to the outcries of
the people. Abraham instantly notes the injustice in this action. “’Will you
really wipe out the innocent with the guilty?’” he implores of his God (18:24).
“’Far be it from You! Will not the Judge of all the earth do justice?’”
(18:26). It is clear from Abraham’s desperate language that God’s wish seems
terribly uncharacteristic of His good nature that he established in the first
chapter. However, solely his reputation is not strong enough to appease
Abraham’s doubt in the intentions of his actions. Abraham knowingly refutes
God’s immoral intent to take the lives of innocent people. This proves that
while God himself sets the standard of good and evil, he too is capable of
making mistakes.
God’s next questionable act is when
he demands Abraham to offer up his son as a “burnt offering,” (22:2). After his
previous failed attempt to question God, Abraham blindly followed his orders,
not taking note of this blatantly immoral request. The importance of his son’s
life is made clear by the repetition of language concerning offspring, such as
“seedling” and the way that God saves Hagar’s dying child in just the previous
chapter. God’s request for Abraham’s son appears extremely contradictory to His
established notion of good. God’s reasoning behind this command is not moral or
pragmatic. Instead, He seeks additional self-assurance of his power. Just as
Abraham is about to slaughter his child, God stops him. He commends Abraham,
awarding him by announcing that “all the nations of the earth will be blessed
through [Abraham’s] seed because [he] have listened to [God’s] voice,” (22:18).
This displays his primary interest is that of insecure reassurance, not the
promotion of good.
Some of God’s actions throughout Genesis
aren’t unjust, but instead seem to serve no purpose at all. In particular,
God’s covenant with Abraham includes some strangely arbitrary conditions. In
exchange for making Abram the “father to a multitude of nations,” God changes
his name to Abraham (17:5). “And no longer shall your name be called Abram,” He
commands, “but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you father to a
multitude of nations,” (17:5). This directly displays his reasoning for the
name swap. There is no logical function of the name Abraham, except that it
reminds Abraham of God’s great power. This arbitrary wish, therefore, is out of
self-promotion. The same goes for the way that he changes Abraham’s wife name, Sarai,
to Sarah. And finally, to leave a mark on all of civilization, he demands the
circumcision of all males of present and the future to come. This physical mark
reminds humanity that God’s wish is their command, even if it is something as
arbitrary as physical mutilation that receives no practical explanation. The
fact that God is only concerned for the male population parallels the theme of
male dominance throughout the rest of Genesis. God’s arbitrary nomenclature and
insistence on circumcision both act as tools to remind humanity of His
unyielding power.
I agree with your first point about God's unjust desire to ruin the city of Sodom, killing innocent people, however I disagree with you claim that his test of Abraham is unjust. In response to the test of Abraham, God is simply trying the faith of the man he intends to basically leave the entire human world to. It seems logical to me that he would want to be entirely sure of his devotion before allowing him to be the "father of nations." While, I do understand that the thought of sacrificing a child is terrible, it is a necessary test for God to ensure the loyalty of his earthly follower.
ReplyDeleteEleanor, I cannot agree that Abraham’s name change is arbitrary. To me, the name change seemed like a new, more privileged title. For example when someone is knighted they have an additional “Sir” added to their name. Here, I think the name change is for the same reason. God says he is to be the “father to a multitude of nation” (17:5). It is like he is knighting him with this new name as his status increases to father of nations. This is also for Abraham’s wife. If the man gains the title of “king” than his wife will be the “queen”. This could be why Sarai’s name changes to Sarah. Though this may not seem like much, God bestowing this new power title on the couple is a reminder to them of his gift.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree that changing Abraham's name demonstrates God's influence, I am not sure that I can agree that it is arbitrary. That being said, I had not originally believed it to be the equivalent of knighting someone as Marlee suggests, although now brought up the idea intrigues me. It seems reasonable to change his name into a more formal one, as suggested by the footnote 5, as his role in changes into a more formal one.
ReplyDeleteGenesis 13:13 states "Now the people of Sodom were very evil offenders against the Lord."
ReplyDeleteI find it a little difficult to grasp the idea of God being unjust by taking life away from people he does not deem worthy of living. In Genesis 1, God creates everything, including humans - It does not seem to me that humans have a right to existence, or that God has an obligation to keep people alive.
On another note, relating to Eleonor's thought about the things God does with for no purpose, something questionable that God does is how he promises Abraham the land of Canaan. This is ironic, because it would seem that there are already people living there. Genesis 13: 7-8 states "The Canaanite and the Perizite were then dwelling in the land."
I think it's important to distinguish that the repetitions of "it was good" that Ellie mentioned in her post are not referring to God's actions but rather his creations(1:4). While this may contribute to our understanding of God as a perfect being, it is also important in establishing a contrast between the earth prior to the corruption that occurs after Adam and Eve eat from the tree of knowledge.
ReplyDeleteEllie notes upon the very first readings of God where he mentions that he sees everything as good. This is significant as she points this out because this directly shows that God has created to what he believe is good and bad. What he creates initially is shown to be very good and pleasing in his eyes, then as Anker points out in Genesis 13:13 these people in Sodom are obviously bad and unrighteous. Since in this text God is the creator of everything, he can and has chosen what is good and bad. This can lead back to his self-promotion; God can cause things to turn out to be very good for his followers and bad for his non-followers. Such as the time Abram and Sarai are traveling through Egypt, the Pharaoh saw how beautiful Sarai was and wanted her, but he and his men were "afflicted ... with terrible plagues" and tells him to take her away (Genesis 12:17-19). God reveals his power in that he protects his chosen Abram and his family from the Egyptian who do not worship God. In all of this, God is exercising his power and shows it among his creations. I do think that changing Abram's name was significant and arbitrary in the sense Ellie points out. In several references to God, God is a jealous creator; he wants credit for the good that has come out of the earth as well as the power in destroying the evil people and cities. As she points out, this may show God's mark upon his people, but I do not agree that his actions are unjust. In a world he created, the term unjust could be anything God has decided it to be, and it seems that if bad people continue their evil doings, he has right to completely destroy them.
ReplyDeleteI think Eleanor is correct when she states that God is acts to reassure himself of his power and dominance. Her argument can be further strengthened by examining the escalating nature of the sacrifices God demands. After the flood, Noah sacrifices “every clean cattle and every clean fowl and offered burnt offerings on the alter” (8:20-21). God is appeased by these sacrifices, and decides to be more lenient on mankind. However, it quickly becomes not enough. When God offers Abraham the chance to be the father of a chosen race, he demands that “every male among you must be circumcised” (17: 11). This is a sacrifice of human flesh, which God demands from each of his followers as tribute. However, with time, even regular acts of mutilation in his worship are not enough for God. He demands that Abraham “Take, pray, your son, your only one, whom you love, Isaac, and go forth to the land of Moriah and offer him up as a burnt offering on one of the mountains which I shall say to you” (22:2-3). In this step, God moves to demand full-on human sacrifice. The burnt offerings which were at first animals have slowly escalated as God’s hunger for power grew. Though in the end God does not have Abraham carry through with the sacrifice, that God expects his followers to be willing to sacrifice their loved ones to satisfy his whims shows his increasingly unreasonable demands.
ReplyDelete