Ship of Fools lists the 10 Worst Verses in the Bible. The list was compiled by reader submissions and votes. It is cavalcade of rape, murder, misogyny, and gay bashing, except for No. 8.
For that one we get God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. When I read that on the list, it leaped out at me because of the importance of binding of Isaac in so much Judeo-Christian commentary and history. It simply is one of the great – and challenging – episodes in the entire Bible. It is not Paul giving out household advice or the chronicle of obscure Israeli military leaders. This is one of the defining episodes in the Bible.
Ship of Fools concludes its commentary on the list with this:
It’s an unedifying list, but we think the Bible can survive bringing these shadowy verses into the spotlight. It’s not the all-or-nothing book that fundamentalists (atheist and Christian) say that we must either accept wholesale or burn. We need a view of the Bible that is nuanced enough to treasure its comforts and challenges, its classic stories and groundbreaking ethical wisdom, while facing the plain fact that some of it is unacceptable.
This seems rather cavalier in its attitude toward Abraham and Isaac. If that story is unacceptable, then what is off limits?
I am a part-time local pastor serving 
The doctrine of original sin is surely more humbling to man than the opposite: And I know not what honour we can pay to God, if we think man came out of His hands in the condition wherein he is now.
I’ve preached that Abraham actually failed the test by offering up Isaac. You notice he never sees Isaac again nor is it recorded he ever talks to God again. If that is the reward for faith, then no thanks.
I have never heard that interpretation of the story before. Thank you for sharing.
You think God punished Abraham for following the command? I’ve got to go back and read now because I find that interpretation so at odds with my understanding of the story that I’m not sure how to respond without processing it for a bit.
You notice he never sees Isaac again nor is it recorded he ever talks to God again.
I don’t tend to read much into what the text does not say. For instance, I’m pretty sure Jesus had to urinate even though the gospels do not mention it. I would not conclude that he never did things that are not mentioned.
I also find it hard to square an Abraham failed conclusion with the text itself (22:15-18).
I agree with Ship of Fools. Can you explain why you think it’s cavalier?
Many Jewish interpreters see this story as being about the end of human sacrifice, for what it’s worth.
Pam, my concern is that they toss the binding of Isaac in the list of things to be tossed aside as unacceptable when it has been and continues to be a hugely significant text. This is not a question of a social rule or convention that may have changed over time. At least that is not how it has been read over the centuries.
I agree with them that the Bible is not a book that must be accepted wholesale or burned. Of course, that is a bit of a straw man as it sets anyone who questions Ship of Fools in the fundamentalist camp.
You can say that some of the Bible is unacceptable, but that does not get us very far. To the rich man who does not want to be bothered by the poor, the Bible is unacceptable. To the person who likes the power that lying gives him, the Bible is unacceptable. To the person who says there is no God and life has no purpose, the Bible is unacceptable.
To toss the binding in the rubbage pile with the tag of unacceptable, with little more than a one-liner about human sacrifice strikes me as rather casual and hence cavalier.
To invoke fundamentalists and quip that the Bible is unacceptable in places does not do justice to the depth of theological insight and challenge people have found in the story of Abraham over the centuries.
my concern is that they toss the binding of Isaac in the list of things to be tossed aside as unacceptable when it has been and continues to be a hugely significant text.
Interesting. Now we come to “How does one interpret this text from SOF?” because I didn’t read their statement that way. I read “the Bible can survive bringing these shadowy verses into the spotlight” as the exact opposite: This text which we find incredibly difficult (would God really tell someone to kill his son as a test of faith?) is in the bible but we can talk about it because the bible can stand up to such scrutiny.
The Jewish interpretation is far more interesting to me. It rather suggests that Abraham must have heard God wrong. And God says “No, no! I don’t want human sacrifice any more.” But I presume that a lot of Christians won’t like that interpretation because if God didn’t need a human sacrifice, why did Jesus die?
“But I presume that a lot of Christians won’t like that interpretation because if God didn’t need a human sacrifice, why did Jesus die?”
That’s a very crass way of presenting Christian approaches to the cross. Evangelicals do not believe the cross was a human sacrifice like a pagan human sacrifice. Jesus was fully human and fully God.
It’s clear that we can’t deal with sin ourselves so through the cross God dealt with it for us. Only God could have done this. If Jesus had just been human then the cross would have had no power.
“Ship of Fools…” apt name. As Jeremiah discovered, they are not the first to use a knife to edit out what they do not like about Scripture. As far as their suggested editing of the Bible, they share company with Marcion, etc. Practically speaking, they are no different from those who simply ignore Scripture when it does not say what they want to hear.
It’s hard to take someone seriously on the Bible when they claim their quote from Exodus is the only quote from the Torah and go on later with a quote from Genesis. Also revealing, however they explain it, that they chose 2 “sexism” verses to only 1 genocide verse, and even then didn’t think the genocide was as serious!