Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

There is an odd story in Genesis 22.

It is the one about God telling Abraham to make a

human sacrifice of his son Isaac. Abraham understood God to tell him this, in spite of
Godʼs previous assurances to both him and his wife, Sarah, that in Isaac lay the seed of
Abrahamʼs posterity and a great nation.

In as much as the timing of the sacrifice was to be far prior to Isaac having the ability to
plant any of Abrahamʼs or his own seeds, this contradiction must have confused
Abraham as much as it does us, to this very day. Never the less, Abraham dutifully took
the boy, trussed him up and laid him on the rock and wooden alter Abraham built, with
Isaacʼs assistance, for just this use.

The Bible tells us that Abraham had the knife out, raised and ready to split Isaacʼs
gullet, preparatory to setting the entire bloody mess alight. Only then, did God elaborate
on the plan, letting Isaac off the pyre.

This is a deeply disturbing story. Modern men and women worry about the long term
psychological impact it must have had on little Isaac and wonder that he did not grow up
permanently warped and whacked as a result. Of course, when one reads all about the
Jacob and Essau story and the “hairy coat” thing, there is evidence of Isaac becoming
the head of a dysfunctional family, lending credence to that suspicion. Maybe, Isaac
was a bit bent by the whole affair.

Theologians havenʼt paid much attention to the psychological effects, if any, on little
Isaac. Theologians have, over the ages, used this story for a variety of purposes,
including, and commonly, as an example of perfect obedience. However, I prefer the
spin by some theologians that the story is proof God does not countenance human
sacrifice, even as a sacrifice unto Himself. Under this theological construct, it seems
God was merely “explaining” to Abraham, Isaac and all the rest of us that human
sacrifice is a no-no. Christian theologians have married this story up to the Christ story
to explain that God reserves to Himself, and to Himself alone, the right to sacrifice a son
for the sins of the world. Nobody else gets to do this. (Among the many things upon
which Juaic and Christian theologians disagree with Islamic theologians is who was laid
upon the alter. The former say Isaac, the latter say Ishmael. Either way, the storyʼs
meaning is the same. The distinction regarding which son was offered for sacrifice has
more to do with the claims concerning who really has the right to Palestine/Israel. The
answer to that, of course, appears always to have been who has the best military at the

Theologians, some of them, like Supreme Court Justices, Scalia excepted, will, trying to
narrow the implications, tell you this story emerged during a period when human
sacrifice was common in religions of the near East. These theologians, some of them,
will tell you that the story is not about the sanctity of human life. These will say, to the
degree it is about anything beyond perfect obedience to God, it is about the primacy of
Godʼs will over the strictures of manʼs cultural imperatives and/or laws.
Interpreted narrowly, Godʼs will stood against the essential egomania and attendant
insecurity of ancient men that allowed human sacrifice to make some sort of sense. In
short, God said, regardless of what the high priest said from atop the pyramid, you
ought not kill that virgin.

The Roman Catholic Church made good use of this story. It was used to assert  primacy
of Church law over civil law. The story was also used to convince the remnants of the
pre-Columbian native American societies that God allowed the destruction of their
societies, in part, due to the ongoing human sacrifice. So, the story definitely had its
practical uses.

The logical interpretation of the story and the conclusion to which it leads is, when a
custom and/or law of man stands against Godʼs will, manʼs law or custom ought not
prevail. Of course, this interpretation begs the question of who gets to define Godʼs will.
This little catch has, itself, led to a great deal of mischief. But, that is a question for
another day.

Put Isaac and Abraham aside for a moment.

There is another odd little story in Genesis. This one is found in Chapter 38. This story
is not in the Qur'án but the story has been used in Islamic tradition as an example of
womanʼs wily ways. It is frequently used in the Judaic and Christian traditions in much
the same way.

This is the story of Tamar, not King Davidʼs mother but the other one, Judahʼs daughter
in law. (Tamar was the mother of the founder of Davidʼs line which, as we all know,
included Joseph, stepfather of Jesus. So, while this one wasnʼt Davidʼs mother, neither
was she chopped liver.) It seems Tamar was the wife of Judahʼs oldest son. According
to the Bible, God did not like the way Tamarʼs husband did the dirty so He slew him.
God did not mess about back in the day.

As was custom, Tamar, as widow of the oldest son, was immediately married off to the
next son in line. Unfortunately, whatever this second husband was doing in the sack
with our gal did not please the Lord any better than the other brother had done. So, the
Lord slew that brother as well. Can anybody say “sex education?”

Naturally, this being a patriarchal society, Tamar got all the blame. Since they really
couldnʼt prove anything she did was responsible for killing the boys, they assumed she
was just really bad bandicou and sent her back to her fatherʼs house. Ostensibly, she
was to wait there until Judahʼs third, and last, sonʼs testicles descended and hair grew in
all the appropriate places and, then, she would be married to him. That was the deal.

Instead, Judah decided he couldnʼt risk another son to a woman who literally was
fucking people to death. So, he kept putting things off, just never got back to her about
it. Ladies, you know how that goes, he promises to call and he never does.
Well, it finally got back to Tamar, who had been lying fallow all this time in her fatherʼs
house, that the third son was fully developed and ready for bed. She figured it out, no
dummy she. She knew Judah had no intention of letting her get laid proper and she got

However, she did not just get mad. She devised a way to get satisfaction.
She disguised herself as a temple prostitute, they had those back then, and waylaid
Judah, the old man himself, by the city gate of Timnah. She caught him horny, on the
road, away from the wives and she laid him down good and proper. Judah, for some
reason, did not recognize her, she was older and maybe had put on a bit of weight, canʼt
say, I wasnʼt there.

As it happened, he couldnʼt pay for the lay once heʼd enjoyed it. The Bible makes it
clear he believed he received fair value for the agreed price and, as he was an
honorable john, he arranged to pay later. She had her doubts. So, he gave her his “staff
and seal” as surety that he would bring the lamb he agree to swap for his visit to the
honey hole.

Well, when he sent the lamb along later with a friend traveling that way, the friend could
not retrieve the staff or seal. He could not retrieve them because nobody in Timnah had
ever heard of a temple prostitute working their streets. It was a family oriented market
town, “That sort did not hang here,” he was told. When told, Judah said “Damn” and
simply forgot the whole thing.

A bit later, it turns out Tamar is great with child, twins, in fact, and all Hell broke loose.
Seems unmarried women werenʼt supposed to be out fornicating or otherwise getting
knocked up back then.

Even though Tamar lived in her fatherʼs house, she was still, officially, part of Judahʼs
household because he was still her father in law. She was, therefore, dragged before
Judah for punishment, the standard being to be “burnt.” During his questioning of her
concerning who planted the seed in her womb, she said “The man to whom these
belong,” as she showed him his staff and seal.

Well, as Robert Gibbs might say, “That put a different spin on things.” Judah realized
heʼd been caught thinking with his little head by a very clever woman.
Long story short, Judah pardoned her because he “realized she had been more
righteous than I.”

Now, to me, this seems to be an example of God illustrating that the sexual motivations
He put in women are normal and natural and not to be suppressed by manʼs laws or
cultural norms. And, when these motivations are stymied by foolish custom or law, it is
OK to go about your business. Put in modern language, "You go girl."

When the Tamar story is married up to the Mary and Martha story in Luke 10: 38-41, it
could even be said that the Lord has no problem with women having sex or thinking or
both. This seems as obvious as the no human sacrifice thing involving Abraham and
Isaac and the Crucifixion story. Yet, somehow, Tamar has not been interpreted that way
by theologians, at least not that I know of. On the other hand, if it does not mean that,
what can it mean?

It seems to me God is saying He makes people the way they are. When it comes to
sexuality; male, female, gay, straight, nobody gets to pick. We all just get assigned.
Two odd little stories out of the Bible. If you believe the Bible, these stories must mean
something. It seems to me that these stories are there to illustrate Godʼs view of things.
Man shouldnʼt be making laws that violate the nature of His creation.

Imagine, if you will, what it would be like to still live in a world where human sacrifice
was practiced. I donʼt know, maybe prayer would not be enough in such a world and
virgin blood would be required for Pat Robertson to steer a hurricane away from the
Virginia coast and back out to sea. Or, in such a world, it could be believed that such
sacrifice was the only thing that could stop wildfires and earthquakes in California,
tornadoes in Kansas and Dick Cheney anywhere.

All this, of course, is mere hypothesis since God instructed us otherwise, way back
there in Abrahamʼs time.

So, we donʼt split them and drain them anymore.

I wonder what life might have been like if the religious powers that be had interpreted
the Tamar story using the same logic they did with Abraham and Isaac. Women and
men of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic traditions may well have spent the past three or four
millennia being perfectly comfortable with female sexuality. If nothing else, it would have
spared us all those Rock Hudson/Doris Day films. That alone would have made it all