08 Jun 1999
09:59:27

Why did God ask this of Abraham? I don't think I want to believe in a God that toys with us in that way. Am I missing the point? Maybe it's the replacement that God gives, the ram. Is Abraham's sacrifice of his son a type for Christ's crucifixion? I hope that someone is preaching the OT lesson and thinks about some of these things with me. In what direction are you taking your sermon? Give me a hand here. Tom in Ontario


10 Jun 1999
08:35:41

I've heard almost everyone, including preachers in journals, say that Isaac was Abraham's "only" son. But what about Ishmael? Wasn't Ishmael Abraham's son? Didn't Abraham sacrifice Ishmael by sending him into the desert to die with his mother?

Abraham didn't get Ishmael and Isaac out of their predicaments--God did. (Although the argument can be made that God got Isaac into his predicament to begin with.)


17 Jun 1999
11:50:24

17 June 1999 13:35:30 In connection with you questions, Tom in Ontario, I am planning to preach on this Genesis passage also. The questions are good--but I don't believe that we can ever ask WHY did God do something. We may have to rephrase our questions into What was.., or How do we hear God's leading in this point, or Where was Abraham in his faith journey, when God called him to take Issac? Only God knows "why" but we can certainly reflect with others on what the outcome of such an action may have had on Abraham or even on us. I am struck by the symbolic nature of "Abraham--the Father of us all, laying the wood for Issac's sacrifice upon his own son's shoulders. God took his own son and laid a cross upon him to be crucified--yet Christ Jesus was not spared. AND I have to believe that Issac was quite aware of what was about to happen..."Father---the fire and the wood are here... but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?" I think Issac said this in much the same manner as God spoke to Sarah--when she denied laughing. It was with a humourous smirk, that God said, "OOOOOh Yes, you did laugh!!!" Issac knew what was about to take place -- yet he was the suffering servant carrying out God's will. where do we go from here? God always provides--I still have trouble with God testing--yet Jesus was tested in the wilderness. Just reflections--peace- Don in Topeka


20 Jun 1999
16:12:36

It seems pretty apparent that Issac is no small boy here if he's strong enough to carry the wood for the fire...so he would have had some inklings of what appeared to be happening. Would he, like us,have desperately wanted to deny what he was concluding? Can we know what was going on in his mind? The there is Abraham's perspective also...which is the most often portrayed view of this text. I once heard a seminary professor of mine preach this text from the rams point of view...now THAT was intriguing! I have often enjoyed Michael Card's musical and lyrical interpretation of this text: "GOd has Provided a Lamb" and highly recommend it! Sheila in NC


20 Jun 1999
19:10:44

I think this this passage is probably a polemic agains child sacrifice in ancient Israel; however, it has become much more than a polemic against child sacrifice for this is evident in its placement of the Abraham cycle.

I an intrigued from what I read in Thomas Mann's "Book of the Torah" (don't know how to underline here): "If there is any answer to the question of why God tested Abraham, it must take into account the context of the entire cycle. God testted Abraham because he wanted to know, once and for all, whether or not Abraham trusted God completely." And the crucial point of Mann's, one upon which I hope to base a sermon: "Is Abraham's trust really in God, or in what God has promised?" The point being in what Abraham has preceived to be God's promise. Abraham is willing to go beyond his initial interpretations of promise and God. Are we willing to go beyond our initial interpretations of what we perceive to be God's promises and trust the one behind those promises?

Mark in Virginia


20 Jun 1999
21:07:25

Though we are dismayed by cultures that sacrificed their children to their gods, we continue to do it ourselves. But look at God's faithfulness in bringing Abraham to a new understanding and intimacy with God, freeing Abraham to accept the sacrifice God made.

Did anyone catch or know more about the TV news magazine piece on violence a few weeks ago on the way Christ has changed Fiji--where at the turn of the century a teenager would have been buried at each corner of a new house? Anne in Providence

, not only in providing the sacrifice Abraham came to know a God who provided the sacrifice for us


20 Jun 1999
21:15:42

There is also great stuff here on free will and our obedience to God's will. That is to say, Abraham had the CHOICE to go up to the mountain and sacrifice his "only" (yeah - what about Ishmael?) son. What choices do we face? And, are we willing to put God's choices for us first, ahead of our own? These are the questions the text asks me. As for God testing us -- I know it has happened in my life, and I am better for it. I do not understand some of the above posts that claim it does not / should not happen. But I suppose that is a subjective viewpoint, and explains why I love the hymn "How Firm a Foundation." -- Joel in BoCoMo


21 Jun 1999
05:18:06

Another point -- God was not asking Abraham - the foundation upon which God builds God's revelation to humankind - to do anything God was not planning on doing Godself. Therefore, God needed to see (test) how firm God's foundation of revelation (Abraham) was. Joel in BoCoMo


21 Jun 1999
11:49:04

Hi everyone,

I've noticed several people pointing out the fact that Isaac wasn't Abraham's "only son." The Muslim perspective has it that Ishmael, not Isaac, was the one threatened with sacrifice. It's really only Ishmael who could at any time be called Abraham's "only son."

Another thought to throw into the mix!

--James in NE


21 Jun 1999
12:46:19

NOte that in Hebrew it is Elohim who commands Abraham to offer Isaac as a burnt offering. But it is the angel of YAHWEH who calls to Abraham to stop. Perhaps only after a time of intense struggle is Abraham able to hear Yahweh and realize that his original hearing of a god was not the voice of his Lord. Mary


21 Jun 1999
19:02:01

John Claypool in his sermon "Life is a Gift" gave me a whole new perspective on Abraham & Isaac: He says: "The whole point in the Abraham saga lies in God's effort to restore men [sic] to the right vision of life and a right relationship to it. Only when life is seen as a gift and received with the open hands of gratitude is it the joy God meant for it to be. And these were the truths God was seeking to emphasize as he waited so long to send Isaac and then asked for him back. Did Abraham realize that all was gift, and not something to be earned or to be possessed, but received, participated in, held freely in gratefulness?"


22 Jun 1999
04:59:08

I too struggle with the idea that God tests anyone to see whether or not s/he is faithful and or obedient. I do however agree that some of life's situations do in fact test us. God already knows what is in me and what my choices will be, but the "test" often reveals much to the one tested. It wasn't God who needed to know about Abe's faith, but what did Abe discover about himself? However, I am still not sure where I am going with this text as yet. I do appreciate all the thoughts so far and like the Claypool one especially. All our children are a gift from God, and God does provide for their need, if like Hagar and Abe we have the eyes to look and see those provisions, Deke of the North


22 Jun 1999
05:48:43

Mary,

My hebrew is nowhere near where I hope it to be but my understanding of Elohim is that it is the plural form of Eli, which is God (as when Christ on the Cross cried out "Eli, Eli..."). Some have thought Elohim refers to the plurality of God as evidenced in the Trinity. So I'm not sure that I can discount or deny as quickly that it was God (or the Lord) who told Abraham to sacrifice his son.

Rick in Va


22 Jun 1999
06:20:48

I notice that everyone is using "test" in the sense of judgment, i.e. abraham's faith was tested to see if it was strong enough. I understand "test" here to mean something more akin to 'strengthening' as when iron is 'tested' in the fire and made stronger.We know that as a husband and father Abraham had a number of weaknesses. Could it be that for God to use him he needed to be strengthened in his faith? In this sense the test can be seen as a divine gift. BTS Student.


22 Jun 1999
06:57:09

Any ideas on the significance of Abraham's thrice repeated answer "Here I am"?? Why does Abraham continually have to affirm his presence throughout this situation? Is it human nature to "space off" or take our minds someplace else when we are confronted with possible tradgedy? Is there another angle I am missing?

I like bringing the first commandment to bear on this situation: Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Was Isaac, the promised son by which Abraham would be father of all nations, a god to Abraham? Perhaps this test is to see if Abraham is really willing to lay down all other gods and trust the One God. Sarah Adwoa


22 Jun 1999
08:21:33

Check out the story "The Son's Blood" under shar a thought. It's quite relevant to this particular text.

MK/Toronto


22 Jun 1999
08:33:12

There's some good thoughts on this passage in a sermon called "A Faith Test" by Rev Herb Koonce. You can find it on the web at www.sermons.org/sermons/ot.html

God Bless


22 Jun 1999
08:57:10

Some thoughts for you: the phrase "Here I am" in Hebrew can also be interpretted "Ready". Also, re the "only son" read it this way: God: take your son... Abe: I have two sons. God: Your only son... Abe: they are both the only son of their mother. God: Isaac, whom you love.....

also a great text for this passage is Jon Levenson's The Death and Resurrection of the beloved Son. It traces the pattern of child sacrifice and makes the case that it was done and takes the whole idea seriously. It gets a little fuzzy when it gets to Jesus (Levenson is Jewish) but it has many good points and may help anyone who has time to read it. I have titled my sermon, "God, how could You?" And am relating the horror we have when we come to this passage with the pain we have in life. When that pain comes, we often look to God and ask why? or how could you let this happen? The question here should rather be, "What was the outcome? How did the world change because of this?" Also notice that this traumatic event in the early life and history of the Jewish people is played out several more times and countless others through substitiution-- Joseph is sold into slavery (a form of death); Jephthah's daughter, Samuel given as an offering to the Lord, so many others as well least of all to meantion is Jesus, the beloved son. Just some thoughts. Hope they help. Kurt in Indiana


22 Jun 1999
09:09:49

I still struggle with the thought that God would require the sacrifice (murder) of a child as an act of obedience. Abraham likely knew of child sacrifice being practiced in some Canaanite religions and perhaps thought that if they can show such devotion to their gods certainly he could do as much for his God. The true nature of God is perhaps in the NO that the angel of the LORD speaks to Abraham. This story could be describing how God values life and does not approve of child sacrifice. I like this thought but have trouble thinking that Abraham only imagined what God asked him to do. My sermon seems to be taking the direction of asking ourselves what God is calling us to do as well as focusing on the substitute that God provides to give us life rather than death. Tom in Ontario


22 Jun 1999
09:31:13

For your edification. This comes from *A Treasury of Jewish Folklore* by Nathan Ausubel (an excellent source of illustrative material if it’s still in print).

Rabbi Moses Leib of Sassov was a very tolerant man. Whenever he acted as judge in a dispute he would look for any possible excuse to be lenient. Upon one occasion, the lax conduct of the community ‘sochet’ [ritual slaughterer - in Judaism killing an animal is a sacred task] was cause for much complaint. His dismissal was demanded by all. Only one man appeared in his defense when the case was brought up before the rabbi. The good sage listened, his brow knitted, to the testimony of the witnesses. Then he announced his decision: “I absolve the ‘shochet’ of all blame and rule that he retain his post.”

Thereupon a clamor arose.

“Rabbi!” cried one. “How can you take the word of one single man against the testimony of many!”

The rabbi replied gently, “When God commanded Abraham to bring his only son Isaac as a sacrifice upon His altar, didn’t Abraham listen then to a mere angel who stayed his hand? Yet God found this just, although it opposed His will. And God’s reason for this is plain. To do a man harm requires a decision from high authority--to save him from harm, only a word from the most insignificant source.”

DR


22 Jun 1999
09:32:06

Kurt in Indiana,

Great stuff...

Thanks,

Rick in Va


22 Jun 1999
19:42:52

Hi all: I am interested in oursueing this text from Isaac's point of view. It is no longer a happy ending type of text. Isaac's trust in his father has been destoyed. I can imagine him pleading with his father as he is being bound and placed on the alter. How can he go away from there with a good feeling. Where do we go from here? Betraying trusts placed in us, perhaps. What about as a church? I am serching at this point. It may lead somewhere. Jim in Manitoba


22 Jun 1999
19:49:23

OOPs! pursueing . That may not be a word either. Lets look at the text from Isaac's point of view. Jim in Manitoba


22 Jun 1999
20:41:39

Here's a literary reference to this story. This from *The Collected Poems of Wilfred Owen*. Owen’s poems were written as he fought (later to die) in World War 1, and his poetry reflects his war experience. This poem is a strong incitement of the war, couched in the story of Abraham and Isaac. DR

THE PARABLE OF THE OLD MAN AND THE YOUNG

So Abram rose, and clave the wood, and went,

And took the fire with him, and a knife.

And as they sojourned both of them together,

Isaac the first born spake and said, My Father,

Behold the preparations, fire and iron,

But where the lamb for this burnt-offering?

Then Abram bound the youth with belts and straps,

And builded parapets and trenches there,

And stretched forth the knife to slay his son.

When lo! an angel called him out of heaven,

Saying, Lay not thy hand upon the lad,

Neither do anything to him. Behold,

A ram, caught in a thicket by its horns;

Offer the Ram of Pride instead of him.

But the old man would not so, but slew his son,

And half the seed of Europe, one by one.


22 Jun 1999
21:17:23

I think that obviously something was going on, something happened between Abraham and Isaac. I am reminded of an employer of mine, many years ago, who told his youngest son that if he bought a motorcycle, the dad would kick the son out of the house. The son did and the dad did. The son was not allowed to come home until after he was married, had two children and finally got rid of his motorcycle. Eventually, he built a house close to his dad's. My employer said it was the hardest thing he ever had to do, but he had to keep his word. I can't imagine! It seems to me the boy was about 17 when he left. He was about 25 when he returned.

Perhaps something similar went on between Abraham and Isaac and over the years, it became child sacrifice, which was practiced by surrounding religions. I don't know. All I know is that while the Bible is the inspired word of God, people write it down. I can't help but think that something got twisted in the telling.

Mark in VA, I like your interpretation that what is being tested here is Abraham's faithfulness to God. Is Abraham faithful to God or to all that God has promised? Are we faithful to God because we love God, or because God has promised us eternal life? (Are we faithful to our spouse because of what they offer us, or because we love them?) Is our participation in religion only to "escape the wrath that is to come"?

This is Bring A Friend Sunday for us. Wish me luck!

RevJan


22 Jun 1999
22:17:44

We've just finished a Parish Retreat (based on St Ignatius' exercises). We were looking at some of the stories about/told by Jesus, and retelling them as if we were one of the characters in the story - much easier for some stories than others.

During our mid-week Holy Communion service today,w e were looking at this reading, and how alien it is to our understanding of God (esp. as earlier this week in Australia a woman killed her own 4 yo son while 'performing an exorcism' on him - how can God be seen as demanding the death of a child).

We talked about how the story would be from the point of view of Isaac and Abraham, and then about what it would be from God's point of view. Looking at this story in the light of God's sacrifice of his only son, Jesus, it seems to me to be saying that this is how hard it was for God - except in that case Jesus is the sacrificial lamb, and there is no escape for him as there was for Isaac.

Think of how hard it would be to be in Abraham's shoes - and think of what it cost God to give up his son. I don't think I will take communion again without thinking of this story, and feeling the pain of a father giving up his son.

Mary in Australia


23 Jun 1999
15:57:01

Jim in Manitoba

I find your approach very interesting, looking at the pericope from the lens of Isaac, however I would see Isaac possibly reacting in a different way. If he understood himself as the priviledged child with an ego and voice, he would possibly come away from the incident surprised and tramatized of experiencing his father appearing to turn on him. But, as I suspect, he was a child of the time and culture, he would have known his place: to be obedient, learn the culture, and possibly be honored to be a sacrifice. Isaac may have been surprised that an animal would be "the sacrificial lamb."

For me, this says a lot to the marginalized persons in society who are the sacrificial ones in our society. God has a message. There is another way, and no one will be used in this way. I hope I'm making sense. Sometimes my comments are too vague. Spoken like a true marginalized persons

Shalom

Pasthersyl


23 Jun 1999
18:37:20

I have read all your contributions with great appreciation--this text makes me wish I hadn't committed to preaching on Genesis. I wonder about Isaac, what he might have thought after the sacrifice event was over, how he seems to be a passive figure throughout. He must have recalled how his father sacrificed Ishmael--was he angry or bitter? Sarah must have remembered Abraham's willingness to sacrifice her in Egypt. Could she accept the same for her beloved son? >I am leaning toward the idea of God providing for us even in the face of the absurd. The hardest thing in those situations is to trust that God will provide. Linda at ANTS


23 Jun 1999
18:50:36

Thought for Tom in Ontario:

In seminary (words that now tend to make me shudder!), we were taught that from an historical-cultural critical approach, the very point of this story was to teach that the God of Abraham was set apart from other theisms by the fact that this God did NOT require child sacrifice. Further, it showed that while some gods were capricious and had to be constantly sated or placated, that this God was consistent. It's a -via negativa- approach: set up the audience to expect the norm--child sacrifice and the breaking of a promise (that Isaac was Abe's avenue to a "great nation"). Typical of the gods of the day; because of this, people worshipped out of fear. But this story has twists and turns that take it out of the norm: God doesn't break covenant, and doesn't demand children's blood. Therefore, we are called to worship God not out of fear as much as out of love for what God promises and provides for us. (Not negating holy fear (i.e., proper place and respect) in this; just sharing a learned perspective.)

Thanks to everyone for their contributions. I'm United Methodist, and this Sunday will be my last in a two point charge. Lots of good stuff has happened in 6 years, but it still hurts to leave. This passage gives me hope and perks up my faith, that God will be where I am going; will be with the churches I'm leaving; and will be with the pastors who are coming to each of these churches--and in each and every case, whatever shadows we might see in the plan, God doesn't demand emotional or physical pain. Instead, God will provide for all we need!

Brian in MI


23 Jun 1999
22:11:04

Just a note of caution. If you are preaching on this text and children will be present, please acknowledge the fear that this passage raises, both in children and in parents. I'm titling my sermon "But I Won't Do That" (yes, from the song). My greatest fear is not that I won't hear God, or that God won't call me, but that God will call me to do something that I cannot do -- sacrifice my child. In the eyes of the world, that makes me a good Mom, in the eyes of God? Who knows. I just hope God never asks . . .

RevJan


24 Jun 1999
05:58:49

I, too, feel like I'm called to preach on this passage, but I'm not sure where I'm supposed to go with it yet.

In terms of the Elohim/YHWH issue. Rick in VA is very close in his explanation, but my Hebrew scholar side must make a slight correction. Elohim is the plural of "El," which means "God" or "god" (It is also the name of a particular god in Ugaritic-and perhaps Canaanite mythology). The "i" in "Eli" means "my." Elohim is a plural, but is almost always used as a singular. I question the supposition that it represents the Trinity, as Trinitarian thinking is foreign to the writers of the OT-it develops late in the NT period, and only comes to fullness in the 300-400's A.D.

In any case, I cannot agree with Mary's suggestion that we are dealing with two different "God's" here, as Elohim and YHWH (as well as El) are all used of the God of Israel. From a historical-critical perspective, the distinction in names for God is related to the original source of the story. According to this understanding, most of this story comes from E (the Elohist), while those verses mentioning YHWH come from J (The Yahwist, spelled with a "J" in German)

Terrence Fretheim points out in his commentary in the New Interpreter's Bible that the point of the story does not concern what Abraham learns, but what God learns through the test. Nothing is said of how Abraham is changed, or what he learns. But God does say what God has learned, that Abraham truly fears God, because he does not withhold his only son. [and yes, Isaac is not an only son-at least not originally. But Ishmael has already been banished. While God has promised to make a great nation of Ishmael, Abraham presumably does not know whether Ishmael is alive or dead, and in any case, he has effectively disowned him. This leaves Isaac as the only son still with the family]

God tests Abraham because God does not know the quality of Abraham's faith. And, according to Fretheim, the fulfillment of the promise cannot go on until God knows how strong Abraham's faith/trust is. Abraham is not the only one risking here, God is also risking the loss of Isaac, the bearer of the promise God has given to Abraham. If Abraham cannot hear God's "NO" (spoken through the angel) on the mountain, and kills Isaac, then God's promises are broken. (Notice that on the mountain, God overrules God's original command. Are all God's commands "permanent," or are some "temporary." Does God abrogate other commands?)

I realize that much of this goes against our understanding of God, and orthodox claims about God being omniscient, unchanging, etc. But the premise of the story is clearly that God does not know what Abraham will choose, and God needs to know. Do we explain away what this Scripture says about God by relying on our theology, or do we adapt our theology to reflect what this Scripture says?

I also think we need to be careful about reading Jesus' passion and crucifixion into this text. When looking at the Jesus' suffering and death, this text can be illuminating. But I do not think that the original tellers and writers of this story could see into the future and see Jesus and his passion, and thus wrote this story to be not only about Abraham and Isaac, but also about Jesus. It's original intent is to talk about Abraham's testing and faith, and God's demands on those who are called to be faithful. If the historical-critical scholars are right, it may also be about Israel's experience in suffering and defeat- the promise that even when it seems God has sacrificed Israel and God's promises to Israel, there is still hope. Even in the midst of the seeming impossible, God can offer new life and a new start.

Taken in that light, our speculation about Isaac's relationship with Abrahaam may be helpful to other situations. How does Israel respond to God when Israel thinks God has abandoned them? How do we respond to those who seem to or try to sacrifice us? How do we respond to God when God seems to go along with the sacrifice? I remember Eli Wiesel (sp?) saying that the Holocaust brought with it a huge crisis of faith for Jews. How could God allow this sacrifice? Where was God in the midst of the ovens of Auschwitz?

Ultimately, it would appear, Isaac trusted God, although I don't remember any great stories of Isaac's faith and trust. (If someone else does, please share them) Isaac continues to be the bearer of the promise. But presumably not without a struggle about what faith means.

Just some random thoughts...

Lorinda in IA


24 Jun 1999
07:11:10

Could there be irony in God's repeated reference to Isaac as the only son and the son whom you love? God doesn't say, "the son whom I love" because God loves and blesses both Ishmael and Isaac. It is Abraham whose anxiety and Sara whose jealousy causes the "sacrifice" of Ishmael. God then says, if you are willing to sacrifice the one you don't love, will you be willing to sacrifice the one you do? He is also sacrificing his attachment to Sara in this act. Lewis


24 Jun 1999
08:36:58

This will certainly muddy some waters, but I am curious to hear your responses... Carol Delaney has asked some thought-filled, disturbing questions in her book ABRAHAM ON TRIAL: THE SOCIAL LEGACY OF BIBLICAL MYTH.

Q. Why is the willingness to sacrifice one's child THE quintessential model of faith [for Christians/Jews/Muslims]? Why not the passionate protection of the child? What would be the shape of society had THAT been the supreme model of faith and commitment?

Q. What allowed Abraham to assume the child was HIS to sacrifice? Q. Why is the willingness to sacrifice the child the model of faith? Q. What is the function of obedience? Q. Why so little attention to the betrayal of the child?

And -- what I think will be the title of my sermon... Q. Whose voice counts?

'anxious to hear your thoughts and ponderings! -- meredith in va


24 Jun 1999
09:24:45

Last night I was writing away at my sermon, concentrating mostly on what God calls us to do. The thought that God would play around with Abraham and Isaac that way still bothered me. I started to think about the word "test." I don't know if they still do those tests on TV where a long beep comes on then they say "This was only a test of the emergency broadcast system. In the event of a real emergency you would have been notified where to tune in for more information. This was only a test." Maybe the story says, "This was only a test. In the event that I require a real burnt offering you will be provided with a ram to sacrifice. This was only a test." Please don't think I am being trite. Does anybody think there is some truth here? Lorinda, thanks for your insight. Fretheim is a favorite of my OT prof and I have liked some of what I have read by him. As for the comparison with Jesus' crucifixion, I think it can be used as just that, a comparison. A lot of the Hebrew Bible can be used to foreshadow or parallel things in the Apostolic Scriptures without necessarily being thought of as predicting. I think that Jesus fulfilled prophecy but the prophecy was not necessarily always talking about Jesus. Saying that I don't have a problem talking about God providing the ram as a substitute for Isaac and comparing it with Jesus' death as a substitute for us. This forum is a lot of help. Things are becoming a lot clearer about what I want to preach. Shalom, Tom in Ontario.


24 Jun 1999
11:00:18

I've printed here the story "the Son's Blood" (copied fro the "Share A Thought")as I thought it might be helpful for discussion and sermon prep. I think it speaks in particular to the question can we do what God calls us to do, and be faithful to what we believe. If we were Abraham, would we be able to make the sacrafice God is asking of us???

Hope others find this helpful.

The Son's Blood

The day is over, you are driving home. You tune in your radio. You hear a little blurb about a little village in India where some villagers have died suddenly, strangely, of a flu that has never been seen before. It's not influenza, but three or four fellows are dead, and it's kind of interesting, and they're sending some doctors over there to investigate it.

You don't think much about it, but on Sunday, coming home from church, you hear another radio spot. Only they say it's not three villagers, it's 30,000 villagers in the back hills of this particular area of India, and it's on TV that night. CNN runs a little blurb; people are heading there from the CDC in Atlanta because this disease strain has never been seen before. By Monday morning when you get up, it's the lead story. For it's not just India; it's Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and before you know it, you're hearing this story everywhere and they have coined it now as "the mystery flu".

The President has made some comment that he and everyone are praying and hoping that all will go well over there. But everyone is wondering, "How are we going to contain it?" That's when the President of France makes an announcement that shocks Europe. He is closing their borders. No flights from India, Pakistan, or any of the countries where this thing has been seen. And that's why that night you are watching a little bit of CNN before going to bed. Your jaw hits your chest when a weeping woman is translated from a French news program into English: "There's a young man lying in a hospital in Paris dying of the mystery flu." It has come to Europe.

Panic strikes. As best they can tell, once you get it, you have it for a week and you don't know it. Then you have four days of unbelievable symptoms. And then you die.

Britain closes its borders, but it's too late. South Hampton, Liverpool, North Hampton, and it's Tuesday morning when the President of the United States makes the following announcement: "Due to a national security risk, all flights to and from Europe and Asia have been canceled. If your loved ones are overseas, I'm sorry. They cannot come back until we find a cure for this thing."

Within four days our nation has been plunged into an unbelievable fear. People are selling little masks for your face. People are talking about what if it comes to this country, and preachers on Tuesday are saying, "It's the scourge of God."

It's Wednesday night and you are at a church prayer meeting when somebody runs in from the parking lot and says, "Turn on a radio, turn on a radio." And while the church listens to a little transistor radio with a microphone stuck up to it, the announcement is made. "Two women are lying in a Long Island hospital dying from the mystery flu."

Within hours it seems, this thing just sweeps across the country. People are working around the clock trying to find an antidote. Nothing is working. California. Oregon. Arizona. Florida. Massachusetts. It's as though it's just sweeping in from the borders.

And then, all of a sudden the news comes out. The code has been broken! A cure can be found. A vaccine can be made. It's going to take the blood of somebody who hasn't been infected, and so, sure enough, all through the Midwest, through all those channels of emergency broadcasting, everyone is asked to do one simple thing: "Go to your downtown hospital and have your blood type taken. That's all we ask of you."

"And when you hear the sirens go off in your neighborhood, please make your way quickly, quietly, and safely to the hospitals." Sure enough, when you and your family get down there late on that Friday night, there is a long line, and they've got nurses and doctors coming out and pricking fingers and taking blood and putting labels on it. Your wife and kids are out there, and they take your blood type and they say, "Wait here in the parking lot and if we call your name you can be dismissed and go home."

You stand around scared with your neighbors, wondering what in the world is going on, and that this is the end of the world.

Suddenly a young man comes running out of the hospital screaming. He's yelling a name and waving a clipboard. What? He yells it again! And your son tugs on your jacket and says, "Daddy, that's me."

Before you know it, they have grabbed your boy. "Wait a minute, hold it!" And they say, "It's okay, his blood is clean. His blood is pure. We want to make sure he doesn't have the disease. We think he has got the right type." Five tense minutes later, out come the doctors and nurses, crying and hugging one another - some are even laughing. It's the first time you have seen anybody laugh in a week, and an old doctor walks up to you and says, "Thank you, sir. Your son's blood type is perfect. It's clean, it is pure, and we can make the vaccine."

As the word begins to spread all across that parking lot full of folks, people are screaming and praying and laughing and crying. But then the gray-haired doctor pulls you and your wife aside and says, "May we see you for a moment? We didn't realize that the donor would be a minor and we need...we need you to sign a consent form."

You begin to sign and then you see that the number of pints of blood to be taken is empty. "H-h-h-how many pints?" And that is when the old doctor's smile fades and he says, "We had no idea it would be a small child. We weren't prepared. We need it all." "But - but..." "You don't understand. We are talking about the world here. Please sign. We - we need it all - we need it all!" "But can't you give him a transfusion?" "If we had clean blood we would. Can you sign? Would you sign?" In numb silence you do.

Then they say, "Would you like to have a moment with him before we begin?" Can you walk back? Can you walk back to that room where he sits on a table saying, "Daddy? Mommy? What's going on?" Can you take his hands and say, "Son, your Mommy and I love you, and we would never ever let anything happen to you that didn't just have to be. Do you understand that?" And when that old doctor comes back in and says, "I'm sorry, we've - we've got to get started. People all over the world are dying."

Can you leave? Can you walk out while he is saying, "Dad? Mom? Dad? Why - why have you forsaken me?"

And then next week, when they have the ceremony to honor your son, and some folks sleep through it, and some folks don't even come because they go to the lake, and some folks come with a pretentious smile and just pretend to care.

Would you want to jump up and say, "MY SON DIED! DON'T YOU CARE?" Is that what He wants to say? "MY SON DIED. DON'T YOU KNOW HOW MUCH I CARE?"

MK/Toronto


24 Jun 1999
13:26:37

Friends, we can't make this story what it isn't. It is fraught with the unthinkable, it is filled with terror and inhumanity. It portrays a God and a man none of us would willingly claim as relatives. The Ram and the Angel of "No!" are about the only redeemable characters in the story. And therein lies, for me the starting point.

This is a myth. A story with features so exaggerated, they are outside the realm of our reality. The task is to find the truth in the myth, and I don't know if anybody ever has after all these years. The exercise can be fun, though.

I start with some questions about the characters. If they are larger than life (as it were) what do they represent? What part of human being do they represent? If they are all archetypes and all dwell within the human spirit, what part of us (community or person) is the unquestioning parent, the innocent sacrifice, the ram in the thicket, the helpers who come along, Sherpa-like, and stay at base camp? What god that we honour asks for our most precious? What God that we honour stays our hand when we are about to destroy the precious?

Some would say this psychologizes the text, but this is a myth, a literary device meany to communicate a larger truth about a people. Think about how we dealt with Greek and Roman and Nordic myths, and maybe we can deal creatively and faithfully with this one.

Just Musing in Ontario


24 Jun 1999
18:56:53

Musing in Ontario,

We could say the same thing about the New Testament couldn't we? In fact, maybe we do. And might that not be a reason why the pews are filled with the lifeless? Why not, since from the pulpit we preach the virtues of myth, when we equate the Scriptures with Nordic, Greek and Roman lies, when we fill their heads with more questions than we do answers.

It is one thing to SUGGEST mythology, it is quite another to proclaim it confidently and smugly as a priest.

My hope is that you don't do this at all, but if you do, might you do consider SUGGESTING this as myth, that this is your perhaps flawed spin on something your intellect cannot comprehend, and leave them with some understanding that although you've perhaps given up on concepts of truth, that this does not mean that truth is non-existential, and that perhaps despite your best efforts to mythologize the Scriptures, that it might just as possibly took place as the Scriptures described, and that your confidence in mythology might just be as off-base as the 'fundamentalist' who has decided to preach it as literally true.

Rick in Va


24 Jun 1999
20:17:47

Rick in VA, I am not here to read your judgements of other people and their theologies. Please keep them to yourself. I do appreaciate the offerings of ideas and theological positions that you and other particpants bring - that is what I am here for. MA in MN.


24 Jun 1999
21:08:14

Thanks to all who have contributed to this site. I am a Sunday School teacher of a lectionary based class, and I have really appreciated your insights. Several of you (especially you, Rick) are regulary quoted in our class. I am convinced that the Holy Spirit is moving among those who struggle with the texts in this discussion site.

These are the thoughts I am considering bringing into our class discussion:

Faith is a serious matter with God. He wants to know the stuff of which our faith and trust is made. He wants to know if our faith is genuine. He wants to know if we can believe not only in God's promises, but also in the claim he makes on our whole person. He wants to know if our allegiance is to the gifts he gives, or rather to the Giver of the gifts. He wants to know if we are ready to drink from the cup from which Jesus drank. Although I believe strongly that God knows our hearts, as I read this text, it is apparent that God genuinely wants to know how strong is the faith of Abraham. As the saying goes, "We don't really know the quality of the tea in the bag until we drop it in the boiling water."

In Genesis 12:1-3, God made a covenant with Abraham (and with us) that initiated a "people of God." But God's design was not just to gather a people to whom God would be faithful-- it was to have a people who would be faithful to him. And the ensuing story in the Bible is about a people who struggled in faith with a God who was eternally faithful to them. To God, our faith is a serious matter.

Somehow, Abraham had the faith that God would provide. Somehow, he knew that God was the source of life, and the sustainer of all things. Somehow, in the 25 years of waiting on God to provide him with Isaac, Abraham learned that God is reliable. Somehow, Abraham knew that God would find a way to bring life into a hopeless situation of death. That type of faith is one that is developed over many long years with a God who has a track record. Somehow, he learned from God what Jesus taught to us when he said "Whosoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake will save it." (Mark 8:35).

We all pray, of course, that God will not test us to the extent that Abraham was tested. We all pray that our faith will not be wanting when testing comes. Yet, we are confronted daily by a world that seduces us to find an easier and less demanind alternative to God. When we undergo testing, not only does God find out, but we also find out about ourselves, whether our faith is grounded in the gospel, or in the ways of the world.

Second, I see in this passage that Isaac represents the future. The promise of a nation must have included the promise of heirs. Without heirs there could have been no future for Abraham or for the people who would become Israel. If we substitute the word "future" for the name Isaac, the text comes into a little more focus for me. What are my Isaacs, what are my futures, that God has asked me to sacrifice? For many of you who have heard the call to ministry, you may have sacrificed the comforts which the corporate ladder and retirement benefits might have provided. For others, the decision to stay at home with the kids rather than to pursue a career was the sacrifice of a future. Yet, in each sacrifice of future made, life is found in abundance, and we discover that yes, God has indeed provided a ram.

Third, this text reminds me that I am tempted to want the God who provides, but not necessarily the God who tests. I want the promise, but not necessarily the command. I must confess that I only want half of it. But I am not permitted to pick and choose with God.

Jesus understood this, or else he could not have spoken about crucifixion and resurrection in the same breath. The crucifixion is the ultimate testing by God. Yet, Jesus trusted in God's promise, and he trusted that God could ultimately provide the resurrection. He had faith that God would provide new life into a situation that anticipated death as we know it.


24 Jun 1999
21:10:35

Oooppps. Sorry I forgot to sign my name to the last post. Brad in Texas.


24 Jun 1999
23:47:38

This is certainly a tricky text to preach from. I have appreciated the postings that pointed out the cultural function of this story. This story, I believe, is meant to explain why the Israelites didn’t sacrifice their own children, like many neighboring religions did. I would imagine the objection was something like this:

We sacrifice our first born animals and children. You Israelites only sacrifice your firstborn animals. You obviously don’t love your God as much as we love our god. You shrink from making as great a sacrifice as we’re willing to make.

The Israelite response was: We love our God as much as you love your god - more. And we would willingly sacrifice our children, if it was required. Abraham’s behavior proves this. But we serve a God who doesn’t want us to do such a thing.

If this is correct, the point of the story wasn’t to prove to God Abraham’s faith so much as to prove to those eavesdropping in on the story Abraham’s faith. The announcement "Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me." was an announcement to the critics of Israel, who hopefully wouldn’t miss the point.

We still need to be careful of some underlying messages that might be conveyed unintentionally. We need to be careful not to suggest that God MAY ask us to kill people some day and we should be willing to obey. Too many people have been killed in the name of God. This doesn’t mean that we love our God less than those who DO kill for their god. It means that (as Abraham discovered) we serve a God who doesn’t really want us to kill.

DR


25 Jun 1999
05:37:22

Ma in MN,

If you were to follow your own advice to me, you would not have been able to post what you have written. For haven't you just made a judgment yourself? Your more accurate opinion might just be that you do not want to read that which with you disagree.

I believe my post was theological in nature, and was an example of the presentation of an idea. I stand by it.

Brad in Tx,

I would love to hang out in your Sunday School class...

DR,

Once again, we are in agreement...

Rick in Va


25 Jun 1999
06:44:06

To Brad in Texas:

Thanks for the great thoughts and ideas on this passage. They've made it a clearer where my sermon will go on Sunday.

Thanks again!!

MK/Toronto


25 Jun 1999
07:02:09

note that this passage is as much about the faith of Isaac as it is about the faith of Abraham. Isaac is probably in his twenties. Decides to follow trusting that God has said it, it is done and that's how it is. Only afterward is Isaac the more central character. Before, heis just there. Afterward, he is not the child of promise but the father of a new nation in the line of Abraham. Kurt in IN


25 Jun 1999
07:06:46

MK in Toronto, regarding *The Son’s Blood*, thanks for posting the story, but I wonder how the following epilogue would change the way we feel about the Son’s Blood?

It is discovered that the virus itself was accidentally released into the world due to a failed scientific experiment conducted by the Son’s parents in the Laboratory of Eden.

It is discovered that the parents themselves were great Doctors with the power to cure anyone of any disease, yet they refused to use this power to save their son.

The image of God having to stand by helplessly in the face of the disease/sin (like the parents in the story) is a bit bothersome to me.

DR


25 Jun 1999
07:56:12

I came across a humorous retelling of the Abraham/Isaac sacrifice story on "the Text This Week" site. At first I collapsed with laughter (the groaning kind). But then I thought it hits all us computer folks right between the eyes. There is food for thought here. Naw, we wouldn't sacrifice at lad or a lamb on the edge of the 21st century. It then becomes easy to wrestle with another millenium's problem. Keeping in mind that "God provides" What do you think of this one! The Modern Akedah (The Sacrifice of Isaac)

And it came to pass after these things that G-D did test Avraham and He said to him: "Avraham".

And Avraham replied "Hineni" (here I am).

And He said "Take your computer, your old computer, your 286 and install upon it an operating system, a new operating system, Windows 95, which I will show to you".

And Avraham rose up early in the morning and saddled his donkey. He loaded his computer, his old computer, his 286, on the donkey, and he took two of his young men with him and Yitzchak his son, and he rose up and went to the place where G-D had told him to find Windows 95.

Then on the third day, Avraham lifted his eyes and saw Windows 95 from afar.

And Avraham said to his young men, "Stay here with the donkey and I will go yonder and load Windows 95 on our 286 and return again to you".

And Avraham took his computer, his old computer, his 286 and laid it on Yitzchak his son. And they went both of them together.

And Yitzchak said, "Windows 95 requires far more memory than a 286 has. How will it possibly run on our machine?"

And Avraham looked at his son, his only son, whom he loved, and he shook his head slowly, and in perfect faith and with unswerving trust and belief in the Almighty he said:

"Fear not, Yitzchak, my son, G-D will provide the RAM "

Shalom

Pasthersyl


25 Jun 1999
12:26:49

Perhaps it is unclear to some as to how to approach myth and other literary devices used in sacred scripture. Certainly most on this site do, as they ask questions of the story, like how the characters speak to us, what is the truth the story is trying to reveal, what are the symbols pointing to? We approach Jesus' parables the same way and they speak to us as they spoke to his listeners. (They're stories, Rick in Va)

The seniors in our Bible study group are used to exploring story and went at this one with gusto. They tried on each character for size...even decided they'd been given a "ram in the thicket" once or twice, someone being in the right place at the right time and getting them out of a great dilemma.

In the end, they chose to listen to each of the voices in the story, and explored the voices and the messages given in each exchange. They talked about the different voices that call for our attention. They talked about what it meant to them to choose to listen to a Voice that called them to stay their own destructiveness and choose life.

They talked about sacrifices they had made in their lives, and how sometimes the sacrifices were wise, sometimes not wise.

They dared to enter into the story and declare the word of life they heard.

At the beginning of the session, these eighty-year-olds resisted the story, because they could not accept that God had so little imagination as to test Abraham with the terrorizing of his son. (Note that Isaac is known as refering to God as "The Fear" or "The Terror" throughout his life cf. Genesis 31)

But they explored the story and heard a word for their lives, and maybe we should all be burned at the stake for loving the myths, legends, parables and songs that are in the Bible, and hearing God's Word in them, and taking Joy in that. But I would rather be burned at the stake for that, than for condemning my sisters and brothers in Christ for the ways they listen for that Word.

I'm still here and Musing in Ontario


26 Jun 1999
05:42:22

We would all agree that God's request of Abraham seems out of character for the God we know. Wouldn't we also agree, nevertheless, that God had a right to this sacrifice? If you don't subscribe to that, nothing else I write here will make sense. I believe that God used this test not because God lacked imagination but because of Abraham's lack thereof. RE "God had so little imagination as to test Abraham with the terrorizing of his son." It is a neat tool to place ourselves in the "shoes" of characters in the stories of the Bible. Yet there is real limitation as to how far you can take this approach because while God hasn't changed we as people have. And because WE have changed the image of God has changed for us. That God would (and does) act "differently" today is a result of that change.


26 Jun 1999
09:30:20

Thanks all for your contributions on this passage. I am relatively new to this site, and have only used it once before for a sermon, but have found it helpful.

My question on this passage is - what about when you have faith and trust, and yet great sacrifices are still called for? Abraham was given a lamb, but what about when nothing seems to appear.

I minister in Omagh, NI, where some of our children were killed in a bomb last summer. Our young people are feeling a great despair, as many of those killed where there friends.

I am aware that we are not the only place to suffer with the death of children. I was wondering if any have ideas about what to say when faith is being required after tragedy, rather than to avert it. Saying that everything will turn out all right in the end seems insufficient somehow.

I would value some comments,

ruth


26 Jun 1999
10:31:51

Ruth;

I don’t envy you and your situation at all. What kind of words (drawn from this text) can one speak to those grieving such tragedy? I think you’re absolutely right that the “Don’t worry, everything will be OK in the end” is about the worst response available.

Some random thoughts of mine:

»Sometimes the future looks bleak, but (like Abraham) we plod along doing what we believe needs to be done, when it needs to be done.

»We need to be flexible enough to change courses at a moment’s notice; when it becomes apparent that God’s will lays in a different direction.

»People of faith often make such course corrections, and this doesn’t in any way reflect badly upon their faith or commitment.

»Abraham’s spiritual growth (and our own) only occurs through crises and pain. There are no shortcuts to a deeper walk with God.

»Even though events may appear to the contrary, God does not will the harm of our children - or us.

Don’t know if any of this is helpful.

DR


26 Jun 1999
10:41:37

It's already Saturday, but I feel compelled to contribute.

The Mount Moriah incident shows that Abraham trusted God more than anything, even more than his common sense and good judgment. In the Garden of Eden, we mortals gained a knowledge of good and evil, but it is limited, because we are not like God, who can produce good from evil. All we are capable of is to produce evil from good, death from life, as Adam did. However, God is able, sometimes, by his grace and Holy Spirit, also to work in us and help us to produce good from evil.

This Abraham story is certainly a vivid archetype of God's way of working with us. But the cross and resurrection is the ultimate archetype, where God produced life from death and ultimate good from penultimate evil.

Jim from B.C.


26 Jun 1999
10:56:23

Ruth --

I suggested this in the Ps. 13 discussion -- [that appears to be the only entry] ... so, I'll offer it here, and hope that it isn't too late on Sat. for folks to get this -- I intend to read Psalm 13 as a possiblity of what we might imagine Isaac's response to have been ... I think it offers us good understanding to know it is okay to doubt, question, get angry, etc...as the Psalmist does, and to know God is big enough to handle our pain. That might be the hope those young ones need. Peace, meredith in va


26 Jun 1999
11:27:59

I am still trying to prepare for the Sunday School class, and I am working around these additional thoughts. I would appreciate any feedback you would be generous to give.

Abraham had received many gifts from God. At least three of those gifts were brought by Abraham to the moutain: (i) the gift of faith, (ii) the gift of the covenant/the promise, and (iii) the gift of Isaac which represented the future and Abraham's dreams come true.

Faith is a gift from God, a gift which is indispensable for relationship, and a gift without which God could not stake a claim to our whole person. Somehow, Abraham had the faith that God would provide. Somehow, he knew that God was the source of life, and the sustainer of all things. Somehow, in the decades of waiting on God to provide a son, Abraham learned that God is reliable. Somehow, Abraham knew that God would find a way to bring life into a hopeless situation of death. That type of faith is one that is developed over a lifetime in prayerful relationship and communtion with a Father who has a track record. Somehow, Abraham recived the gift of faith in the years of waiting.

I use the word "somehow" because I recognize that God, who has uniquely created each one of us, uniquely gives faith to his people in a way that will uniquely strengthen each of us for relationship with him. I use the word "somehow" because the Bible does not spell out in detail how Abraham came to receive faith of this depth. We only know from our own experience that faith is something that is given and learned along the way through unique experiences and unique prayer and communion with our Father.

The gift of the covenant and the gift of God's promise was also brought to the mountain -- the promise made in Genesis 12:1-3. The gifts of the promise/the covenant are important ones, as Walter Brueggemann points out: well-being and security being among them. Well-being depends only on the gifts and grace of God; it does not depend on what we build and claim as our own. The gift depended on the faith of Abraham, and on the faithfulness of God to the promise which God had made. The gift depended on Israel's acknowledgement that the initiative for life is held by God ... and that God could be trusted with it.

The gift of covenant involves God's faithfulness to us and to his promises. Although God has been faithful to us even when we have not been faithful to him, it takes faith to trust in the covenant. It takes faith to truly believe that God will provide, even if we do not know how He will do so, and even if we do not understand all the "whys" and the pain.

The gift of Isaac embodied so many hopes, so many dreams come true, so much waiting. The gift of Isaac was demonstrative proof of a future in the flesh.

The questions here for Abraham (and for us) are these: Which gift stands above the others? Which gift truly shapes who we are and whose we are? Which relationship is the most important? Is it the gift, or is it the Giver, to which we will be loyal? Will we be loyal to ourselves and to our dreams come true, or will we be loyal to the God who may take us to some unimaginable places? God genuinely seems to want to know the answer. And the answer is a critical one not only for the people of God, but for God himself.

It seems to me that God's test of Abraham was a test of gifts. Which gift would Abraham withhold from God? And the fundamental truth about this is that the gift of faith encompasses all other gifts. To withhold Isaac would be to withhold faith and to deny the covenant. To live in the gift of faith is to offer all other gifts to the Father. To live as children of the covenant takes faith, especially when the demands are the greatest. Would faith in the Father be sacrificed in order to save the gift of Isaac?

The thought that God would ask us to carry the sticks for fire and the knife for sacrifice onto a mountaintop is unthinkable. But there was much, much more brought onto the mountain that day than sticks and knives. God's gifts were brought onto the mountain -- faith, promise, hope, and relationship with a Father who has a track record. In that sense, can we say that God had provided Abraham with the ram (i.e. all that Abraham needed) before he even set foot on the mountain? And the question was then, and it still is: Is faith the most important gift of all? Can we faithfully give to God our whole person, our whole loyalty, and our complete trust?

In the final analysis, faith was the one gift that Abraham received from God which was unthinkable to sacrifice.

I'd appreciate your feedback. And by the way, thanks for all of the discussion. It has been helpful to me.

Brad in Texas


26 Jun 1999
12:19:46

Thanks everyone. Brad in Texas, you are a wonderful teacher. Thank you for teaching me. LS


26 Jun 1999
13:31:39

Thanks for the suggestions to my question of where faith is after what for many seems the ultimate suffering. It strikes me that we need hope out of hopelessness here. It is great that our God can produce life from death, good from evil.

I have always admired Abraham for his obedience and faith, but I think that now I admire Isaac more for his obedience and trust. I imagine that his walk with God after this incident was interesting!

Peace, ruth


26 Jun 1999
18:26:47

Brad in Texas,

It's late on Saturday and I hope you get this...

You are truly a gifted teacher. My hope is that occasionally your pastor might let you teach from the pulpit.

You have been gifted Brad, may God use you and your Sunday School powerfully...

Rick in Va


26 Jun 1999
18:39:02

It's late, but time for my 2 cents worth. Thankyou for your thoughts, Brad in Texas. I start in a similar place but end up somewhere else. Here's why: When my son was born, I wept in grief because this beautiful child was also human - that I had given birth to him, and also death would come to him and that made me sad. (Maybe hormones had something to do with it, too.) And then it occurred to me that God was his Mother, first, and his Father, before my husband and I even came into the picture. And I knew that I had to trust God, trust God's fathering and mothering in his life and in his death, whenever that should come.

. When I could do that, I could launch my child into the dazzling wonder that is life. To have that faith called me to open my son up to life, not death. So I have a very difficult time with the concept of the God who would, after all, as a test of faith, demand death for the child-gift. To me, the test of faith is in giving the child up to life, and trusting God with the life and the inevitable death.

The parents who have lost their children in the previous writer's town, had the faith to walk through life with their kids. The task would be to come to trust God's parenthood in their deaths. That would be an Abraham-like test of faith, but one that was the conscious will of God? I have a really hard time going there.

Where I think I'll start (God knows where I'll end up) is around a campfire, thousands of years ago, when a child asks an elder, "Why is this place called "The Lord will provide"?. And the elder responds:" You don't know the story? Well, it is said, that this is the place, where long ago, Father Abraham was asked by God to do a most difficult thing...

E.D. in Canada


26 Jun 1999
22:05:03

Thanks to both of you, Rick and E.D. May God bless.

Brad in Texas