Karen Romine #33651288 A Comparison of Divinity in Genesis 22 and Epictetus' Writings The Abrahamic concept of God and Epictetus'

Stoic concept of god have similar characteristics with some distinct differences. The Abrahamic God has humanistic qualities such as the power of speech, demanding praise from his followers and giving gifts to followers He deems worthy. In contrast, Epictetus Stoic God is not humanistic. He is an omniscient being who predestined events to happen for the best and designed the world in a logical fashion; he only interacts with humans through his immanence in every human. Although Epictetus' god has characteristics similar to the Abrahamic God, he is more otherworldly and less involved with human affairs. Epictetus presents god as both immanent, in that part of him is in all humans, but also transcendent and omnipotent, arranging events to happen as is best. He teaches his followers that [they] are a fragment[s] of god; [they] contain a part of [god] in [themselves], (Disc., p. 10). He also claims that the true nature of god is [] the true nature of good, and the true nature of good is Intelligence. Knowledge. Right reason, (Disc., p. 9). If humans contain a fragment of god, and god is the incarnation of reason, then it follows that the fragment presents itself as humans' ability to reason. This ability makes humans superior to other illogical animals. In addition, Epictetus suggests that god has assigned to each man [] his own personal daemon, and committed him to his guardianship, (Disc., p. 9). The fragment of reason in all humans is contained in personal daemons guarding them against false reasoning. Epictetus insists god himself is within you, and hears and sees all which suggests the power of omniscience (Disc., 10). God is within humans as a separate consciousness that quietly watches over them and gives them the ability to understand. He gains his power of omniscience through his immanence in humans' personal daemons. Not only is god immanent, Epictetus also suggests that god is omnipotent and transcendent. He claims everything that happens is god's will, and humans are, to some extent, god's servants. He urges followers to remember that you are an actor in a play, which is as the playwright wants it to be... If he

Karen Romine #33651288 wants you to play a beggar, play even this part skillfully, (The Handbook, p. 16). Metaphorically, god is the playwright, controlling the course of events, and humans are the actors, intended to follow god's will. This metaphor, describing god as a playwright, implies that god is an outside influence on events, predetermining them rather than internally causing things to happen. Because of this state of god and the universe, Epictetus urges humans to accept their lots in life and do their best, regardless of what their roles are. One such role is humans' responsibility to make good use of their ability to reason. Epictetus claims that god has introduced man into the world as a spectator of himself and of his works, (Disc., p. 7). Humans are tasked with observing and understanding the purpose of other creatures, such as cows, whose purpose is to produce milk and cheese. The animals' purposes benefit humans, and by obeying god, humans will understand and make good use of god's other creations. Epictetus' observations support his view that god created a logical world in which each ability has a specific purpose. Combined with the belief that what is good is intelligent and reasonable, god's creation of a logical world implies that he created a world that is good, proving god's benevolence. Epictetus tells followers that the gods are beings that arrange the universe well and justly, and followers must, set [themselves] to obey them and acquiesce in everything that happens and to follow it willingly, as something brought to completion by the best judgment, (Handbook, p. 21). By believing in the goodness of god, Epictetus' followers can reconcile themselves with anything that happens in their lives and know that ultimately, it is for the best. These beliefs are meant to help followers to accept the Stoic doctrine of wanting what happens to happen in order to lead a happy life. In contrast, the Abrahamic God displays humanistic qualities. His communication with humans includes the power to speak directly to them and order them to do tasks for him. In Genesis 22, to test Abraham's loyalty, God tells Abraham to prepare a burnt offering to Him. When announcing Himself to Abraham, [God] said to him Abraham and [Abraham] said, Here I am. (Genesis 22:1). In the passage, Abraham responds verbally to God's call, so we can conclude that God has the power to make

Karen Romine #33651288 his voice heard on Earth. If instead God had communicated telepathically with Abraham by speaking into his mind, and hearing Abraham's thoughts directly, Abraham would not have spoken his response aloud. This form of verbal communication is a human characteristic, unlike Epictetus' god who has little interaction with humans and only indirectly influences them through the fragment of reason he left within them. Epictetus' god utilizes an internal and subconscious form of communication with humans, very unlike humans' use of language and spoken communication. The Abrahamic God, like a commanding officer, also sends messengers to speak on his behalf, as in the passage where He sent an angel to speak to Abraham instead of appearing himself. Just as Abraham is about to kill his son Isaac, an angel of the Lord called to him from heaven (Genesis 22:11). From the distinction that it was an angel and not God himself, we can deduce that the angel is not an extension of God, but a heavenly servant of God. However, the angel speaks directly to Abraham in the first person, as if it was God himself, which implies that the angel's word should be treated as if it was God's word directly from God. Epictetus' god uses the personal daemon as his messenger to influence humans. He is immanent in the daemon, unlike the Abrahamic god who is not immanent in his angel messengers. The personal daemon does not communicate with humans at all. Instead, it merely gives them the ability to reason and it is a portal through which Epictetus' god can watch over humans. These differences demonstrate that the Abrahamic God interferes with humans' lives much more actively that Epictetus' god does. While the Abrahamic God speaks directly to humans, and even sends angel messengers to them, Epictetus' god never actively makes himself known, and gives humans no sign of his presence within them. The two god's also have different types of relationships with humans. In the relationship that the Abrahamic God has with humans, God holds all the power and humans are submissive to him. As a demonstration of his power and to test Abraham's subservience, God orders Abraham to Take your son... and bring him up there for a burnt offering (Genesis 22:2). Of all methods to test Abraham's

Karen Romine #33651288 loyalty, God chooses to order Abraham to sacrifice the son that He had previously promised to Abraham and made possible by making Sarah fertile again. By demanding this sacrifice, God not only tests Abraham's loyalty, but also accentuates that He was the one who gave Abraham his favorite son, Isaac, and He can demand Isaac back as an offering. This demonstrates God's power by suggesting that He has the power to take back anything he gives. This exchange also demonstrates God's dominance in his relationship with Abraham. God gives Abraham orders, and Abraham follows them unquestioningly. In Epictetus' god's relationship with humans, he is dominant, but instead of ordering humans to certain actions, he merely controls what happens to each person. He has predestined how events will happen, unlike the Abrahamic God who impels certain events by giving orders to humans without controlling all things that happen in the world. Despite the gods' dominance in their relationships with humans, the humans do have free will. This is evidenced by Abraham's test: if God did not give Abraham free will, his test would not actually reveal Abraham's loyalty to Him because Abraham would be compelled to follow God's orders no matter what. God does not have complete control over humans, or he would have no need to test them, but humans are clearly God's servants. Similarly, Epictetus' God gives humans free will; his personal daemons guide humans without forcing them to any specific actions. Yet the humans are still servants, as they are expected to make proper use of their ability to reason. The Abrahamic God is capricious in His interactions with Abraham, and while he is not cruel, neither is he particularly kind. Abraham sets out to sacrifice his son and on the third day [he] looked up and saw the place from afar (Genesis 22:4). Assuming that Abraham is traveling directly to the mountain God chose for the sacrifice, this quote suggests that it took him three days of constant traveling before he was close enough to see the mountain. Once he could see the mountain, it probably took at least one more day of travel before reaching his destination. In choosing this test for Abraham, God not only asked Abraham to sacrifice his favorite son, but also made him journey for more than

Karen Romine #33651288 three days left alone with the knowledge of his impending act of human sacrifice. The demanding nature of God's test suggests that God wants to put Abraham through a series of trials to test Abraham's complete faith in Him because he demands complete loyalty. Both portrayals of god are similar in the god's desire to be acknowledged by humans. The Abrahamic God demands loyal followers and Epictetus' god requires that humans make use of his well-arranged, logical universe. By supplying humans with the reason needed to see the purpose of his other creations, he completes his system where everything has a specific purpose. God is only satisfied with Abraham's loyalty to Him when Abraham stretched forth his hand and took the knife, to slaughter his son (Genesis 22:10). It is at this moment that God takes mercy on Abraham and tells him do not stretch forth your hand to the lad, nor do the slightest thing to him (Genesis 22:12). Up until the moment that God stops him, Abraham is committed to going through with the sacrifice. Abraham has no hint beforehand that God might change his mind. This uncertainty over whether God will choose to be cruel or kind portrays a humanistic god because humans are known to change their minds frequently. In contrast, Epictetus' God is consistently kind and logical in his interactions with humans, without any of the human fickleness shown in the Abrahamic God. The Abrahamic God possess the humanistic desire for totally faithful and loyal servants. Because God tested Abraham, we can conclude that the Abrahamic God is unsure of Abraham's obedience (Genesis 22:1). If He had the power of complete omniscience, He would not need to test his people. This gap in God's omniscience makes Him seem less like an otherworldly being and more humanistic. At the end of the story, God rewards Abraham for being God-fearing and obeying his command. From God's reason for rewarding Abraham, we can deduce that God is testing to see if Abraham will obey him because he desires obedience from his followers. His choice to test Abraham's loyalty suggests insecurity about his dominance over His followers. If He did not care about having loyal followers, or if he was not unsure of his followers' loyalty, He would have no reason to test

Karen Romine #33651288 Abraham so rigorously. This need for power and acceptance makes Him human-like, as well as his ability to vocalize directly. Unlike the Abrahamic God who must test Abraham to be sure of his loyalty, Epictetus' god is aware of every thought and every action of every human through his immanent presence. Even though the Abrahamic god doesn't have complete omniscience, He does have the power of omnipotence and He can simply will into existence anything he wants, with the exception of forcibly controlling human actions. In Genesis 22, God gives Abraham a reprieve from sacrificing his son and produces an alternative offering so when Abraham lifted up his eyes, and he saw, and lo! there was a ram (Genesis 22:13). The exclamation lo! indicates Abraham's surprise because the ram had suddenly appeared. In the moment that God stopped Abraham from killing his son, he made a ram appear to replace Isaac as the sacrifice. Not only does this act demonstrate God's capriciousness, because he suddenly decided to make a ram appear out of thin air, it also reveals God's omnipotence. Epictetus' god doesn't use this sort of omnipotence. He plans events in advance and doesn't make things happen suddenly. Another power of the Abrahamic God is the power to bless people. As a reward for Abraham's loyalty, God says I will bestow my blessing upon you and make your descendants as numerous of the stars of heaven (Genesis 22:17). Not only does God bless Abraham in the present time, he also extends his blessing to all Abraham's unborn descendants in the future and promises fertility. This blessing demonstrates that God plays favorites with some humans and rewards them over others for following his orders. His penchant for favoring some humans over others is another human characteristic. This blessing also suggests that God has assumed the responsibility of rewarding people he deems worthy. Implicitly, just as he rewards some for their unwavering loyalty, he punishes others for their disobedience. God assumes the role of law-enforcer, which is a purely human tendency. Epictetus' god has none of this interaction with humans and does not favor certain people.

Karen Romine #33651288 The differences between these gods reflect the differences in the belief system they are a part of. Epictetus' god comes from the Stoic philosophy which is aimed at helping people achieve happiness. Epictetus' represents god as a beneficial being who will ensure that life follows his master plan of goodness. Conversely, the Abrahamic god comes from a religion which helped people come to terms with their suffering and urged them to lead a moral life. The Abrahamic religion comforts people about their suffering more than it reassures them that everything will be all right. Accordingly, the Abrahamic god displays relatable human characteristics while the Stoic god is portrayed as an otherworldly being who is perfectly omniscient, wise and logical.

Works Cited: Epictetus. The Discourses. Trans. Robin Hard. Humanities Core Course Guide and Reader. Ed. David T. Pan. Boston: Pearson, 2013. 2-7. Print. Epictetus. The Handbook. Trans. N.P. White. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1938. Print. The Complete Jewish Bible. Trans. A. J. Rosenberg, Judaica Press. Humanities Core Course Guide and Reader. Ed. David T. Pan. Boston: Pearson, 2013. 27-56. Print.