java war game

Answer

Design

 

The program will need to simulate war card game.  There are 52 cards: 4 suits (diamond, hearts, spades and clubs), each suit has 13 cards each, ace, 2 to 10 and jack, queen and king. Jack, queens and kings are all valued at 11, 12, and 13 points respectively. Aces are valued 1 point. The game has 2 players player and computer. The cards are dealt randomly to player and computer. The player with the highest card wins that hand and keeps the two cards that were dealt. Display cards of players and display who has won this round. Each player has to keep track of the number of cards that have won. Selected cards are removed from the deck. If player and computer has a card of the same value, there is a tie and both players keep their card. If no more cards on the deck finish game and display game winner.

 

Algorithm of the program

 

 

Start main:

Declare arraylist  suits as ArrayList<Integer>

Declare arraylist  values as ArrayList<Integer>

 

Set numberPlayerCardsWon to 0

Set numberComputerCardsWon to 0

For  s=1 to 4 do

For v=1 to 13 do

add s to arraylist suits

add v to arraylist values

end for

end for

for d=0 to size of values divide 2  do

Deal card for Player

Set randomCard to random value from 0 to size of values

Set selectedSuitPlayer to selected suit from deck

Set selectedValuePlayer to selected valuefrom deck

Delete selected suit from arraylist suits

Delete selected value from arraylist values

Display player card calling function displayCard

Deal card for Computer

Set randomCard to random value from 0 to size of values

Set selectedSuitComputer to selected suit from deck

Set selectedValueComputer to selected valuefrom deck

Delete selected suit from arraylist suits

Delete selected value from arraylist values

Display computer card calling function displayCard

 

If selectedValuePlayer>selectedValueComputer then

Display message “***Player won this hand!***”

Set numberPlayerCardsWon to numberPlayerCardsWon 2

else if selectedValuePlayer<selectedValueComputer then

Display message “***Computer won this hand!***”

Set numberComputerCardsWon to numberComputerCardsWon+2

else

Display message “***Tie!***”

Set numberPlayerCardsWon to numberPlayerCardsWon+1

Set numberComputerCardsWon to numberComputerCardsWon+1

End if

Display message “Press ‘Enter’ to continue…”

delay

Edn for

 

If numberPlayerCardsWon>numberComputerCardsWon then

Display message “***Player won this game!***”

else if numberPlayerCardsWon<numberComputerCardsWon then

Display message “***Computer won this game!***”

else

Display message “***Tie!***”

End if

Stop

 

Start suitToString(suit)

switch (suit)

case 1:

return “Clubs”

case 2:

return “Diamonds”

case 3:

return “Hearts”

case 4:

return “Spades”

default:

return null

end switch

Stop

 

Start valueToString(value)

switch (value)

case 1:

return “Ace”

case 2:

return “2”

case 3:

return “3”

case 4:

return “4”

case 5:

return “5”

case 6:

return “6”

case 7:

return “7”

case 8:

return “8”

case 9:

return “9”

case 10:

return “10”

case 11:

return “Jack”

case 12:

return “Queen”

case 13:

return “King”

default:

return null

end switch

Stop

 

Start displayCard(suit, value)

return valueToString(value)+” of “+suitToString(suit)

Stop

 

Implementation

 

 

package warcardgame;

 

import java.util.ArrayList;

import java.util.Random;

import java.util.Scanner;

 

public class WarCardGame {

/**

* Main method

* @param args

*/

public static void main(String[] args) {

//Scanner for keyBoard

Scanner keyBoard =new Scanner(System.in);

Random rand=new Random();

//ArrayList of Integer to store suits

ArrayList<Integer> suits =new ArrayList<Integer>();

//ArrayList of Integer to store values

ArrayList<Integer> values =new ArrayList<Integer>();

//variable for number player cards won

int numberPlayerCardsWon=0;

//variable for number computer cards won

int numberComputerCardsWon=0;

for(int s=1;s<=4;s++){

for(int v=1;v<=13;v++){

//add suits to ArrayList suits

suits.add(s);

//add values to ArrayList suits

values.add(v);

}

}

//play

for(int d=0;d<values.size()/2;d++){

//deal card for Player

//select random card from deck

int randomCard=rand.nextInt(values.size());

//select random suit from deck

int selectedSuitPlayer=suits.get(randomCard);

//select random value from deck

int selectedValuePlayer=values.get(randomCard);

//remove selected suit from deck

suits.remove(randomCard);

//remove selected value from deck

values.remove(randomCard);

//display player card

System.out.println(“Player card: “+displayCard(selectedSuitPlayer, selectedValuePlayer));

 

//deal card for Computer

randomCard=rand.nextInt(values.size());

//select random suit from deck

int selectedSuitComputer=suits.get(randomCard);

//select random value from deck

int selectedValueComputer=values.get(randomCard);

//remove selected suit from deck

suits.remove(randomCard);

//remove selected value from deck

values.remove(randomCard);

//display computer card

System.out.println(“Computer card: “+displayCard(selectedSuitComputer, selectedValueComputer));

//check if player won this hand

if(selectedValuePlayer>selectedValueComputer){

//the player with the highest card wins that hand and keeps the two cards that were dealt.

System.out.println(“***Player won this hand!***”);

numberPlayerCardsWon+=2;

}else if(selectedValuePlayer<selectedValueComputer){ //check if computer won this hand

System.out.println(“***Computer won this hand!***”);

numberComputerCardsWon+=2;

}else{//display tie

System.out.println(“***Tie!***”);

//If both player has a card of the same value, there is a tie and both players keep their card

numberPlayerCardsWon++;

numberComputerCardsWon++;

}

//promt user to press “Enter”

System.out.println(“Press ‘Enter’ to continue…”);

//delay

keyBoard.nextLine();

}

//close keyBoard

keyBoard.close();

//Once the game is complete the winner must be displayed.

if(numberPlayerCardsWon>numberComputerCardsWon){

//display mesage: “***Player won this game!***”

System.out.println(“***Player won this game!***”);

}else if(numberPlayerCardsWon<numberComputerCardsWon){

//display mesage: “***Computer won this game!***”

System.out.println(“***Computer won this game!***”);

}else{

//display mesage: “***Tie!***”

System.out.println(“***Tie!***”);

}

}

/**

* Suit to string

* @param suit

* @return

*/

private static String suitToString(int suit) {

switch (suit) {

case 1:

return “Clubs”;

case 2:

return “Diamonds”;

case 3:

return “Hearts”;

case 4:

return “Spades”;

default:

return null;

}

}

/**

* Convert value to string

* @param value

* @return

*/

private static String valueToString(int value) {

switch (value) {

case 1:

return “Ace”;

case 2:

return “2”;

case 3:

return “3”;

case 4:

return “4”;

case 5:

return “5”;

case 6:

return “6”;

case 7:

return “7”;

case 8:

return “8”;

case 9:

return “9”;

case 10:

return “10”;

case 11:

return “Jack”;

case 12:

return “Queen”;

case 13:

return “King”;

default:

return null;

}

}

/**

* Display card

* @param suit

* @param value

* @return

*/

private static String displayCard(int suit,int value){

return valueToString(value)+” of “+suitToString(suit);

}

}

 

 

Testing

 

Data Expected Result Actual result
Deck of 52 cards

 

Player card: 7 of Hearts

Computer card: 4 of Clubs

Display message: “Player won this hand”

Value 7 is bigger than 4 that’s why computer won this hand.

Player card: 7 of Hearts

Computer card: 4 of Clubs

***Player won this hand!***

Deck of 52 cards

 

Player card: 9 of Spades

Computer card: Jack of Diamonds

Display message: “Computer won this hand”

 

Value Jack(11)  is bigger than 9, that’s why computer won this hand.

Player card: 9 of Spades

Computer card: Jack of Diamonds

***Computer won this hand!***

 

Deck of 52 cards Display message: “Player won game”

Player won game, because he has more cards than computer.

run:

Player card: 7 of Hearts

Computer card: 4 of Clubs

***Player won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: Queen of Spades

Computer card: 3 of Diamonds

***Player won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 9 of Spades

Computer card: Jack of Diamonds

***Computer won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: King of Hearts

Computer card: Ace of Hearts

***Player won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 8 of Hearts

Computer card: 3 of Hearts

***Player won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 9 of Hearts

Computer card: 5 of Clubs

***Player won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 8 of Diamonds

Computer card: 6 of Spades

***Player won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: King of Clubs

Computer card: 6 of Clubs

***Player won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 10 of Hearts

Computer card: 10 of Clubs

***Tie!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 2 of Spades

Computer card: Queen of Diamonds

***Computer won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 7 of Spades

Computer card: Queen of Hearts

***Computer won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 2 of Clubs

Computer card: 7 of Diamonds

***Computer won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 8 of Clubs

Computer card: 7 of Clubs

***Player won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

***Player won this game!***

Deck of 52 cards

 

Player card: 2 of Clubs

Computer card: 7 of Diamonds

Display message:  ***Computer won this hand!***

 

Value 7  is bigger than 2, that’s why computer won this hand.

Player card: 2 of Clubs

Computer card: 7 of Diamonds

***Computer won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

Deck of 52 cards

 

Player card: King of Clubs

Computer card: 6 of Clubs

Display message:   ***Player won this hand!***

 

Value King (13)  is bigger than 6, that’s why Player won this hand.

Player card: King of Clubs

Computer card: 6 of Clubs

***Player won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Deck of 52 cards Display message: “Computer won game”

 

Computer won game, because it has more cards than player.

run:

Player card: Jack of Clubs

Computer card: 3 of Spades

***Player won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 5 of Clubs

Computer card: King of Spades

***Computer won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 2 of Clubs

Computer card: 6 of Hearts

***Computer won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 9 of Spades

Computer card: 10 of Diamonds

***Computer won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 6 of Diamonds

Computer card: 8 of Diamonds

***Computer won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 3 of Diamonds

Computer card: 9 of Hearts

***Computer won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 10 of Spades

Computer card: 7 of Diamonds

***Player won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: Jack of Spades

Computer card: 7 of Clubs

***Player won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: Jack of Hearts

Computer card: Ace of Hearts

***Player won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 5 of Hearts

Computer card: 6 of Clubs

***Computer won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: Ace of Diamonds

Computer card: 3 of Hearts

***Computer won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: Jack of Diamonds

Computer card: Queen of Diamonds

***Computer won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 9 of Diamonds

Computer card: 9 of Clubs

***Tie!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

***Computer won this game!***

Deck of 52 cards Display message: “Tie”

 

Computer has the same number of cards as  player.

run:

Player card: 9 of Hearts

Computer card: King of Diamonds

***Computer won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 2 of Diamonds

Computer card: 3 of Spades

***Computer won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 9 of Spades

Computer card: King of Hearts

***Computer won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: Ace of Spades

Computer card: 6 of Clubs

***Computer won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: King of Spades

Computer card: 10 of Hearts

***Player won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 7 of Hearts

Computer card: 5 of Spades

***Player won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 8 of Hearts

Computer card: 6 of Spades

***Player won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 4 of Clubs

Computer card: 4 of Diamonds

***Tie!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 2 of Clubs

Computer card: Queen of Spades

***Computer won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: Queen of Hearts

Computer card: Jack of Hearts

***Player won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: Queen of Diamonds

Computer card: Ace of Diamonds

***Player won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 3 of Diamonds

Computer card: 9 of Clubs

***Computer won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: Jack of Clubs

Computer card: 3 of Clubs

***Player won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

***Tie!***

 

 

 

Advertisements

java war game

Answer

Design

 

The program will need to simulate war card game.  There are 52 cards: 4 suits (diamond, hearts, spades and clubs), each suit has 13 cards each, ace, 2 to 10 and jack, queen and king. Jack, queens and kings are all valued at 11, 12, and 13 points respectively. Aces are valued 1 point. The game has 2 players player and computer. The cards are dealt randomly to player and computer. The player with the highest card wins that hand and keeps the two cards that were dealt. Display cards of players and display who has won this round. Each player has to keep track of the number of cards that have won. Selected cards are removed from the deck. If player and computer has a card of the same value, there is a tie and both players keep their card. If no more cards on the deck finish game and display game winner.

 

Algorithm of the program

 

 

Start main:

Declare arraylist  suits as ArrayList<Integer>

Declare arraylist  values as ArrayList<Integer>

 

Set numberPlayerCardsWon to 0

Set numberComputerCardsWon to 0

For  s=1 to 4 do

For v=1 to 13 do

add s to arraylist suits

add v to arraylist values

end for

end for

for d=0 to size of values divide 2  do

Deal card for Player

Set randomCard to random value from 0 to size of values

Set selectedSuitPlayer to selected suit from deck

Set selectedValuePlayer to selected valuefrom deck

Delete selected suit from arraylist suits

Delete selected value from arraylist values

Display player card calling function displayCard

Deal card for Computer

Set randomCard to random value from 0 to size of values

Set selectedSuitComputer to selected suit from deck

Set selectedValueComputer to selected valuefrom deck

Delete selected suit from arraylist suits

Delete selected value from arraylist values

Display computer card calling function displayCard

 

If selectedValuePlayer>selectedValueComputer then

Display message “***Player won this hand!***”

Set numberPlayerCardsWon to numberPlayerCardsWon 2

else if selectedValuePlayer<selectedValueComputer then

Display message “***Computer won this hand!***”

Set numberComputerCardsWon to numberComputerCardsWon+2

else

Display message “***Tie!***”

Set numberPlayerCardsWon to numberPlayerCardsWon+1

Set numberComputerCardsWon to numberComputerCardsWon+1

End if

Display message “Press ‘Enter’ to continue…”

delay

Edn for

 

If numberPlayerCardsWon>numberComputerCardsWon then

Display message “***Player won this game!***”

else if numberPlayerCardsWon<numberComputerCardsWon then

Display message “***Computer won this game!***”

else

Display message “***Tie!***”

End if

Stop

 

Start suitToString(suit)

switch (suit)

case 1:

return “Clubs”

case 2:

return “Diamonds”

case 3:

return “Hearts”

case 4:

return “Spades”

default:

return null

end switch

Stop

 

Start valueToString(value)

switch (value)

case 1:

return “Ace”

case 2:

return “2”

case 3:

return “3”

case 4:

return “4”

case 5:

return “5”

case 6:

return “6”

case 7:

return “7”

case 8:

return “8”

case 9:

return “9”

case 10:

return “10”

case 11:

return “Jack”

case 12:

return “Queen”

case 13:

return “King”

default:

return null

end switch

Stop

 

Start displayCard(suit, value)

return valueToString(value)+” of “+suitToString(suit)

Stop

 

Implementation

 

 

package warcardgame;

 

import java.util.ArrayList;

import java.util.Random;

import java.util.Scanner;

 

public class WarCardGame {

/**

* Main method

* @param args

*/

public static void main(String[] args) {

//Scanner for keyBoard

Scanner keyBoard =new Scanner(System.in);

Random rand=new Random();

//ArrayList of Integer to store suits

ArrayList<Integer> suits =new ArrayList<Integer>();

//ArrayList of Integer to store values

ArrayList<Integer> values =new ArrayList<Integer>();

//variable for number player cards won

int numberPlayerCardsWon=0;

//variable for number computer cards won

int numberComputerCardsWon=0;

for(int s=1;s<=4;s++){

for(int v=1;v<=13;v++){

//add suits to ArrayList suits

suits.add(s);

//add values to ArrayList suits

values.add(v);

}

}

//play

for(int d=0;d<values.size()/2;d++){

//deal card for Player

//select random card from deck

int randomCard=rand.nextInt(values.size());

//select random suit from deck

int selectedSuitPlayer=suits.get(randomCard);

//select random value from deck

int selectedValuePlayer=values.get(randomCard);

//remove selected suit from deck

suits.remove(randomCard);

//remove selected value from deck

values.remove(randomCard);

//display player card

System.out.println(“Player card: “+displayCard(selectedSuitPlayer, selectedValuePlayer));

 

//deal card for Computer

randomCard=rand.nextInt(values.size());

//select random suit from deck

int selectedSuitComputer=suits.get(randomCard);

//select random value from deck

int selectedValueComputer=values.get(randomCard);

//remove selected suit from deck

suits.remove(randomCard);

//remove selected value from deck

values.remove(randomCard);

//display computer card

System.out.println(“Computer card: “+displayCard(selectedSuitComputer, selectedValueComputer));

//check if player won this hand

if(selectedValuePlayer>selectedValueComputer){

//the player with the highest card wins that hand and keeps the two cards that were dealt.

System.out.println(“***Player won this hand!***”);

numberPlayerCardsWon+=2;

}else if(selectedValuePlayer<selectedValueComputer){ //check if computer won this hand

System.out.println(“***Computer won this hand!***”);

numberComputerCardsWon+=2;

}else{//display tie

System.out.println(“***Tie!***”);

//If both player has a card of the same value, there is a tie and both players keep their card

numberPlayerCardsWon++;

numberComputerCardsWon++;

}

//promt user to press “Enter”

System.out.println(“Press ‘Enter’ to continue…”);

//delay

keyBoard.nextLine();

}

//close keyBoard

keyBoard.close();

//Once the game is complete the winner must be displayed.

if(numberPlayerCardsWon>numberComputerCardsWon){

//display mesage: “***Player won this game!***”

System.out.println(“***Player won this game!***”);

}else if(numberPlayerCardsWon<numberComputerCardsWon){

//display mesage: “***Computer won this game!***”

System.out.println(“***Computer won this game!***”);

}else{

//display mesage: “***Tie!***”

System.out.println(“***Tie!***”);

}

}

/**

* Suit to string

* @param suit

* @return

*/

private static String suitToString(int suit) {

switch (suit) {

case 1:

return “Clubs”;

case 2:

return “Diamonds”;

case 3:

return “Hearts”;

case 4:

return “Spades”;

default:

return null;

}

}

/**

* Convert value to string

* @param value

* @return

*/

private static String valueToString(int value) {

switch (value) {

case 1:

return “Ace”;

case 2:

return “2”;

case 3:

return “3”;

case 4:

return “4”;

case 5:

return “5”;

case 6:

return “6”;

case 7:

return “7”;

case 8:

return “8”;

case 9:

return “9”;

case 10:

return “10”;

case 11:

return “Jack”;

case 12:

return “Queen”;

case 13:

return “King”;

default:

return null;

}

}

/**

* Display card

* @param suit

* @param value

* @return

*/

private static String displayCard(int suit,int value){

return valueToString(value)+” of “+suitToString(suit);

}

}

 

 

Testing

 

Data Expected Result Actual result
Deck of 52 cards

 

Player card: 7 of Hearts

Computer card: 4 of Clubs

Display message: “Player won this hand”

Value 7 is bigger than 4 that’s why computer won this hand.

Player card: 7 of Hearts

Computer card: 4 of Clubs

***Player won this hand!***

Deck of 52 cards

 

Player card: 9 of Spades

Computer card: Jack of Diamonds

Display message: “Computer won this hand”

 

Value Jack(11)  is bigger than 9, that’s why computer won this hand.

Player card: 9 of Spades

Computer card: Jack of Diamonds

***Computer won this hand!***

 

Deck of 52 cards Display message: “Player won game”

Player won game, because he has more cards than computer.

run:

Player card: 7 of Hearts

Computer card: 4 of Clubs

***Player won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: Queen of Spades

Computer card: 3 of Diamonds

***Player won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 9 of Spades

Computer card: Jack of Diamonds

***Computer won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: King of Hearts

Computer card: Ace of Hearts

***Player won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 8 of Hearts

Computer card: 3 of Hearts

***Player won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 9 of Hearts

Computer card: 5 of Clubs

***Player won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 8 of Diamonds

Computer card: 6 of Spades

***Player won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: King of Clubs

Computer card: 6 of Clubs

***Player won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 10 of Hearts

Computer card: 10 of Clubs

***Tie!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 2 of Spades

Computer card: Queen of Diamonds

***Computer won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 7 of Spades

Computer card: Queen of Hearts

***Computer won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 2 of Clubs

Computer card: 7 of Diamonds

***Computer won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 8 of Clubs

Computer card: 7 of Clubs

***Player won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

***Player won this game!***

Deck of 52 cards

 

Player card: 2 of Clubs

Computer card: 7 of Diamonds

Display message:  ***Computer won this hand!***

 

Value 7  is bigger than 2, that’s why computer won this hand.

Player card: 2 of Clubs

Computer card: 7 of Diamonds

***Computer won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

Deck of 52 cards

 

Player card: King of Clubs

Computer card: 6 of Clubs

Display message:   ***Player won this hand!***

 

Value King (13)  is bigger than 6, that’s why Player won this hand.

Player card: King of Clubs

Computer card: 6 of Clubs

***Player won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Deck of 52 cards Display message: “Computer won game”

 

Computer won game, because it has more cards than player.

run:

Player card: Jack of Clubs

Computer card: 3 of Spades

***Player won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 5 of Clubs

Computer card: King of Spades

***Computer won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 2 of Clubs

Computer card: 6 of Hearts

***Computer won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 9 of Spades

Computer card: 10 of Diamonds

***Computer won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 6 of Diamonds

Computer card: 8 of Diamonds

***Computer won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 3 of Diamonds

Computer card: 9 of Hearts

***Computer won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 10 of Spades

Computer card: 7 of Diamonds

***Player won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: Jack of Spades

Computer card: 7 of Clubs

***Player won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: Jack of Hearts

Computer card: Ace of Hearts

***Player won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 5 of Hearts

Computer card: 6 of Clubs

***Computer won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: Ace of Diamonds

Computer card: 3 of Hearts

***Computer won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: Jack of Diamonds

Computer card: Queen of Diamonds

***Computer won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 9 of Diamonds

Computer card: 9 of Clubs

***Tie!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

***Computer won this game!***

Deck of 52 cards Display message: “Tie”

 

Computer has the same number of cards as  player.

run:

Player card: 9 of Hearts

Computer card: King of Diamonds

***Computer won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 2 of Diamonds

Computer card: 3 of Spades

***Computer won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 9 of Spades

Computer card: King of Hearts

***Computer won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: Ace of Spades

Computer card: 6 of Clubs

***Computer won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: King of Spades

Computer card: 10 of Hearts

***Player won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 7 of Hearts

Computer card: 5 of Spades

***Player won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 8 of Hearts

Computer card: 6 of Spades

***Player won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 4 of Clubs

Computer card: 4 of Diamonds

***Tie!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 2 of Clubs

Computer card: Queen of Spades

***Computer won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: Queen of Hearts

Computer card: Jack of Hearts

***Player won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: Queen of Diamonds

Computer card: Ace of Diamonds

***Player won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: 3 of Diamonds

Computer card: 9 of Clubs

***Computer won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

Player card: Jack of Clubs

Computer card: 3 of Clubs

***Player won this hand!***

Press ‘Enter’ to continue…

 

***Tie!***

 

 

 

Research Essay

 

 
The Binding of Isaac: Jewish and Christian Interpretations
Name
Course
Tutor
Date
Institution

The Binding of Isaac: Jewish and Christian Interpretations
The Binding of Isaac refers to a narrative found in the Old Testament section of the Bible whereby God instructed Abraham to offer Isaac, Abraham’s son, as a burnt sacrifice. Being a firm believer in God, Abraham complied and prepared Isaac for the proposed sacrificial death. Just before Abraham slaughtered Isaac, the angel of God intervened and asked Abraham not to kill Isaac, thereby preventing Isaac’s death. Abraham then saw a ram that was entangled in some nearby bushes. Releasing Isaac, Abraham took this ram and offered it as a burnt sacrifice in the place of Isaac. This narrative is found in Genesis chapter 22. Even though it happened more than 2 millennia ago, The Binding of Isaac has a continuing significance today. This is because it speaks to important spiritual matters in both the Christian and Jewish faiths. For instance, The Binding of Isaac illustrates that believers need to engage in certain actions to show their faithfulness toward God. This aspect is represented by Abraham’s willingness to slaughter Isaac in response to God’s request. Moreover, The Binding of Isaac illustrates that believers have to perform uncomfortable actions so as to meet God’s requirements at certain times. This idea is represented by Abraham’s readiness to kill and burn Isaac’s body in order to satisfy God’s request. In doing so, Abraham would cause suffering to not only himself, but also to Isaac. Abraham would inevitably suffer emotional anguish for having to bring about the death of his only child with Sarah. Similarly, Isaac would experience emotional torment based on the idea that he would suffer a brutal death in the hands of his father. Further, Abraham’s killing of Isaac would hurt Sarah. Owing to its weighty thematic significance, The Binding of Isaac has been interpreted by a range of Jewish and Christian scholars. This essay compares and contrasts Jewish and Christian interpretations of The Binding of Isaac and analyses the significance of these interpretations in today’s world.
Adopting a Jewish standpoint, Ladin observes that The Binding of Isaac is a brutal and horror story. The narrative is brutal because God asked Abraham, His first faithful follower, to kill the son, Isaac. This story is similarly farcical in that God caused Abraham and Isaac, father and son respectively, to go through remarkable simulation. In this charade, God watched in complimentary silence as Abraham prepared Isaac for the proposed sacrificial death. Subsequently, God provided Isaac with a reprieve at the last minute and proclaimed that, owing to Abraham’s willingness to commit filicide, He would give Abraham innumerable descendants who would serve as a blessing to the whole of humankind. Ladin avers that this divine proclamation was bitter because Abraham and Isaac had to go through trauma to cause God to make this pronouncement. Such horror demonstrates that, when He is present, God is either an observer of, or the cause of immense cruelty and anguish. Consequently, God held that there was some advantage to the suffering depicted in The Binding of Isaac. If they do not encounter such horror, Jews cannot draw closer to God. The horrifying experiences of Jews arouse God’s forgiveness. In such moments of suffering, Jews and God confront each other symbolically in an unequal playing field. With no guiding laws, no orienting relationships, and no reassuring covenants, Jews cannot differentiate love from hatred, a curse from a blessing, or life from death at such times. The ensuing uncertainty allows God to serve as a genesis of blessing, causing Jews to stop agonizing.
Similarly taking on a Jewish standpoint, Kalimi explains that, within The Binding of Isaac, God did not intend for Isaac to serve as a burnt offering. In this respect, the Bible passage of Jeremiah 7:31, where God denies contemplating or ordering a child sacrifice, relates to The Binding of Isaac. To buttress this argument, Jews contend that God simply instructed Abraham to take Isaac up mount Moriah. This means that God did not explicitly instruct Abraham to slaughter Isaac. In this argument, Jews cite Genesis Rabbah 56:8. According to this view, Abraham misconstrued God’s instructions. This concept obtains support from the rabbinic belief that the ram that substituted Abraham in the burned offering scenario was created at the conclusion of God’s creative work. Consequently, God prepared this ram during the first Sabbath eve of creation. Henceforth, this ram was on standby to substitute Isaac. According to this theory, God was always aware that Isaac would not suffer a sacrificial death. For this reason, Jews hold that The Binding of Isaac represents the most climactic among God’s tests of Abraham. Here, God allowed Abraham to exercise freedom of choice. Meanwhile, God requested Abraham to make the fitting choice so that all humanity may acknowledge Abraham’s unconditional faith and righteousness. While accepting that The Binding of Isaac is an illustration of Abraham’s faith, Jews hold that this test is extremely cruel. Seeking to rationalize this cruelty, Jews examine the opening phrase of The Binding of Isaac account that generally denotes ‘sometime afterward’. Early Jewish exegesis hold that this phrase defines a sequential succession of this account and is tied to the story narrated previously. Consequently, Jews maintain that the opening phase of this story reads ‘After these words’ (Genesis 22:1). The ‘words’ in question here are those uttered by Satan concerning Abraham. Referring to the celebratory feast that Abraham held concerning Isaac (according to Genesis 21:8), Satan observed that Abraham did not show any special thanks to God. Satan alleged that Abraham was not thankful toward God who had enabled Abraham to sire Isaac at an old age. In response, God stated that, were He to ask Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, Abraham would comply without hesitation. In line with this assertion, God requested Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. The Jews thus argue that The Binding of Isaac does not illustrate God’s cruelty toward either Abraham or Isaac. Rather, God sought to justify Himself while at the same time blaming both Satan and Abraham.
Reiterating that The Binding of Isaac has positive ramifications, Huizenga embraces a Jewish view and contends that The Binding of Isaac is remarkable because Isaac consented to participate in his own sacrificial death. To illustrate his cooperation, Isaac told Abraham to tie him (Isaac) properly so that Isaac would not present challenges during the impending slaughter. Still on this line of thought, Huizenga explains that within The Binding of Isaac, Satan sought to assess Isaac’s spiritual courage. In other words, Satan wanted to determine whether Isaac would demonstrate weakness and thus hesitate to die or if Isaac would agree to the upcoming sacrifice, thereby annihilating Isaac’s descendants from the world. Consequently, agreeing that Abraham loved Isaac very much, Satan dared God to instruct Abraham to offer Isaac as a sacrifice (Jubilees 17:16). The Binding of Isaac also contains certain parallels that imply it is connected to a number of occurrences that took place during the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. This argument is especially informed by specific events found in the ancient Jewish religious book of Jubilees. Satan was contending with the angel of God in this instance. Considering that God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac on the twelve day of the first month and that Abraham travelled for three days prior to binding Isaac, the forestalled sacrifice event happened during the Passover ceremony (Jubilees 18: 3, 13). After reaching Beersheba, Abraham observed a joyous seven-day feast (Jubilees 18:18-19). In both the Binding of Isaac and the Passover accounts, Isaac and the Israelites respectively demonstrated obedience to God. Isaac and the Israelites were thus delivered from problems, thus shaming Satan who doubted the faithfulness of these individuals toward God.
Conversely, Boehm assumes a Christian viewpoint and argues that verses 1-10, 13, and 19 constitute the original account of Genesis 22 or The Binding of Isaac narrative. Nevertheless, verses 11-12 and 15-18 constitute the work of some later redactor who sought to conceal the fact that Abraham disobeyed God’s instructions regarding sacrificing Isaac. According to this theory, Abraham travelled to Moriah in the company of Isaac following God’s command. Abraham prepared an altar, bound Isaac, and took out his knife to slay Isaac. At this moment, Abraham saw a ram that was entangled in nearby bushes. Abandoning the process of slaying Isaac, Abraham took this ram and sacrificed it instead of Isaac. Of importance here is the idea that no angel advised Abraham to spare Isaac and to instead offer the ram as a burnt offering. In view of this argument, The Binding of Isaac provides a profound biblical lesson regarding the matter of disobeying a patently unlawful order. This is because, according to the advocated original text, Abraham chose to disregard God’s command upon seeing the ram, unilaterally. In this scenario, Abraham opted to stick to existing moral and divine laws rather than obey God’s command that infringed these laws. In other words, Abraham decided not to betray the trust that Isaac had in him owing to this duo’s father-son relationship. Moreover, Abraham opted to obey God’s commandment against committing murder (Exodus 20:13). Conversely, Abraham violated these moral and divine laws in the modified version of The Binding of Isaac proposed by Boehm. To camouflage such disobedience, a later editor of this text introduces the two speeches of God’s angel. In the first speech, God’s angel cautioned Abraham from slaying Isaac at the last moment. Thanks to the angel’s intervention, Abraham had the opportunity to see a nearby ram that he sacrificed instead of Isaac (Genesis 22: 11-12). Within the second angelic speech, God’s angel promised heavenly blessings to both Abraham and his descendants (Genesis 22: 15-18).
Hayward also adopts a Christian view and explains that The Binding of Isaac is related to the Christian Passion Narratives in the eyes of the Jews. This is because both Jesus and Isaac carried the tools that would be used to execute their persecution. Whereas Isaac carried the wood that would burn him, Jesus carried the cross on which he would be nailed. Moreover, both Christian and Jewish texts hold that Isaac died and resurrected. Further, both Christians and Jews consider Abraham to be a priest. Nevertheless, it is argued that, by borrowing material from the Christian Passion Narratives to elaborate the Binding of Isaac, Jews permit Christian theology to define Jewish theological standards. To counter this claim, Jews have sought to challenge the Christian concept of Christ’s atoning blood, a central Christian principle, by making it appear that Isaac’s blood also had atoning powers. Jews have thus introduced the phrase ‘the blood of Isaac’ into their theological repertoire. This is in response to the idea that, at the Binding of Isaac event, Abraham gave a new name to the location where this event occurred. Abraham pronounced that this place would henceforth be named ‘The Lord will see’. Jews believe that this phrase means that ‘The Lord will see the blood of Isaac’. In other words, God will pardon the Jews on account of the blood of Isaac. This belief counters the Christian belief that only the blood of the Christ has atoning powers. Jews have come up with various anecdotes to illustrate the atoning power of the blood of Isaac. For example, back in Egypt, Jews believe that God spared the Israelites from death upon seeing Isaac’s blood that was smeared on door posts (Exodus 12: 23). Similarly, thanks to Isaac’s blood, God declined to destroy Israel using a plague at the threshing grounds of Ornan the Jebusite (2 Chronicles 3:1).
Jacobs likewise assumes a Christian viewpoint and explains that The Binding of Isaac highlighted Abraham’s doubts about the entire process. After receiving God’s command to sacrifice Isaac, Abraham woke up early, saddled his donkey, and took two of his servants, together with Isaac (Genesis 22:13). This verse suggests that Abraham experienced inner misgivings and doubts about God’s command. Owing to these doubts, Abraham saddled his donkey then took his servants. He then took Isaac, almost like an afterthought. Curiously, Abraham did not take Isaac before his servants or the donkey. Abraham took this course of action because he was expecting a second divine command that would cancel the first one. Importantly, after Abraham gathered the courage to take Isaac, he bid time once again by engaging in the activity of chopping wood that would be used in the upcoming sacrifice. It is crucial to note that Abraham could have prepared this wood before mobilizing his servants and Isaac. Moreover, tree branches and twigs could have served the role of this wood. Given this analysis, it is clear that Abraham’s action of chopping wood was largely a ploy to buy time. Similarly, the decision to take the donkey and the two servants illustrated Abraham’s desire to delay the sacrifice process. This is because a large delegation would not only cause the preparation to take much time; it would also cause the team to progress at a slow pace along the way. The events of verses 4 and 5 also underline Abraham’s strategy to delay the proposed sacrifice. This is because, after gaining sight of the intended sacrificial grounds, Abraham stopped the donkey and instructed his servants to remain behind as he accompanied Isaac to the sacrifice event. Verses 7 and 8 also highlight Abraham’s misgivings. In this dialogue, Abraham and Isaac have a dialogue concerning the impending sacrifice. In the first part of this dialogue, the narrator does not mention the speakers by name; it is assumed that the reader will decipher who is speaking based on what is spoken. Strikingly, the narrator mentions Abraham by name at the spot when Abraham explains that God will provide a sheep to be used in the upcoming burnt offering event. This change in the dialogue structure illustrates that Abraham is struggling with an inner conflict ; while seeking to remain faithful to his God, Abraham is pained at the thought of harming his son, Isaac. This internal conflict causes Abraham to hesitate momentarily before stating that God will provide a sacrifice sheep.
To sum up, Jewish and Christian interpretations of The Binding of Isaac feature important similarities and differences. According to Ladin’s Jewish interpretation, The Binding of Isaac illustrates that God considers the suffering of believers to be useful and that God gives His blessings through such suffering. Kalimi’s Jewish interpretation similarly holds that God intended to defend himself and to put Satan to shame in The Binding of Isaac. God also wanted to test Abraham’s faith. Likewise, Huizenga’s Jewish view explains that The Binding of Isaac underlines Isaac’s willingness to die and the ensuing Godly blessings for Isaac. Boehm’s Christian viewpoint nevertheless asserts that, within The Binding of Isaac, Abraham failed to abide by God’s order regarding the killing of Isaac because this order was clearly illegal. Hayward’s similarly Christian interpretation argues that The Binding of Isaac represents Jewish rejection of the Christian concept of the atoning blood of Jesus. Jacobs’ Christian view contends that The Binding of Isaac highlights Abraham’s doubts about the sacrifice process. The examined Jewish interpretations have a continuing significance in the lives of Jews because they seek to encourage believers to show faith in God. Boehm, Hayward, and Jacobs’ Christian interpretations nevertheless take an academic outlook and may not be currently significant in the lives of modern-day Christians. This is because these interpretations are not likely to encourage strong faith in Christians.

Bibliography
BOEHM, OMRI, ‘The Binding of Isaac: An Inner-Biblical Polemic on The Question of “Disobeying” A Manifestly Illegal Order,’ Vetus Testamentum, 52/1 (2002), 1-12.
HAYWARD, C.T.R, ‘The sacrifice of Isaac and Jewish polemic against Christianity’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 52/2 (1990), 292.
HUIZENGA, LEROY ANDREW, ‘Obedience unto Death: The Matthean Gethsemane and Arrest Sequence and the Aqedah’, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 71 (2009), 507-26.
JACOBS, Jonathan. ‘Willing Obedience with Doubts: Abraham at the Binding of Isaac’, Vetus Testamentum, 60/4 (2010), 546-59.
KALIMI, ISAAC, ‘“Go, I Beg You, Take Your Beloved Son and Slay Him!” The Binding of Isaac in Rabbinic Literature and Thought,’ The Review of Rabbinic Judaism, 13/1 (2010), 1-29.
LADIN, JAY, ‘Akedah 5760’, Cross Currents, 50/1/2 (2000), 131.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Binding of Isaac: Jewish and Christian Interpretations

Name

Course

Tutor

Date

Institution

 

The Binding of Isaac: Jewish and Christian Interpretations

The Binding of Isaac refers to a narrative found in the Old Testament section of the Bible whereby God instructed Abraham to offer Isaac, Abraham’s son, as a burnt sacrifice. Being a firm believer in God, Abraham complied and prepared Isaac for the proposed sacrificial death. Just before Abraham slaughtered Isaac, the angel of God intervened and asked Abraham not to kill Isaac, thereby preventing Isaac’s death. Abraham then saw a ram that was entangled in some nearby bushes. Releasing Isaac, Abraham took this ram and offered it as a burnt sacrifice in the place of Isaac. This narrative is found in Genesis chapter 22. Even though it happened more than 2 millennia ago, The Binding of Isaac has a continuing significance today. This is because it speaks to important spiritual matters in both the Christian and Jewish faiths. For instance, The Binding of Isaac illustrates that believers need to engage in certain actions to show their faithfulness toward God. This aspect is represented by Abraham’s willingness to slaughter Isaac in response to God’s request. Moreover, The Binding of Isaac illustrates that believers have to perform uncomfortable actions so as to meet God’s requirements at certain times. This idea is represented by Abraham’s readiness to kill and burn Isaac’s body in order to satisfy God’s request. In doing so, Abraham would cause suffering to not only himself, but also to Isaac. Abraham would inevitably suffer emotional anguish for having to bring about the death of his only child with Sarah. Similarly, Isaac would experience emotional torment based on the idea that he would suffer a brutal death in the hands of his father. Further, Abraham’s killing of Isaac would hurt Sarah. Owing to its weighty thematic significance, The Binding of Isaac has been interpreted by a range of Jewish and Christian scholars. This essay compares and contrasts Jewish and Christian interpretations of The Binding of Isaac and analyses the significance of these interpretations in today’s world.

Adopting a Jewish standpoint, Ladin observes that The Binding of Isaac is a brutal and horror story. The narrative is brutal because God asked Abraham, His first faithful follower, to kill the son, Isaac. This story is similarly farcical in that God caused Abraham and Isaac, father and son respectively, to go through remarkable simulation. In this charade, God watched in complimentary silence as Abraham prepared Isaac for the proposed sacrificial death. Subsequently, God provided Isaac with a reprieve at the last minute and proclaimed that, owing to Abraham’s willingness to commit filicide, He would give Abraham innumerable descendants who would serve as a blessing to the whole of humankind. Ladin avers that this divine proclamation was bitter because Abraham and Isaac had to go through trauma to cause God to make this pronouncement. Such horror demonstrates that, when He is present, God is either an observer of, or the cause of immense cruelty and anguish. Consequently, God held that there was some advantage to the suffering depicted in The Binding of Isaac. If they do not encounter such horror, Jews cannot draw closer to God. The horrifying experiences of Jews arouse God’s forgiveness. In such moments of suffering, Jews and God confront each other symbolically in an unequal playing field. With no guiding laws, no orienting relationships, and no reassuring covenants, Jews cannot differentiate love from hatred, a curse from a blessing, or life from death at such times. The ensuing uncertainty allows God to serve as a genesis of blessing, causing Jews to stop agonizing.[1]

Similarly taking on a Jewish standpoint, Kalimi explains that, within The Binding of Isaac, God did not intend for Isaac to serve as a burnt offering. In this respect, the Bible passage of Jeremiah 7:31, where God denies contemplating or ordering a child sacrifice, relates to The Binding of Isaac. To buttress this argument, Jews contend that God simply instructed Abraham to take Isaac up mount Moriah. This means that God did not explicitly instruct Abraham to slaughter Isaac. In this argument, Jews cite Genesis Rabbah 56:8. According to this view, Abraham misconstrued God’s instructions. This concept obtains support from the rabbinic belief that the ram that substituted Abraham in the burned offering scenario was created at the conclusion of God’s creative work. Consequently, God prepared this ram during the first Sabbath eve of creation. Henceforth, this ram was on standby to substitute Isaac. According to this theory, God was always aware that Isaac would not suffer a sacrificial death. For this reason, Jews hold that The Binding of Isaac represents the most climactic among God’s tests of Abraham.[2] Here, God allowed Abraham to exercise freedom of choice. Meanwhile, God requested Abraham to make the fitting choice so that all humanity may acknowledge Abraham’s unconditional faith and righteousness. While accepting that The Binding of Isaac is an illustration of Abraham’s faith, Jews hold that this test is extremely cruel. Seeking to rationalize this cruelty, Jews examine the opening phrase of The Binding of Isaac account that generally denotes ‘sometime afterward’. Early Jewish exegesis hold that this phrase defines a sequential succession of this account and is tied to the story narrated previously.[3] Consequently, Jews maintain that the opening phase of this story reads ‘After these words’ (Genesis 22:1). The ‘words’ in question here are those uttered by Satan concerning Abraham. Referring to the celebratory feast that Abraham held concerning Isaac (according to Genesis 21:8), Satan observed that Abraham did not show any special thanks to God. Satan alleged that Abraham was not thankful toward God who had enabled Abraham to sire Isaac at an old age. In response, God stated that, were He to ask Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, Abraham would comply without hesitation. In line with this assertion, God requested Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. The Jews thus argue that The Binding of Isaac does not illustrate God’s cruelty toward either Abraham or Isaac. Rather, God sought to justify Himself while at the same time blaming both Satan and Abraham.[4]

Reiterating that The Binding of Isaac has positive ramifications, Huizenga embraces a Jewish view and contends that The Binding of Isaac is remarkable because Isaac consented to participate in his own sacrificial death. To illustrate his cooperation, Isaac told Abraham to tie him (Isaac) properly so that Isaac would not present challenges during the impending slaughter.[5] Still on this line of thought, Huizenga explains that within The Binding of Isaac, Satan sought to assess Isaac’s spiritual courage. In other words, Satan wanted to determine whether Isaac would demonstrate weakness and thus hesitate to die or if Isaac would agree to the upcoming sacrifice, thereby annihilating Isaac’s descendants from the world. Consequently, agreeing that Abraham loved Isaac very much, Satan dared God to instruct Abraham to offer Isaac as a sacrifice (Jubilees 17:16). The Binding of Isaac also contains certain parallels that imply it is connected to a number of occurrences that took place during the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. This argument is especially informed by specific events found in the ancient Jewish religious book of Jubilees. Satan was contending with the angel of God in this instance. Considering that God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac on the twelve day of the first month and that Abraham travelled for three days prior to binding Isaac, the forestalled sacrifice event happened during the Passover ceremony (Jubilees 18: 3, 13). After reaching Beersheba, Abraham observed a joyous seven-day feast (Jubilees 18:18-19).[6]In both the Binding of Isaac and the Passover accounts, Isaac and the Israelites respectively demonstrated obedience to God. Isaac and the Israelites were thus delivered from problems, thus shaming Satan who doubted the faithfulness of these individuals toward God.[7]

Conversely, Boehm assumes a Christian viewpoint and argues that verses 1-10, 13, and 19 constitute the original account of Genesis 22 or The Binding of Isaac narrative. Nevertheless, verses 11-12 and 15-18 constitute the work of some later redactor who sought to conceal the fact that Abraham disobeyed God’s instructions regarding sacrificing Isaac. According to this theory, Abraham travelled to Moriah in the company of Isaac following God’s command. Abraham prepared an altar, bound Isaac, and took out his knife to slay Isaac. At this moment, Abraham saw a ram that was entangled in nearby bushes. Abandoning the process of slaying Isaac, Abraham took this ram and sacrificed it instead of Isaac. Of importance here is the idea that no angel advised Abraham to spare Isaac and to instead offer the ram as a burnt offering. In view of this argument, The Binding of Isaac provides a profound biblical lesson regarding the matter of disobeying a patently unlawful order.[8] This is because, according to the advocated original text, Abraham chose to disregard God’s command upon seeing the ram, unilaterally. In this scenario, Abraham opted to stick to existing moral and divine laws rather than obey God’s command that infringed these laws. In other words, Abraham decided not to betray the trust that Isaac had in him owing to this duo’s father-son relationship. Moreover, Abraham opted to obey God’s commandment against committing murder (Exodus 20:13). Conversely, Abraham violated these moral and divine laws in the modified version of The Binding of Isaac proposed by Boehm. To camouflage such disobedience, a later editor of this text introduces the two speeches of God’s angel. In the first speech, God’s angel cautioned Abraham from slaying Isaac at the last moment. Thanks to the angel’s intervention, Abraham had the opportunity to see a nearby ram that he sacrificed instead of Isaac (Genesis 22: 11-12). Within the second angelic speech, God’s angel promised heavenly blessings to both Abraham and his descendants (Genesis 22: 15-18).

Hayward also adopts a Christian view and explains that The Binding of Isaac is related to the Christian Passion Narratives in the eyes of the Jews. This is because both Jesus and Isaac carried the tools that would be used to execute their persecution. Whereas Isaac carried the wood that would burn him, Jesus carried the cross on which he would be nailed. Moreover, both Christian and Jewish texts hold that Isaac died and resurrected. Further, both Christians and Jews consider Abraham to be a priest. Nevertheless, it is argued that, by borrowing material from the Christian Passion Narratives to elaborate the Binding of Isaac, Jews permit Christian theology to define Jewish theological standards. To counter this claim, Jews have sought to challenge the Christian concept of Christ’s atoning blood, a central Christian principle, by making it appear that Isaac’s blood also had atoning powers. Jews have thus introduced the phrase ‘the blood of Isaac’ into their theological repertoire. This is in response to the idea that, at the Binding of Isaac event, Abraham gave a new name to the location where this event occurred. Abraham pronounced that this place would henceforth be named ‘The Lord will see’. Jews believe that this phrase means that ‘The Lord will see the blood of Isaac’. In other words, God will pardon the Jews on account of the blood of Isaac. This belief counters the Christian belief that only the blood of the Christ has atoning powers. Jews have come up with various anecdotes to illustrate the atoning power of the blood of Isaac. For example, back in Egypt, Jews believe that God spared the Israelites from death upon seeing Isaac’s blood that was smeared on door posts (Exodus 12: 23). Similarly, thanks to Isaac’s blood, God declined to destroy Israel using a plague at the threshing grounds of Ornan the Jebusite (2 Chronicles 3:1).[9]

Jacobs likewise assumes a Christian viewpoint and explains that The Binding of Isaac highlighted Abraham’s doubts about the entire process. After receiving God’s command to sacrifice Isaac, Abraham woke up early, saddled his donkey, and took two of his servants, together with Isaac (Genesis 22:13). This verse suggests that Abraham experienced inner misgivings and doubts about God’s command. Owing to these doubts, Abraham saddled his donkey then took his servants. He then took Isaac, almost like an afterthought. Curiously, Abraham did not take Isaac before his servants or the donkey. Abraham took this course of action because he was expecting a second divine command that would cancel the first one.[10] Importantly, after Abraham gathered the courage to take Isaac, he bid time once again by engaging in the activity of chopping wood that would be used in the upcoming sacrifice. It is crucial to note that Abraham could have prepared this wood before mobilizing his servants and Isaac. Moreover, tree branches and twigs could have served the role of this wood. Given this analysis, it is clear that Abraham’s action of chopping wood was largely a ploy to buy time. Similarly, the decision to take the donkey and the two servants illustrated Abraham’s desire to delay the sacrifice process. This is because a large delegation would not only cause the preparation to take much time; it would also cause the team to progress at a slow pace along the way. The events of verses 4 and 5 also underline Abraham’s strategy to delay the proposed sacrifice.[11] This is because, after gaining sight of the intended sacrificial grounds, Abraham stopped the donkey and instructed his servants to remain behind as he accompanied Isaac to the sacrifice event. Verses 7 and 8 also highlight Abraham’s misgivings. In this dialogue, Abraham and Isaac have a dialogue concerning the impending sacrifice. In the first part of this dialogue, the narrator does not mention the speakers by name; it is assumed that the reader will decipher who is speaking based on what is spoken. Strikingly, the narrator mentions Abraham by name at the spot when Abraham explains that God will provide a sheep to be used in the upcoming burnt offering event. This change in the dialogue structure illustrates that Abraham is struggling with an inner conflict[12]; while seeking to remain faithful to his God, Abraham is pained at the thought of harming his son, Isaac. This internal conflict causes Abraham to hesitate momentarily before stating that God will provide a sacrifice sheep.[13]

To sum up, Jewish and Christian interpretations of The Binding of Isaac feature important similarities and differences. According to Ladin’s Jewish interpretation, The Binding of Isaac illustrates that God considers the suffering of believers to be useful and that God gives His blessings through such suffering. Kalimi’s Jewish interpretation similarly holds that God intended to defend himself and to put Satan to shame in The Binding of Isaac. God also wanted to test Abraham’s faith. Likewise, Huizenga’s Jewish view explains that The Binding of Isaac underlines Isaac’s willingness to die and the ensuing Godly blessings for Isaac. Boehm’s Christian viewpoint nevertheless asserts that, within The Binding of Isaac, Abraham failed to abide by God’s order regarding the killing of Isaac because this order was clearly illegal. Hayward’s similarly Christian interpretation argues that The Binding of Isaac represents Jewish rejection of the Christian concept of the atoning blood of Jesus. Jacobs’ Christian view contends that The Binding of Isaac highlights Abraham’s doubts about the sacrifice process. The examined Jewish interpretations have a continuing significance in the lives of Jews because they seek to encourage believers to show faith in God.  Boehm, Hayward, and Jacobs’ Christian interpretations nevertheless take an academic outlook and may not be currently significant in the lives of modern-day Christians. This is because these interpretations are not likely to encourage strong faith in Christians.

 

Bibliography

BOEHM, OMRI, ‘The Binding of Isaac: An Inner-Biblical Polemic on The Question of “Disobeying” A Manifestly Illegal Order,’ Vetus Testamentum, 52/1 (2002), 1-12.

HAYWARD, C.T.R, ‘The sacrifice of Isaac and Jewish polemic against Christianity’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 52/2 (1990), 292.

HUIZENGA, LEROY ANDREW, ‘Obedience unto Death: The Matthean Gethsemane and Arrest Sequence and the Aqedah’, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 71 (2009), 507-26.

JACOBS, Jonathan. ‘Willing Obedience with Doubts: Abraham at the Binding of Isaac’, Vetus Testamentum, 60/4 (2010), 546-59.

KALIMI, ISAAC, ‘“Go, I Beg You, Take Your Beloved Son and Slay Him!” The Binding of Isaac in Rabbinic Literature and Thought,’ The Review of Rabbinic Judaism, 13/1 (2010), 1-29.

LADIN, JAY, ‘Akedah 5760’, Cross Currents, 50/1/2 (2000), 131.

[1]Jay Ladin, ‘Akedah 5760’, Cross Currents, 50/1/2 (2000), 131.

[2] Isaac Kalimi,‘“Go, I Beg You, Take Your Beloved Son And Slay Him!” The Binding of Isaac in Rabbinic Literature and Thought,’ The Review of Rabbinic Judaism, 13/1 (2010), 5.

[3]Ibid., 6.

[4]Ibid, 7.

[5]Leroy Andrew Huizenga, ‘Obedience unto Death: The Matthean Gethsemane and Arrest Sequence and the Aqedah’, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 71 (2009), 509.

[6]Leroy, 510.

[7]Ibid., 511.

[8]Omri, Boehm, ‘The Binding of Isaac: An Inner-Biblical Polemic on The Question of “Disobeying” A Manifestly Illegal Order,’ Vetus Testamentum, 52/1 (2002), 3.

 

[9]C.T.R Hayward,  ‘The sacrifice of Isaac and Jewish polemic against Christianity’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 52/2 (1990), 292.

[10]Ibid., 553.

[11]Jonathan Jacobs, ‘Willing Obedience with Doubts: Abraham at the Binding of Isaac’, Vetus Testamentum, 60/4 (2010), 554.

[12]Ibid., 555.

[13]Ibid., 556.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Binding of Isaac: Jewish and Christian Interpretations

Name

Course

Tutor

Date

Institution

 

The Binding of Isaac: Jewish and Christian Interpretations

The Binding of Isaac refers to a narrative found in the Old Testament section of the Bible whereby God instructed Abraham to offer Isaac, Abraham’s son, as a burnt sacrifice. Being a firm believer in God, Abraham complied and prepared Isaac for the proposed sacrificial death. Just before Abraham slaughtered Isaac, the angel of God intervened and asked Abraham not to kill Isaac, thereby preventing Isaac’s death. Abraham then saw a ram that was entangled in some nearby bushes. Releasing Isaac, Abraham took this ram and offered it as a burnt sacrifice in the place of Isaac. This narrative is found in Genesis chapter 22. Even though it happened more than 2 millennia ago, The Binding of Isaac has a continuing significance today. This is because it speaks to important spiritual matters in both the Christian and Jewish faiths. For instance, The Binding of Isaac illustrates that believers need to engage in certain actions to show their faithfulness toward God. This aspect is represented by Abraham’s willingness to slaughter Isaac in response to God’s request. Moreover, The Binding of Isaac illustrates that believers have to perform uncomfortable actions so as to meet God’s requirements at certain times. This idea is represented by Abraham’s readiness to kill and burn Isaac’s body in order to satisfy God’s request. In doing so, Abraham would cause suffering to not only himself, but also to Isaac. Abraham would inevitably suffer emotional anguish for having to bring about the death of his only child with Sarah. Similarly, Isaac would experience emotional torment based on the idea that he would suffer a brutal death in the hands of his father. Further, Abraham’s killing of Isaac would hurt Sarah. Owing to its weighty thematic significance, The Binding of Isaac has been interpreted by a range of Jewish and Christian scholars. This essay compares and contrasts Jewish and Christian interpretations of The Binding of Isaac and analyses the significance of these interpretations in today’s world.

Adopting a Jewish standpoint, Ladin observes that The Binding of Isaac is a brutal and horror story. The narrative is brutal because God asked Abraham, His first faithful follower, to kill the son, Isaac. This story is similarly farcical in that God caused Abraham and Isaac, father and son respectively, to go through remarkable simulation. In this charade, God watched in complimentary silence as Abraham prepared Isaac for the proposed sacrificial death. Subsequently, God provided Isaac with a reprieve at the last minute and proclaimed that, owing to Abraham’s willingness to commit filicide, He would give Abraham innumerable descendants who would serve as a blessing to the whole of humankind. Ladin avers that this divine proclamation was bitter because Abraham and Isaac had to go through trauma to cause God to make this pronouncement. Such horror demonstrates that, when He is present, God is either an observer of, or the cause of immense cruelty and anguish. Consequently, God held that there was some advantage to the suffering depicted in The Binding of Isaac. If they do not encounter such horror, Jews cannot draw closer to God. The horrifying experiences of Jews arouse God’s forgiveness. In such moments of suffering, Jews and God confront each other symbolically in an unequal playing field. With no guiding laws, no orienting relationships, and no reassuring covenants, Jews cannot differentiate love from hatred, a curse from a blessing, or life from death at such times. The ensuing uncertainty allows God to serve as a genesis of blessing, causing Jews to stop agonizing.[1]

Similarly taking on a Jewish standpoint, Kalimi explains that, within The Binding of Isaac, God did not intend for Isaac to serve as a burnt offering. In this respect, the Bible passage of Jeremiah 7:31, where God denies contemplating or ordering a child sacrifice, relates to The Binding of Isaac. To buttress this argument, Jews contend that God simply instructed Abraham to take Isaac up mount Moriah. This means that God did not explicitly instruct Abraham to slaughter Isaac. In this argument, Jews cite Genesis Rabbah 56:8. According to this view, Abraham misconstrued God’s instructions. This concept obtains support from the rabbinic belief that the ram that substituted Abraham in the burned offering scenario was created at the conclusion of God’s creative work. Consequently, God prepared this ram during the first Sabbath eve of creation. Henceforth, this ram was on standby to substitute Isaac. According to this theory, God was always aware that Isaac would not suffer a sacrificial death. For this reason, Jews hold that The Binding of Isaac represents the most climactic among God’s tests of Abraham.[2] Here, God allowed Abraham to exercise freedom of choice. Meanwhile, God requested Abraham to make the fitting choice so that all humanity may acknowledge Abraham’s unconditional faith and righteousness. While accepting that The Binding of Isaac is an illustration of Abraham’s faith, Jews hold that this test is extremely cruel. Seeking to rationalize this cruelty, Jews examine the opening phrase of The Binding of Isaac account that generally denotes ‘sometime afterward’. Early Jewish exegesis hold that this phrase defines a sequential succession of this account and is tied to the story narrated previously.[3] Consequently, Jews maintain that the opening phase of this story reads ‘After these words’ (Genesis 22:1). The ‘words’ in question here are those uttered by Satan concerning Abraham. Referring to the celebratory feast that Abraham held concerning Isaac (according to Genesis 21:8), Satan observed that Abraham did not show any special thanks to God. Satan alleged that Abraham was not thankful toward God who had enabled Abraham to sire Isaac at an old age. In response, God stated that, were He to ask Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, Abraham would comply without hesitation. In line with this assertion, God requested Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. The Jews thus argue that The Binding of Isaac does not illustrate God’s cruelty toward either Abraham or Isaac. Rather, God sought to justify Himself while at the same time blaming both Satan and Abraham.[4]

Reiterating that The Binding of Isaac has positive ramifications, Huizenga embraces a Jewish view and contends that The Binding of Isaac is remarkable because Isaac consented to participate in his own sacrificial death. To illustrate his cooperation, Isaac told Abraham to tie him (Isaac) properly so that Isaac would not present challenges during the impending slaughter.[5] Still on this line of thought, Huizenga explains that within The Binding of Isaac, Satan sought to assess Isaac’s spiritual courage. In other words, Satan wanted to determine whether Isaac would demonstrate weakness and thus hesitate to die or if Isaac would agree to the upcoming sacrifice, thereby annihilating Isaac’s descendants from the world. Consequently, agreeing that Abraham loved Isaac very much, Satan dared God to instruct Abraham to offer Isaac as a sacrifice (Jubilees 17:16). The Binding of Isaac also contains certain parallels that imply it is connected to a number of occurrences that took place during the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. This argument is especially informed by specific events found in the ancient Jewish religious book of Jubilees. Satan was contending with the angel of God in this instance. Considering that God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac on the twelve day of the first month and that Abraham travelled for three days prior to binding Isaac, the forestalled sacrifice event happened during the Passover ceremony (Jubilees 18: 3, 13). After reaching Beersheba, Abraham observed a joyous seven-day feast (Jubilees 18:18-19).[6]In both the Binding of Isaac and the Passover accounts, Isaac and the Israelites respectively demonstrated obedience to God. Isaac and the Israelites were thus delivered from problems, thus shaming Satan who doubted the faithfulness of these individuals toward God.[7]

Conversely, Boehm assumes a Christian viewpoint and argues that verses 1-10, 13, and 19 constitute the original account of Genesis 22 or The Binding of Isaac narrative. Nevertheless, verses 11-12 and 15-18 constitute the work of some later redactor who sought to conceal the fact that Abraham disobeyed God’s instructions regarding sacrificing Isaac. According to this theory, Abraham travelled to Moriah in the company of Isaac following God’s command. Abraham prepared an altar, bound Isaac, and took out his knife to slay Isaac. At this moment, Abraham saw a ram that was entangled in nearby bushes. Abandoning the process of slaying Isaac, Abraham took this ram and sacrificed it instead of Isaac. Of importance here is the idea that no angel advised Abraham to spare Isaac and to instead offer the ram as a burnt offering. In view of this argument, The Binding of Isaac provides a profound biblical lesson regarding the matter of disobeying a patently unlawful order.[8] This is because, according to the advocated original text, Abraham chose to disregard God’s command upon seeing the ram, unilaterally. In this scenario, Abraham opted to stick to existing moral and divine laws rather than obey God’s command that infringed these laws. In other words, Abraham decided not to betray the trust that Isaac had in him owing to this duo’s father-son relationship. Moreover, Abraham opted to obey God’s commandment against committing murder (Exodus 20:13). Conversely, Abraham violated these moral and divine laws in the modified version of The Binding of Isaac proposed by Boehm. To camouflage such disobedience, a later editor of this text introduces the two speeches of God’s angel. In the first speech, God’s angel cautioned Abraham from slaying Isaac at the last moment. Thanks to the angel’s intervention, Abraham had the opportunity to see a nearby ram that he sacrificed instead of Isaac (Genesis 22: 11-12). Within the second angelic speech, God’s angel promised heavenly blessings to both Abraham and his descendants (Genesis 22: 15-18).

Hayward also adopts a Christian view and explains that The Binding of Isaac is related to the Christian Passion Narratives in the eyes of the Jews. This is because both Jesus and Isaac carried the tools that would be used to execute their persecution. Whereas Isaac carried the wood that would burn him, Jesus carried the cross on which he would be nailed. Moreover, both Christian and Jewish texts hold that Isaac died and resurrected. Further, both Christians and Jews consider Abraham to be a priest. Nevertheless, it is argued that, by borrowing material from the Christian Passion Narratives to elaborate the Binding of Isaac, Jews permit Christian theology to define Jewish theological standards. To counter this claim, Jews have sought to challenge the Christian concept of Christ’s atoning blood, a central Christian principle, by making it appear that Isaac’s blood also had atoning powers. Jews have thus introduced the phrase ‘the blood of Isaac’ into their theological repertoire. This is in response to the idea that, at the Binding of Isaac event, Abraham gave a new name to the location where this event occurred. Abraham pronounced that this place would henceforth be named ‘The Lord will see’. Jews believe that this phrase means that ‘The Lord will see the blood of Isaac’. In other words, God will pardon the Jews on account of the blood of Isaac. This belief counters the Christian belief that only the blood of the Christ has atoning powers. Jews have come up with various anecdotes to illustrate the atoning power of the blood of Isaac. For example, back in Egypt, Jews believe that God spared the Israelites from death upon seeing Isaac’s blood that was smeared on door posts (Exodus 12: 23). Similarly, thanks to Isaac’s blood, God declined to destroy Israel using a plague at the threshing grounds of Ornan the Jebusite (2 Chronicles 3:1).[9]

Jacobs likewise assumes a Christian viewpoint and explains that The Binding of Isaac highlighted Abraham’s doubts about the entire process. After receiving God’s command to sacrifice Isaac, Abraham woke up early, saddled his donkey, and took two of his servants, together with Isaac (Genesis 22:13). This verse suggests that Abraham experienced inner misgivings and doubts about God’s command. Owing to these doubts, Abraham saddled his donkey then took his servants. He then took Isaac, almost like an afterthought. Curiously, Abraham did not take Isaac before his servants or the donkey. Abraham took this course of action because he was expecting a second divine command that would cancel the first one.[10] Importantly, after Abraham gathered the courage to take Isaac, he bid time once again by engaging in the activity of chopping wood that would be used in the upcoming sacrifice. It is crucial to note that Abraham could have prepared this wood before mobilizing his servants and Isaac. Moreover, tree branches and twigs could have served the role of this wood. Given this analysis, it is clear that Abraham’s action of chopping wood was largely a ploy to buy time. Similarly, the decision to take the donkey and the two servants illustrated Abraham’s desire to delay the sacrifice process. This is because a large delegation would not only cause the preparation to take much time; it would also cause the team to progress at a slow pace along the way. The events of verses 4 and 5 also underline Abraham’s strategy to delay the proposed sacrifice.[11] This is because, after gaining sight of the intended sacrificial grounds, Abraham stopped the donkey and instructed his servants to remain behind as he accompanied Isaac to the sacrifice event. Verses 7 and 8 also highlight Abraham’s misgivings. In this dialogue, Abraham and Isaac have a dialogue concerning the impending sacrifice. In the first part of this dialogue, the narrator does not mention the speakers by name; it is assumed that the reader will decipher who is speaking based on what is spoken. Strikingly, the narrator mentions Abraham by name at the spot when Abraham explains that God will provide a sheep to be used in the upcoming burnt offering event. This change in the dialogue structure illustrates that Abraham is struggling with an inner conflict[12]; while seeking to remain faithful to his God, Abraham is pained at the thought of harming his son, Isaac. This internal conflict causes Abraham to hesitate momentarily before stating that God will provide a sacrifice sheep.[13]

To sum up, Jewish and Christian interpretations of The Binding of Isaac feature important similarities and differences. According to Ladin’s Jewish interpretation, The Binding of Isaac illustrates that God considers the suffering of believers to be useful and that God gives His blessings through such suffering. Kalimi’s Jewish interpretation similarly holds that God intended to defend himself and to put Satan to shame in The Binding of Isaac. God also wanted to test Abraham’s faith. Likewise, Huizenga’s Jewish view explains that The Binding of Isaac underlines Isaac’s willingness to die and the ensuing Godly blessings for Isaac. Boehm’s Christian viewpoint nevertheless asserts that, within The Binding of Isaac, Abraham failed to abide by God’s order regarding the killing of Isaac because this order was clearly illegal. Hayward’s similarly Christian interpretation argues that The Binding of Isaac represents Jewish rejection of the Christian concept of the atoning blood of Jesus. Jacobs’ Christian view contends that The Binding of Isaac highlights Abraham’s doubts about the sacrifice process. The examined Jewish interpretations have a continuing significance in the lives of Jews because they seek to encourage believers to show faith in God.  Boehm, Hayward, and Jacobs’ Christian interpretations nevertheless take an academic outlook and may not be currently significant in the lives of modern-day Christians. This is because these interpretations are not likely to encourage strong faith in Christians.

 

Bibliography

BOEHM, OMRI, ‘The Binding of Isaac: An Inner-Biblical Polemic on The Question of “Disobeying” A Manifestly Illegal Order,’ Vetus Testamentum, 52/1 (2002), 1-12.

HAYWARD, C.T.R, ‘The sacrifice of Isaac and Jewish polemic against Christianity’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 52/2 (1990), 292.

HUIZENGA, LEROY ANDREW, ‘Obedience unto Death: The Matthean Gethsemane and Arrest Sequence and the Aqedah’, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 71 (2009), 507-26.

JACOBS, Jonathan. ‘Willing Obedience with Doubts: Abraham at the Binding of Isaac’, Vetus Testamentum, 60/4 (2010), 546-59.

KALIMI, ISAAC, ‘“Go, I Beg You, Take Your Beloved Son and Slay Him!” The Binding of Isaac in Rabbinic Literature and Thought,’ The Review of Rabbinic Judaism, 13/1 (2010), 1-29.

LADIN, JAY, ‘Akedah 5760’, Cross Currents, 50/1/2 (2000), 131.

[1]Jay Ladin, ‘Akedah 5760’, Cross Currents, 50/1/2 (2000), 131.

[2] Isaac Kalimi,‘“Go, I Beg You, Take Your Beloved Son And Slay Him!” The Binding of Isaac in Rabbinic Literature and Thought,’ The Review of Rabbinic Judaism, 13/1 (2010), 5.

[3]Ibid., 6.

[4]Ibid, 7.

[5]Leroy Andrew Huizenga, ‘Obedience unto Death: The Matthean Gethsemane and Arrest Sequence and the Aqedah’, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 71 (2009), 509.

[6]Leroy, 510.

[7]Ibid., 511.

[8]Omri, Boehm, ‘The Binding of Isaac: An Inner-Biblical Polemic on The Question of “Disobeying” A Manifestly Illegal Order,’ Vetus Testamentum, 52/1 (2002), 3.

 

[9]C.T.R Hayward,  ‘The sacrifice of Isaac and Jewish polemic against Christianity’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 52/2 (1990), 292.

[10]Ibid., 553.

[11]Jonathan Jacobs, ‘Willing Obedience with Doubts: Abraham at the Binding of Isaac’, Vetus Testamentum, 60/4 (2010), 554.

[12]Ibid., 555.

[13]Ibid., 556.

Research Essay

The Binding of Isaac refers to a narrative found in the Old Testament section of the Bible whereby God instructs Abraham to offer Isaac, Abraham’s son, as a burnt sacrifice. This narrative is found in Genesis chapter 22. Owing to its weighty thematic significance, The Binding of Isaac has been interpreted by a range of Jewish and Christian scholars. This essay compares and contrasts Jewish and Christian interpretations of The Binding of Isaac and analyses the significance of these interpretations in today’s world.

Adopting a Jewish standpoint, Ladin observes that The Binding of Isaac is a brutal and horror story. The narrative is brutal because God asked Abraham, His first faithful follower, to kill the son, Isaac. This story is similarly farcical in that God caused Abraham and Isaac, father and son respectively, to go through remarkable simulation. In this charade, God watched in complimentary silence as Abraham prepared Isaac for the proposed sacrificial death. Subsequently, God provided Isaac with a reprieve at the last minute and proclaimed that, owing to Abraham’s willingness to commit filicide, He would give Abraham innumerable descendants who would serve as a blessing to the whole of humankind. Ladin avers that this divine proclamation was bitter because Abraham and Isaac had to go through trauma to cause God to make this pronouncement. Such horror demonstrates that, when He is present, God is either an observer of, or the cause of immense cruelty and anguish. Consequently, God held that there was some advantage to the suffering depicted in The Binding of Isaac. If they do not encounter such horror, Jews cannot draw closer to God. The horrifying experiences of Jews arouse God’s forgiveness. In such moments of suffering, Jews and God confront each other symbolically in an unequal playing field. With no guiding laws, no orienting relationships, and no reassuring covenants, Jews cannot differentiate love from hatred, curse from blessing, or life from death at such times. Such uncertainty allows God to serve as a genesis of blessing, causing Jews to stop agonising.

 

Bibliography

Ladin, Jay. Akedah 5760. Cross Currents. 2000, Vol. 50 Issue 1/2, 131.

critique on Performance and accountability

Introduction

Gaining knowledge on the utilization of different performance management components enhance a non-profit organization enables them meet their managerial objectives, and those of their frontline staff. This includes adhering to different practices and lessons that foster the organization to plan for improving their performance in the future. Renz argues that the management is expected to conduct performance assessments to explore the alignment of employees to achieving the organization’s success (Renz, 2016). This also helps in introducing favorable management models learnt through the study. Researchers argues that managers often use assessments outputs and performance inputs through training its employees to meet the current demands of the organization in achieving success (Renz, 2016). Managers are mandated to align employee’s individual performance to that of the organization, and ensure that they lead to achieving similar goals and objectives (Selden and Sowa, 2011).

Discussion

Renz supports Sally and Jessica’s argument that non-profit organizations in the private and public sector encounter many challenges as they are hit with the pressure of proving its capabilities to improve their performance and plans in the future (Renz, 2016). Non-profit organizations are expected to foster and measure their effectiveness through assessment of the organizational members (Renz, 2016). The authors compare the non-profit to the profit sectors in the private and public sector. They argue that their performance management is studied extensively to overcome all challenges that deter their development practices (Selden and Sowa, 2011). Prentice argues that managers are able to approximate an organization’s performance, capacity, and financial health through simple measures, from an empirical basis (Prentice, 2016). These activities are based on its predictability to fund opportunities and activities in the organization, and prevent its failure in the future. Internal Revenue Service For, 990 explores the question whether accounting measures can be used theoretically to intuitive defensible and constructs that improves the organization’s likelihood to succeed (Selden and Sowa, 2011). Christopher explains that the current financial performances of non-profit organizations is evaluated through careful examination if its solvency, liquidity, profitability, and margin (Prentice, 2016). These constructs are always useful as they guarantee how the non-profit organizations accrue their debts, monitor the finances of the organization, and measure their progressiveness towards attaining a sustainable future. The non-profit organization managers are mandated to understand the profitability, margin, liquidity, and solvency concepts and examine them to understand their performance (Prentice, 2016).

Sally and Jessica supports these claims, arguing that performance appraisals in human service organizations are as necessary, as in the profit organizations, from a staff and managerial perspective (Selden and Sowa, 2011). The authors argue that managing individual performances in the organization starts from the top to bottom levels. Every employee in the non-profit organization is expected to abide to the stipulated managerial standards to increase their performance. Employees must meet the organization goals, keep to its priorities and expectations in order to achieve success in the long-run. Renz argues that performance management processes in the organization also foster competitiveness (Renz, 2016). This includes adhering to different practices and lessons that foster the organization to plan for improving their performance in the future. Sally and Jessica supports these claims, arguing that performance appraisals in human service organizations are as necessary, as in the profit organizations, from a staff and managerial perspective (Selden and Sowa, 2011). Introduction of performance appraisals ensure that employees develop unique theories and ideas on how to make themselves better. This is effective as it leads to better organizational performance (Selden and Sowa, 2011).

“The ultimate objective of a performance management process is to align individual performance with organizational performance; the process should signal employees about the organization’s goals, priorities, and expectations and how well they are contributing to them. (252)” (Selden and Sowa, 2011)

Renz supports Tuckman and Chang’s argument that the non-profit organization is always vulnerable in its financial health (Chang and Tuckman, 1994). Consequently, managers need to often carefully evaluate the practices needed to achieve an overall improved financial health. The authors argue that probabilities of vulnerability in the non-profit organizations include the use of efficiency variables including the administrative total expenses, the revenue variables such as diversification, and accounting variable that support improvement for the majority (Renz, 2016). The authors provides an account of the nine common accounting measures that aim are enhancing the dimensional reduction process. This include the factor analysis, subsector analysis, index construction, and correlation analysis, among others (Prentice, 2016).

Jessica and Sally explain that performance management refers to set of activities that are adopted to enhance performance improvements of individual employees in the organization (Renz, 2016). The human resource team is expected to develop processes that motivate employees towards being better (Selden and Sowa, 2011). Commonly, setting employee expectations and ensuring that they provide frequent feedback on essential issues affecting the organization motivate them towards being exceptional. Target training in the organization should be conducted to improve employee weaknesses in their identified areas of growth (Renz, 2016). This increases the likelihood for potential success. Research argues that compensation systems are always rewarding to employees, as they motivate them towards attaining organizational goals (Renz, 2016). Employees are also more satisfied when the human resource team maintains a close relationship with each of them. This includes offering formal and non-formal information that improves their performances. Their turnover rate is also expected to increase steadily (Selden and Sowa, 2011). Research carried out in a number of public organizations prove that performance appraisals are very necessary to the organization, in a staffing and managerial perspective. The informal consent is expected to stimulate the formal consent to achieving satisfaction in human service evaluations (Selden and Sowa, 2011).

“Given the shortcomings of the traditional conceptualization of financial measures, this
section applies inductive reasoning to explore the viability of establishing underlying
constructs from a purely data-driven perspective. Multiple exploratory factor analyses
were performed to uncover latent constructs, and once again, the results affirm the
disjunction between our conceptual understanding of the accounting measures and
empirical data (726)” (Prentice, 2016).

Young lee examines the nature of non-profit organizations, and their ability to achieve success through implementation of good governance policies. Research conducted from the National Center for Charitable Statistics in the year 2010 proved that organizations that were engaged on lobbying activities and those that operated in metropolitan regions were more likely to achieve success through adoption of good policies and governance systems that steered high profile standards (Renz, 2016). The United States federal governance is determined in ensuring that all non-profit organizations meet the state legal mechanisms of good governance policies. “The US federal and state governments have legal mechanisms to ensure good governance in
nonprofit organizations. State nonprofit corporation law enables a nonprofit “to exist as a
legal entity, with its board as its animator (97)”

“Indeed, empirical research finds that the reported ratings affect the financial support an organization receives (Gordon, Knock, and Neely 2009 ; Silvergleid 2003 ; Sloan 2009 ). Hence, the failure to have such policies in place may lead to a loss of funding or damages to an organization ’ sreputation in the increasingly competitive marketplace (Eaton and Akers 2007 ). (97).

Conclusion

Conclusively all non-profit organizations should embark on collectively invest strategies that grant them competitive advantages in the market. All non-profit organizations are also expected to meet the required external characteristics and conditions in order to survive. This is only possible through written and good governance practices (Renz, 2016). Christopher argues that all financial measurements must convey a long term sustainability plan for the non-profit organization. All financial measures must also be examined to ensure that they meet the underlying concept of profitability construct. Annual surplus expenditures must be reduced to ensure that the percentage of operational spending reduces (Prentice, 2016). Commonly, setting employee expectations and ensuring that they provide frequent feedback on essential issues affecting the organization motivate them towards being exceptional. Conclusively, the current financial performances of non-profit organizations must be evaluated through careful examination if its solvency, liquidity, profitability, and margin (Prentice, 2016). These constructs are always useful as they guarantee how the non-profit organizations accrue their debts, monitor the finances of the organization, and measure their progressiveness towards attaining a sustainable future. The managers in non-profit organization are mandated to understand the profitability, margin, liquidity, and solvency concepts to steer the firm towards achieving success (Selden and Sowa, 2011).

 

 

 

Racism in America and Strategies to Curb On Racism and Stereotypes in the USA

Racism in America and Strategies to Curb On Racism and Stereotypes in the USA

Introduction

Brief Description of the Problem

Racism from the definition is about the belief that one’s skin color, race, a group, or religion is more superior to the other on humanity grounds. Racism has been a topic that has raised concern from the international community, the civil society, the communities that define our existence and many other stakeholders. The issue of racism has had topics of confrontation in the past years, and nothing, in particular, has happened to either to curb racism and its prominence in the American society. Racism has its roots from time immemorial in the American history and all along, the impact of racism has been felt in society.[1] The repercussions are evident right from the lowest ranked individual in society to the top most. Moreover, racism manifests itself in many ways and the list and manner in which it shows up differ greatly in many ways. Important is that racism exists in American society and has been in existence all the way back to 17th century. There have been activists that stood at the outposts to malign the acts of racism in all efforts that they could. Nothing was forthcoming, and in the event of time, some were assassinated in the event of carrying out the noble duty if saving the population and more specifically the undermined and an inferior lot of people that make up the society. America is one great nation in many spheres, but racism has taken a huge percentage of their problems. Racism has been in America for Native Americans, African Americans, Jewish Americans, and Islamophobia and against the Japanese Americans.[2] It can be understood that racism has taken roots in the society and has impacted negatively on the larger percentage of the American Citizens. It is a national disaster that has hit the nation mercilessly and is not at any point giving the nation a break. It is a malady that eats the nation from within, a nation that is destined for greatness and one that other nations revere in leadership and levels of competency it depicts in its institutions of change for the better society.[3]

Research Question

What should be the best alternatives that can be applied to help rescue America from the malice and humiliations of racism as a national disaster that has gotten the better part of the nation from time immemorial?

Thesis Statement

Racism is a counterpoint to all the prevalent practices and beliefs of equality in most developed nations. It exists despite the efforts used to combat it in all manners possible. It has gained ground in the societal setup and clings to human life and coupled with stereotypes that are the agents of doom to societal progress. It is so entangled in the society that it forms the fabric of the same society.

Summary Argument

Defining the concept of stereotype and racism helps one to think about how the two relates to each other and the way they influence the social interaction. Racism as a universal concept happens if individuals’ in the society have affective or emotional response to people of a particular social group. On the other hand, stereotype as another major aspect that has been passed over time refer to the belief that certain people have regarding the characteristics, attributes, and behaviors of specific members of a particular group in the society.[4] Today, the American society is far more diverse than at any other time in the nation’s history. Despite the tremendous change in the society, it can be revealed that many people, especially the minorities continue to encounter racism through disparate treatment, which is affecting the life of many individuals in several ways. Thus, the government through its legal framework and the society should take the defying initiatives to deal with racism under any circumstance for the well-being of the society members.

Frame Work and Roadmap

          The paper will address the contemporary issues that the American society is experiencing in as far as racism is concerned. It will help expose the ill associated with racism in society and work on provision of the remedies to the problem to be assured of a unified society that has a common history and one that lives on utmost believe of highest social and political morality. The paper will explore the pertinent issues that are leading to uproars in the public domain as well as what contributes to the stalemate of the matter. In any sense thereof, the paper will try to bring out the truth that is hidden behind falsehoods on which community propagates racism the most and the way to calm down the situation amicably. The paper, however, will not hold anyone at ransom but work on proving that every community is responsible for the problems associated with racism and the only solution is to own up and work on remedies. Issues, as stipulated in the outline, will follow each other concurrently to bring out the exact meaning of the main objective of the paper in the most congruent manner possible.[5]

The main objectives to meet is to ensure that the issue of racism has got the ultimate solution basing reference to the earlier experiences on the matter and working on the best way out to bringing a lasting solution to the American population that is overburdened with the state of affairs. It will be for everyone’s joy if the nation heals from the malady that has been eating it from within and for any reason contributing to its low scores as compared to other nations out there that seek the same position as America.

Prevalence of Racism in the United States

Racism in the United States became more prevalent in the 1950s and 1960s, where reports claim that the African Americanss people were the subject of racism in the 19650s and 1960s era. Despite the implementation of overtly racist policies such as disfranchisement laws and Crow segregation laws, racism in the U.S. continues to spread intensively.[6] Further, racism in the U.S. is spreading mostly in areas where people of different races meet that include in the learning institutions, workplaces, as well in the prison and it has become difficult for the people in the U.S. to follow the rule of segregation laws in these areas. The measure of racism prevalence has been difficult since report claims that the pattern of racism prevalence has been shaped by the various levels that may be difficult to observe. However, it is believed that the operating individuals, organizations, and society have accelerated the spread of racism in the United States. Each level contains a certain range of dynamic that is instigating the spread of racism. Most of the organizations operate under the aspect of inequality, which is one of the immense factor that is making racism to increase within the employment sector.[7] From the context of organizational inequality, members of the minority groups in the U.S. are the subject here, as working opportunities and constraints favors the White people over the minority groups such as African Americans and Hispanic community. The issue of racial profiling is also encouraging racism in the U.S. specifically for African Americans. This is making people in the society to encounter gendered racism, as many African Americans are being searched in every sector of the society.

The aspect of disagreement in the society is also causing racism prevalent more than people can imagine. Experimental survey reveals that by the year 2012, 53% of the African Americans people reported that discrimination against minority community is a major issue in the America.[8] Contrarily, only 17% of the Whites who acknowledge that racism inform discrimination in the one of the prevailing problem in the America and it is affecting the minority groups. As it is a fact that the White people are finding it hard to accept the prevalence of racism over the past years, this is making the American society more biased with the major victims of the racism issue being the Africa-American people.

Reason for the Mistreatment of People Basing on Stereotypes

In most of the stereotypical issues, women are the victims, as they are more judged according to stereotype perceptions. In the United States, the victims of the stereotype are women from the minority groups, and if people are discriminating others because of their stereotypical perception, this is violating the standard of rationality. One of the primary reason that makes women from the minority group to encounter stereotype is self-esteem or the desire to rationalize inequality in the society.[9] In essence, as many people in the society use their self-esteem to make an accurate judgment about others, this may make some individuals feel weak and lose motivation. When people, especially women, are given weak judgment, it makes them feel threatened, which make them get the feeling of discrimination and mistreated by their colleagues within the society.

The social hierarchy is another factor that has been identified as a major cause of mistreatment of people based on stereotype concepts. For example, in the U.S. many women are primed as kind and nurturing, which is making them accept the treatment from men who views them as weak and individuals who can make decisions according to what they are told to do by men.[10] This makes women get lower status in the society and viewed as people who are less powerful compared to their colleagues. From this argument, it is open that women in the American society are being discriminated by the system justifying attitude, where men view them as individuals who depends on the decision that men make. For instance, if people in the America view the individuals from the minority community as a being shrewd, the Whites’ people are likely not to see the ability of the people from the minority ethnic groups.[11] This kind of stereotypical attribute can make the U.S. people fail to see the range of characteristics that the people from minority groups have, which make minorities becomes the victim of the issue of discrimination.

The Ways to Heal the Nation from Racism

There should be put measures to help reduce and if at any cost stamp out racism in the American society if the nation has to move forth and adopt the proposals laid out below. Healing from the injustices performed in the name of racism and stereotypes have to be brought to an end by concerted efforts from everyone including the federal governments, national government, the civil society, and more importantly, the people. The American society should encourage the interracial and intercultural communication in many setups of the society to help reduce on the sharpness of the effect of racism. The move will allow for closer interaction with the people as a whole and a build-up of relations in the longrun. Good relationship among people from various divide would result in finer interactions that would help eliminate the animosity that exists in society on the grounds of racism.

Reduction of the incidents of hate crimes on the minorities in the country would help cool down the racism and encourage multiculturalism, which is the main institutional practice to help curb the disaster. Avoiding judgment at individual levels about certain races as it has been done before basing on stereotypes, and instead judgment be based on one’s performance and level of competency at work. Moreover, the proclamation of one being lazy and underperforming without getting a personal feel for the problem would only make the state of things for the country worse. The civil society should come in on the same issue for this is where it performs based. Institutions of learning should also be involved in controlling of racism by setting up a syllabus to be learned in a class by students on the benefits of social cohesion through the elimination of racism. It will serve the country a big deal since the knowledge will gain ground right from the grass roots. Politicians spreading the gospel of cohesiveness and opposition to racism in society should be encouraged and be elected to leadership positions as their visions get upheld for the future generations. Politicians should be at the forefront of the anti-racism campaign.[12]

Government Acts and Laws of Racism

The United States government has taken the initiatives of making sure that no individuals in the U.S. encounter the issue of racism regardless of his or her race. The federal government has initiated several laws over the years as a way of curbing racism and stereotype mistreatment. In 2001, the U.S. Congress introduced a bill that is meant to counter or end racial profiling as one of the most prevalent racial discrimination concept.[13] In this year, the “End Racial Profiling Act (ERPA)” was introduced in every U.S. Congress, where the lawmakers proposed through the Act, to ban the aspect of racial profiling and if any individual is found doing racial profiling, he or she will face a legal hearing.[14] Although the bill is yet to be implemented into law, through such policies, it can be affirmed that the U.S. government is doing all it can to end racism and make the American society a place for every member of the society no matter the color.

In areas of the labor sector, the U.S. government has implemented legislation policies such discrimination law and occupational laws that are responsible for creating a better working relationship between employers and people of color. The regulatory frameworks in the workplaces are set to end the aspect of Labor-Hire Contracting, where all members of the society will be treated equally regardless of their races. The reason why the U.S. government introduced such form of legal framework was that most of the Africa-American people has reported that under contract work, their supervisors treat them favorably because of their race, which makes the working environment intolerable.[15] Other policies that are being used by the U.S. government to end discrimination in the working sector include the Affirmative Action Controversy and The Affirmative Action Laws that were established in the 1960s. The two policies are set to regulate the employers against spreading racism based on color, race, or nationality. The VII Civil Right is another law that is being used by the American Federal government to curb on racism. The Act was introduced in 1964, and it has broadened the Affirmative Action where people in the U.S. are subjected to benefit from different activities that relate to the federal financial assistance.[16] The policy has been efficient in the U.S., as it has banned any forms of racial discrimination and it has reduced the segregation life aspects of the Africa-American people.

Individuals Contribution toward Propagation on Racism

Racism is acquired largely by what people are writing and what they are talking about other people or certain groups of people in the society. The press or the media has been identified as a major contributor of racism in the United States. For instance, in the U.S. newspaper, magazines, and televisions have their own White people agenda, which makes the society view the minority people as the problem and individuals who are judged stereotypically.[17] Most of the press companies do not focus on reporting things pertaining the African Americans people such as discrimination, segregation, and racism, which makes the community to ignore such frameworks. When the society do not pay attention to issues affecting the African Americans people as the press do not present their coverage, racism, and aspect of stereotype continues to spread in the community, as the White people view the African Americans as less privileged individuals.[18]

The structural forces such as social acts are also identified as key contributors of racism in the United States. Social acts refer to the behavior of individuals in the society. Key examples of the social acts are things such as stereotyping, discrimination in the hiring processes, job promotion, stigmatization, and admission in the learning institutions. These acts are actions of people or group exercising power over the others. Since racism is a common issue in the U.S., the Africa-America people are always the victims of such event, which makes them go through a rough time dealing with the issue of racism inform of social acts. In addition, in the U.S. social processes are endorsed as the other forms of fundamental forces contributing to racism, which is affecting the minority groups. The key form of social processes that has been recognized within the American history includes processes such as Jim Crow segregation laws, voting restrictions, as well as racial profiling.[19] In each of these processes, the people who are set to be protected are the minorities. Consequently, this led to the creation of differences in the society where some groups view themselves superior than the others under the aspect of color and race. Typically, whenever there is a difference in the society one group is likely to encounter racism and this has been a major issue in the America. Thus, it can be argues that the social process that are set to promote public safety are in some ways contributing to racism in the America.

The Ultimate Solution to Racism

The most effective solution for racism is for both the White and minorities in the U.S. to come together and work toward abolishing stereotypes. Racism is not a White problem alone, as it never functions in one way. From the historical reports and record about racism, it is evident that for racism to spread over, it manifests itself in both the culprit and the oppressed.[20] Therefore, since most cases of racism are based on the stereotypical views of others, policymakers and society need to create a cooperation where people will work together and try to come up with a universal view of racism. Changing the social institutions is another ultimate solution that the American people should focus on if they want to curb racism in most efficient manner. As such, the U.S. Federal government should focus on encouraging the discussion of racism in learning institutions, as this will change the perspective of young students concerning stereotyping as well as the social structural. Moreover, to do away with racism in the U.S. the community should initiate forums such as creating new agendas that will promote integration between minorities and White people, allowing the people to determine their roles and functions, regardless of their color and gender.

Civil Society Response on Racism

The American civil society groups are the actors involved in combating racism and discrimination within the community. The civil society groups in the U.S. are viewed as anti-racism actors working in a wide arena through the public policy and legislation supporting the civil society and any other social movement taking the task of combating racism.[21] The civil society and social movement in the U.S. use specific strategies such as mobilizing the ethnic minority groups and getting into the grassroots position so that they can come up with factors causing racism and then initiates the relevant solutions to curb the problem.

Racism is also known for its negative contribution to the America’s welfare, where some communities are underrepresented while others are overrepresented. As the community continues to become more racially biased, the welfare policies designed in the U.S. are likely to benefit the majority groups and fails to put the minorities group into the welfare of the country.[22] Evidently, the African Americans and Hispanics people are underrepresented in most of the social programs and overrepresented in more insufficient programs that are designed as country welfares in the America. From this argument, it is clear that the minorities groups are harshly treated when it comes to the access of welfare programs that can give them greater benefits all because they belong to a specific minority group.

Civilian on Racism

As the aspect of racism may affect many people psychologically, it is important for the civil society movement to consider the best ways that are applicable in treating the victims. In this context, the civil society may respond to the matter by hiring a mental health practitioner as an individual who will conduct post-victimization counseling to the victim involved and offer emotional support after the initial crisis.[23] When the civil movement responds in this way, the racism victims will confront the crisis as a usual challenge and embrace the journey to recovery in a positive way.

Summary of the Data

It would comprise of most of the statistics that have been initially carried out by any research institution on every sub-topic highlighted beforehand. This would help in giving a projection of what should be done to bring the negative impacts of racism to a standstill. Figures used in this section and other parts of the paper would be based on the true findings, and surveys mostly carried out by the independent civil society and Non-Governmental Organizations. Other research and reports that concur with the paper would also be of value in the provision of leading information for the final draft of the paper and relevance.[24]

From an often-cited review focusing preventing prejudice, it is found out that at about 15% of the White people in the America are racist, largely because of the aspect of authoritarian personality.[25] Despite the effort to curb racism in the U.S., only 25% of the American White adults who are consistently supporting the rights of the African Americanss, thus making almost 75% of the White in the U.S. to be a key driver of racism within the society.[26] Besides, more research on the issues of racism in the U.S. shows that the police officers in the U.S. can make arrest decision based on the race of individuals, which is making racism to increase in the American society. For instance, in a study where a African Americans teenager was shot by a White police officer, 18% of the African Americanss reported that the act was promoted by the fact that the young boy was from a minority group. On the other hand, 52% of the Whites responded the race of the boy was not the reason why the boy was shot.[27] From various studies on the subject of racism, it is demonstrated racism is shaped by specific factors that are based on the difference between the Whites and African Americanss people.

Recommendations

It would serve the nation better if took part in the procedures for remedies and correction of the problem that is amongst the people. It is also wise to for every citizen at their levels to work on the eradication of the problem that undermines our country in many areas. Following the understanding of the racism subject and it is prevalent, the following recommendation will be important in the quest to search for a solution concerning this matter.

  1. The U.S. government should become more vigilant on the aspect of changing the stereotype culture. Although changing stereotype culture is difficult, the society and policymakers should take actions on teaching and support or reinforce for new stereotype for change to occur.
  2. To make the society a better place for every person, the government should make sure that in the society there is no superiority of races. This means that people will see each other as equal, as no race will be controlling another group, especially the minorities. When superiority of races is eliminated, the society will be made up of equal opportunities where people from the Hispanic, African Americans, and Whites will get equal chances.
  3. The need of resolution about racism factors is another recommendation that will make the society become discrimination-free and a place where the African Americanss and Whites can interact without defining who is superior to control the other.

Conclusion

This study presents the concept of racism and stereotype with the aim identifying the ways that the American people can use to counter racism. As one of the prevailing concept, racism has negative impacts on the society, mostly to the victims who are being discriminated in different ways. From the study, it is identified that stereotype is a common cause of racism and if the U.S. government wants to counter this problem, it should focus on changing the perspective of people toward certain groups. Although the American people are more diverse, African-American people, women, and other minority groups appear to be more vulnerable and exposed to the cases of racism. As racism continues to be prevalent in the U.S., it is affecting the specific group, and this may ruin the life and the life of the future generation.

 

1Sidanius, Jim, Lawrence Bobo, and David O. Sears. Racialized politics: The debate about racism in America. Chicago University Press, 2000.

2ibid

3Jonas, Gilbert. Freedom’s sword: the NAACP and the struggle against racism in America, 1909-1969. Routledge, 2005.

[4]Khan, Saera R., Teena Benda, and Michael N. Stagnaro. “Stereotyping from the perspective of perceivers and targets.” Online Readings in Psychology and Culture 5, no. 1 (2012): 1-10

5Jonas, Gilbert. Freedom’s sword: the NAACP and the struggle against racism in America, 1909-1969. Routledge, 2005.

6Mutua, Athena D., ed. Progressive Black Masculinities?. New York , NY : Taylor &  Francis Group. 2006.

7Pager, Devah, and Hana Shepherd. “The sociology of discrimination: Racial discrimination in employment, housing, credit, and consumer markets.” Annu. Rev. Sociol 1, no. 34 (2008): 181-209.

8Ponterotto, Joseph G., Shawn O. Utsey, and Paul Pedersen. Preventing Prejudice: A Guide for Counselors, Educators, and Parents. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications, 2006.

9Danielson, Chris. The Color of Politics: Racism in the American Political Arena Today. 2013.

10Uhlmann, Eric Luis, Victoria L. Brescoll, and Edouard Machery. “The motives underlying stereotype-based discrimination against members of stigmatized groups.” Social Justice Research 23, no. 1 (2010): 1-16.

10Blum, Lawrence. “Stereotypes and stereotyping: A moral analysis.” Philosophical Papers 33, no. 3 (2004): 251-289.

11Glaser, Jack, Katherine Spencer, and Amanda Charbonneau. “Racial Bias and Public Policy.” Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1, no. 1 (2014): 88-94.

12Jonas, Gilbert. Freedom’s sword: the NAACP and the struggle against racism in America, 1909-1969. Routledge, 2005.

13Van Dijk, Teun A. Racism and the Press. Vol. 5. Routledge, 2015.

14Wilson, William Julius. “Toward a framework for understanding forces that contribute to or reinforce racial inequality.” Race and Social Problems 1, no. 1 (2009): 3-11.

15Nye, Doug. Racing Cars. Rexdale, Ont: J. Wiley and Sons Canada, 2006

16Das Gupta, Tania. Race and Racialization: Essential Readings. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press, 2007

17 ibid

18Piven, Frances Fox. “Why welfare is racist.” Race and the politics of welfare reform (2003): 323-335.

19ibid

20Craig‐Henderson, Kellina, and L. Ren Sloan. “After the hate: Helping psychologists help victims of racist hate crime.” Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 10, no. 4 (2003): 481-490.

21 ibid

[19] ibid

[20] Lee, Woojin, and John E. Roemer. “Racism and redistribution in the United States: A solution to the problem of American exceptionalism.” Journal of public Economics 90, no. 6 (2006): 1027-1052.

[21] Nelson, Jacqueline K. “Denial of racism and its implications for local action.” Discourse & Society 24, no. 1 (2013): 89-109.

[22] Piven, Frances Fox. “Why welfare is racist.” Race and the politics of welfare reform (2003): 323-335.

[23] Craig‐Henderson, Kellina, and L. Ren Sloan. “After the hate: Helping psychologists help victims of racist hate crime.” Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 10, no. 4 (2003): 481-490.

24Hernton, Calvin C. Sex and racism in America. Anchor, 1992.

25Ponterotto, Joseph G., Shawn O. Utsey, and Paul B. Pedersen. Preventing prejudice: A guide for counselors, educators, and parents. Vol. 2. Sage Publications, 2006.

26Carter, Evelyn R., and Mary C. Murphy. “Group‐based Differences in Perceptions of Racism: What Counts, to Whom, and Why?.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass 9, no. 6 (2015): 269-280.

27ibid

Self Concept and Perception Essay

Definition of self-concept

Self-concept can be termed as self-perspective, self-construction, self-structure or self-identity. All these terms could mean a collection of attitudes, values and beliefs of the self that include factors like sexual identity, gender identity, academic performance, racial identity among other individual identities (Huitt 2011). Self-concept can be distinguished from self-awareness which refers to the extent of self-knowledge that is consistent, defined by an individual and applicable to one’s dispositions and attitudes. At the same time, self-concept is different from self-esteem because the former is a descriptive or cognitive component of the self; for instance-I am an exceptional runner. The former is an evaluated opinion of the self; for instance I feel so good about being a brilliant runner. In simple terms, self-concept is the idea that an individual holds in regard of herself. How we communicate with others is highly dependent on how we compare ourselves to others, those around you, personal anxieties and the larger environment. For instance, if you have a friend who is homosexual, it is very common to find them communicating freely with other homosexuals (Larson 2012). When in a communication surrounding that has another person being homophobic, the communication would be strained because one party is trying to hide who he really is basing on internal shame.

Role of self-concept in communication

Just like the example presented above, a homosexual would be comfortable in a conversation that involves other homosexuals. Another instance of a communication that could be strained is one that one party feels uncomfortable because of the racial environment. An African American would find it hard to be on the same communication platform with Latinos because African Americans might feel inferior to Latinos. Self-concept is the notion about self and it applies in our day to day interactions. When involved in group communication, there are those people who superior and would want to take charge of the whole discussion while those who feel inferior would try to fit into such conversations though not comfortable.  People who have strong self-concepts would be free in any kind of communication at any time because nothing makes them have an ‘out of place’ feeling in a social setting (Howell 2016).

Definition of my self-concept

I choose to stay true to myself even at the expense of attracting ridicule from my friends rather than be false and detest myself (Freund & Kasten 2012). I do not choose to worry about what other people think of me, I do not care how they perceive me and my personality because for one, I have knowledge of myself and my demons. As an individual living a life of my own, I focus on my gains and benefits, engaging in activities that aid in individual betterment and advancement. At times I could be egocentric and self-seeking. I care about others but I place myself first. I am more introverted, conservative, ignored and unstained because I value myself. Just like everyone else, I make mistakes and that is just who I am. However, I also believe that is am good and have the ability to bring out the best in me. I am not out to be loved by everybody because I think less of what they do. For me self-awareness is adopting a clear perception about your feelings, thoughts, beliefs, emotions, motivation and personality and I also believe this is what makes me understand those around me, how they view me and we respond to each other at a moment. I could confidently say that I am fully aware of my strengths and weaknesses, my potentials, my weak spots, my assets and my friends. I think I am my own best resource, I am confident of my abilities, appearances and for that reason I have formed a good image of myself and so I have the ability to value others.

Influencing self-concept of others

Growing up as a child and learning to involve in many activities, I have always been given the post of a leader. I have learnt to bring out the best in other, motivate them to get to the highest of their potential and believe in them. As a leader I focused on working together and ensuring no one is superior and no one is inferior. This helped me turn introverts into outgoing group members with full participation in groups.

Difference between perception and self-concept

Self-concept is basically knowledge about oneself. It is also similar to knowing what others feel and how they react to certain things (Fournier 2016). Perception on the other hand is self-evaluation on a scale that ranges from positive to negative. Perception is based on the feedback we receive from significant people in our lives about how they think of us and what they hold as our self-worth.

Improving perception and communication

Creating and maintaining supporting friendships could help improve perception and self-concept. Apart from self-prophesying to self, being around friends who build your self-esteem is a way to increase how you view yourself (Stinson et al., 2011). We have the ability to make a choice in deciding who sticks around us and who does not. Secondly, self-concept and perception can be increased by staying aware of distorted thinking and action patterns. Learning about the dangers of negative thoughts and actions could help us acknowledge and intervene in creating a change. Instead of negative thinking, individuals can engage in overcompensation and building self-esteem.

References;

Fournier, G. (2016). Self-Concept. Psych Central. Retrieved on March 20, 2017, from https://psychcentral.com/encyclopedia/self-concept/

Freund, P. & Kasten, N. (2012). “How smart do you think you are? A meta-analysis on the validity of self-estimates of cognitive ability”. Psychological Bulletin. 138 (2): 296–321. doi:10.1037/a0026556

Howell, G. (2016). Personality self-concept affects processing of trait adjectives in the self-reference memory paradigm Journal of Research in Personality. 66(2017); 1-13.

Huitt, W. (2011). “Self and self-views”. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University.

Larson, P. C. (2012). “Sexual Identity and Self-Concept”. Journal of Homosexuality. 7 (1): 15. doi:10.1300/J082v07n01_03

Stinson, D. A., et al., (2011). “Rewriting the Self-Fulfililng Prophecy of Social Rejection: Self-Affirmation Improves Relational Security and Social Behavior up to 2 Months Later,” Psychological Science 20, no. 10 (2011): 2.