The (near) sacrifice of Isaac--it is logical?

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
This probably has been discussed before. But I've never heard a satisfying explanation.

Gen. 22:1-19 recounts the story of Abraham being ordered by God to sacrifice Isaac. The text says God tested Abraham's faith. But why would Abraham need to be tested? Wouldn't God have known already that Abraham was faithful and obedient? I've heard it claimed that God was demonstrating to Abraham that faith will be rewarded. It was only for Abraham's benefit. But that's not stated in the text. This is what the angel--obviously speaking for God--says:

But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” He said, “Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.” Gen 22:11-12 (NASB)

Why would he say "For now I know...?" That's not logically consistent with an omniscient God. And the text goes on "you have not withheld your son from Me." Capital M. Which can only be God's words that are conveyed by the angel. So I see no support for the idea that the fake sacrifice was staged for Abraham's self-awareness.

I've also heard the passage is a foreshadowing of Jesus's sacrifice. But the circumstances are totally different. Not to mention that Isaac wasn't killed and Jesus was. And even so, it still doesn't explain the logical contradiction.

BTW: Carravagio's painting in the Uffizi gallery in Florence is the best, and most dramatic, representation of the story. The sheep doesn't have a clue as to what's coming. And the look on Isaac's face is priceless. :oldthumbsup:

View attachment 254670

I too find this story extremely problematic. As it stands it is one of the ugliest stories in the Bible. As written, if God was testing Abraham then Abraham failed the test. Maybe the angel who stopped the sacrifice was an agnostic or an atheist who was passing by. I think there is a defect in the story -- perhaps some context that is missing. It might be that the biblical manuscript has a copy error.
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
I too find this story extremely problematic. As it stands it is one of the ugliest stories in the Bible. As written, if God was testing Abraham then Abraham failed the test. Maybe the angel who stopped the sacrifice was an agnostic or an atheist who was passing by. I think there is a defect in the story -- perhaps some context that is missing. It might be that the biblical manuscript has a copy error.

Except this is highly implausible. The story works together as an entire unit. One copy error could not make a dramatic difference in the whole story. It's not just one detail of the story that's disturbing. The entire story is disturbing! Also, there is no textual evidence for any sort of textual variants.
 
Upvote 0

Sanoy

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2017
3,169
1,421
America
✟118,024.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Mark covered the core of the question so I'll respond to the logical portion.

"Know" in Hebrew is far broader than Know in English. It seems to include "experience" as it is used to describe sexual relations, "Now Adam, knew Eve His wife". "and Cain Knew His wife". The OT is a very ancient text and it needs to be treated well, which means we have to think in the context of an ancient person rather than the modern English that we read it in we we engage it on a higher level of critique.
 
Upvote 0

dale dorsett

New Member
Apr 15, 2019
3
0
74
oakland, tn
✟7,803.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Except this is highly implausible. The story works together as an entire unit. One copy error could not make a dramatic difference in the whole story. It's not just one detail of the story that's disturbing. The entire story is disturbing! Also, there is no textual evidence for any sort of textual variants.[/QUOTE

CONSIDER THIS: God gave dominion over the earth to Adam's race for a season, until He came and ruled the earth. Adam knew this and it is in Genesis, written by Moses as God dictated the story to him. God respects His special creation that He made in His Image. When Adam fell there was a barrier keeping humanity away from intimacy with God and condemned mankind. God had planned salvation before hand and promised Adam and Eve that He would send His Savior for them and their children, the human race. God tied His own hands when Satan took away, by controlling Adam and Eve with guilt and breaking close relationship with God to them, tied because until He comes to save and rule the earth it is still Adam's race that has dominion, though Satan got hooks into humanity.

Essentially, God got men to invite Him to talk to and deal with Him, the history of the Bible. God would not FORCE HIMSELF against the free will God gave mankind nor usurp the will of mankind, as Satan loves to do. How would God get a perfect Savior into the earth to fix what Satan had stolen???? He covenanted with Abraham who loved God and God loved. He had given him the promised land of what would later become known as Israel from his offspring. Problem Abraham had no offspring, so God promised to give him and Sarah his wife a child in their old age.

Now to about why God got Abraham to be willing to sacrifice his only child. God would only deal with man, not usurping man's authority He gave them. Finally he had a man that trusted Him so much that when he took Isaac Abraham's son to be sacrificed that Abraham told the person attending their donkeys "my son and I will go and do the sacrifice and RETURN." Abraham trusted God to not take his son and if so bring him back to life. He was willing to sacrifice his son out of love and obedience to God. GOD had no intention of allowing it and provided the sacrifice, just as Abraham promised Isaac "God will provide the sacrifice". Such faith and trust was richly rewarded not only for him but for all of Adam's race.

Because God got a man to trust Him with the life of the man's son, God had LEGAL ENTRY to have the eternal Son/Word of God Who spoke all creation into existence and hands on made Adam in His Image -- have Him come to earth in the form of man, setting aside for 32 years on earth His Diety. Jesus came and did not use Diety to be the Savior of mankind but as a perfect sinless man Jesus was the Second Adam Who defeated Satan/Sin/death/hell/ and the grave as the PERFECT and FINAL sacrifice for man to ever offer - the ONLY ETERNAL sacrifice that would bridge the gap between the perfect God and fallen mankind. We accept or reject Jesus just as the ones before Jesus accepted God's promised Savior Who would come, we trust the One Who came.

Jesus did not lay down His life in vain my friend and He HAD to have a way to get His God Savior to earth to defeat Satan as a man, not defeating Satan by Godhood authority. All the animal sacrifices did not please God, but man's obedience to sacrifice animals, symbolic of His FINAL Sacrifice pleased God and covered sins for a season until the ONE sacrifice all symbolized came. A perfect sinless man was the only Sacrifice that God could honor, all human effort would fail - after all all humanity was flawed and separated from God. Jesus was God and not separated from His Father God. Yet Jesus could not defeat Satan as God but by USING the ADAMIC authority over the earth as the PERFECT SINLESS MAN, Adam had been. Only God sacrificing His Own Son could cover mankinds sins and defeat Satan, who always has lusted to be as God and exalt his earthly throne above that of his Creator God.

It is called balance. In our judicial system there is the potential for balance between justice and mercy. Mercy can be extended to those who made mistakes and strongly repent of their wrongdoing. Else justice is supposed to be issued. Still their is another way for a criminal to be set free, if a person is willing to take the penalty for the criminal to free the criminal. Humanity was the criminal, rebelling and far from God's intimacy and love, doing its own thing. God's Son came in an earth suit as Jesus to free all of Adam's race that would believe in Him - to come in the old covenant and came in the new covenant/testament. The ONE and ONLY eternal sacrifice has been made but we must accept Him as Savior to go free. Once we accept Him then our spirit man is Heaven ready and God has to get our cooperation and love to use His Word the Bible and Holy Spirit to get our carnal earthly minds to change to cooperate with our recreated/born again spirit man that He saved. When we grow more and more like Jesus the warfare between the physical carnal mind and the eternal spiritual mind we have, as well as desire to sin and disobey changes and we become more like Jesus. We must let the Holy Spirit of God Who indwells those born again and Heaven ready teach us and guide us and lead us on the best path we can follow in this fallen world and then carry us HOME to be with God and our elder brother/Son of God Jesus.
 
Upvote 0

Sketcher

Born Imperishable
Feb 23, 2004
38,978
9,399
✟377,931.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
This probably has been discussed before. But I've never heard a satisfying explanation.

Gen. 22:1-19 recounts the story of Abraham being ordered by God to sacrifice Isaac. The text says God tested Abraham's faith. But why would Abraham need to be tested? Wouldn't God have known already that Abraham was faithful and obedient? I've heard it claimed that God was demonstrating to Abraham that faith will be rewarded. It was only for Abraham's benefit. But that's not stated in the text. This is what the angel--obviously speaking for God--says:

But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” He said, “Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.” Gen 22:11-12 (NASB)

Why would he say "For now I know...?" That's not logically consistent with an omniscient God. And the text goes on "you have not withheld your son from Me." Capital M. Which can only be God's words that are conveyed by the angel. So I see no support for the idea that the fake sacrifice was staged for Abraham's self-awareness.
God foreknew it, but Abraham hadn't had a chance to prove it until the angel had to stop him. And this provided a powerful story about faith and obedience to bless many generations.

I've also heard the passage is a foreshadowing of Jesus's sacrifice. But the circumstances are totally different. Not to mention that Isaac wasn't killed and Jesus was.
The circumstances are different, but that's part of how "types" work in the Old Testament. We have the story, we know the story, and in this way or that it points to Jesus.
BTW: Carravagio's painting in the Uffizi gallery in Florence is the best, and most dramatic, representation of the story. The sheep doesn't have a clue as to what's coming. And the look on Isaac's face is priceless. :oldthumbsup:

View attachment 254670
It's a good one.
 
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
jayem said:
BTW: Carravagio's painting in the Uffizi gallery in Florence is the best, and most dramatic, representation of the story. The sheep doesn't have a clue as to what's coming. And the look on Isaac's face is priceless. :oldthumbsup:

View attachment 254670

Sketcher said:
It's a good one.

It is interesting that, following this terrifying incident, the Bible records no further contact between Abraham and either Isaac or Sarah. Personally I can't blame either one.
 
Upvote 0

Sketcher

Born Imperishable
Feb 23, 2004
38,978
9,399
✟377,931.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
It is interesting that, following this terrifying incident, the Bible records no further contact between Abraham and either Isaac or Sarah. Personally I can't blame either one.
Maybe, but wouldn't there have been an ancient, extra-biblical story to support her leaving him? Checking here, I'm not seeing one. All I'm seeing in relation to the sacrifice of Issac is that she died as a direct reaction to it, but the timing seems off for that to be the case.
 
Upvote 0

Hawkins

Member
Supporter
Apr 27, 2005
2,559
394
Canada
✟235,114.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You need to first understand the historical background.

1) Back then it's a common religious practice for the Canaanites to sacrifice their children for the false gods such as Baal. God thus demonstrated through Abraham that if the Canaanites have the faith for the false gods, Abraham has the same if not more for the true God.

2) Finally God uses a goat to take the place of Isaac. This is to tell that a scapegoat will be used instead of human sacrifice to atone for sins.

3) The story actually telling the opposite to Abraham that human sacrifice is not wanted. It's because so that human sacrifice is never a practice in the history of Israel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RDKirk
Upvote 0

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,262
6,943
72
St. Louis, MO.
✟371,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
1) Back then it's a common religious practice for the Canaanites to sacrifice their children for the false gods such as Baal. God thus demonstrated through Abraham that if the Canaanites have the faith for the false gods, Abraham has the same if not more for the true God.

To whom is this being demonstrated? The text says that God was testing Abraham. Wouldn't God, who is supposedly omniscient, know already that Abraham is faithful and obedient?

2) Finally God uses a goat to take the place of Isaac. This is to tell that a scapegoat will be used instead of human sacrifice to atone for sins.

3) The story actually telling the opposite to Abraham that human sacrifice is not wanted. It's because so that human sacrifice is never a practice in the history of Israel.

If I understand, it sounds like you're saying this legend is a fable. To me, a fable is a fabricated story. It tells of an event that was made-up to teach a lesson. Which in this case, is that God does not demand human sacrifice. Even from a man of such surpassing faith as Abraham. Though it still implies God isn't sure of Abraham's faith. And if this story is only fabulous, then what else in the Bible is made-up? Maybe the creation accounts, and the disobedience of Adam and Eve are also mythic.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,119
20,158
US
✟1,440,434.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If I understand, it sounds like you're saying this legend is a fable. To me, a fable is a fabricated story. It tells of an event that was made-up to teach a lesson. Which in this case, is that God does not demand human sacrifice. Even from a man of such surpassing faith as Abraham. Though it still implies God isn't sure of Abraham's faith. And if this story is only fabulous, then what else in the Bible is made-up? Maybe the creation accounts, and the disobedience of Adam and Eve are also mythic.

There is a difference between a myth and a fable.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,262
6,943
72
St. Louis, MO.
✟371,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
There is a difference between a myth and a fable.

True. I was careless with my wording. Though some myths do convey a lesson. In the Pandora myth, she was given the jar (a box in later versions) with instructions from Zeus that it must never be opened. Of course, she couldn't resist seeing what it contained. And when she opened it, she released all the pain, suffering, and hardship into the world. The myth explains why there's misery in our lives. And it also teaches that disobeying the gods has dire consequences. It's the same lesson taught by Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit. It's interesting that in both legends, a disobedient woman is the primary responsible party. Which tells me both of these tales were concocted by men. :oldthumbsup:

Sorry for going off-topic.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,119
20,158
US
✟1,440,434.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
True. I was careless with my wording. Though some myths do convey a lesson. In the Pandora myth, she was given the jar (a box in later versions) with instructions from Zeus that it must never be opened. Of course, she couldn't resist seeing what it contained. And when she opened it, she released all the pain, suffering, and hardship into the world. The myth explains why there's misery in our lives. And it also teaches that disobeying the gods has dire consequences. It's the same lesson taught by Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit. It's interesting that in both legends, a disobedient woman is the primary responsible party. Which tells me both of these tales were concocted by men.

No, those two stories don't present the same lesson at all.
 
Upvote 0

PROPHECYKID

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 28, 2007
5,982
527
35
The isle of spice
Visit site
✟73,654.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This probably has been discussed before. But I've never heard a satisfying explanation.

Gen. 22:1-19 recounts the story of Abraham being ordered by God to sacrifice Isaac. The text says God tested Abraham's faith. But why would Abraham need to be tested? Wouldn't God have known already that Abraham was faithful and obedient? I've heard it claimed that God was demonstrating to Abraham that faith will be rewarded. It was only for Abraham's benefit. But that's not stated in the text. This is what the angel--obviously speaking for God--says:

But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” He said, “Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.” Gen 22:11-12 (NASB)

Why would he say "For now I know...?" That's not logically consistent with an omniscient God. And the text goes on "you have not withheld your son from Me." Capital M. Which can only be God's words that are conveyed by the angel. So I see no support for the idea that the fake sacrifice was staged for Abraham's self-awareness.

I've also heard the passage is a foreshadowing of Jesus's sacrifice. But the circumstances are totally different. Not to mention that Isaac wasn't killed and Jesus was. And even so, it still doesn't explain the logical contradiction.

BTW: Carravagio's painting in the Uffizi gallery in Florence is the best, and most dramatic, representation of the story. The sheep doesn't have a clue as to what's coming. And the look on Isaac's face is priceless. :oldthumbsup:

View attachment 254670

Allow me to just show you something.

When studying the bible, sometimes you have to be aware that certain words from the original translated can be translated different ways and give a better understand. That is why it important to get the consensus of scripture. If 99 verses says the sky is blue, and one verse says the sky is red, the conclusion you should go from, is that the sky is blue.

Having said that let me just show you this verse in the English Standard Version.
The angel said, "Don't kill your son or hurt him in any way. Now I can see that you do respect and obey God. I see that you are ready to kill your son, your only son, for me."

So in reading this verse, in the ESV, it says now I can see. God does know everything, but this really is God recognizing to Abraham what Abraham demonstrated. God is basically making Abraham aware that he was tested and he passed the test. So it does not mean that God didn't know what would happen.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,473
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,087.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
This probably has been discussed before. But I've never heard a satisfying explanation.

Gen. 22:1-19 recounts the story of Abraham being ordered by God to sacrifice Isaac. The text says God tested Abraham's faith. But why would Abraham need to be tested? Wouldn't God have known already that Abraham was faithful and obedient? I've heard it claimed that God was demonstrating to Abraham that faith will be rewarded. It was only for Abraham's benefit. But that's not stated in the text. This is what the angel--obviously speaking for God--says:

But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” He said, “Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.” Gen 22:11-12 (NASB)

Why would he say "For now I know...?" That's not logically consistent with an omniscient God. And the text goes on "you have not withheld your son from Me." Capital M. Which can only be God's words that are conveyed by the angel. So I see no support for the idea that the fake sacrifice was staged for Abraham's self-awareness.

I've also heard the passage is a foreshadowing of Jesus's sacrifice. But the circumstances are totally different. Not to mention that Isaac wasn't killed and Jesus was. And even so, it still doesn't explain the logical contradiction.

BTW: Carravagio's painting in the Uffizi gallery in Florence is the best, and most dramatic, representation of the story. The sheep doesn't have a clue as to what's coming. And the look on Isaac's face is priceless. :oldthumbsup:

View attachment 254670


There are Jewish midrashic traditions that Abraham actually did sacrifice Isaac.

I don't tend to read stories like this moralistically. In my religious tradition, the story is understood primarily as an allegory or typology of Christ.
 
Upvote 0

Caliban

Well-Known Member
Jul 18, 2018
2,575
1,142
California
✟46,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Married
I
Yes I think that a sophisticated, orthodox Christian view would not be far from this. We would say that the OT is both phenomenological (the sun rises) and also that God condescends in the OT in his manner of speech. Calvin said that God's speech to us is like our cooing to a little baby. He condescends to speak to us and address us in a way that we can understand.
If we are like babies to him, why does he torture and kill us?

I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the Lord, do all these things.
( Isaiah 45:7)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,473
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,087.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
I

If we are like babies to him, why does he torture and kill us?

I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the Lord, do all these things.
( Isaiah 45:7)

That's understanding that passage in an isolated manner.
 
Upvote 0

Caliban

Well-Known Member
Jul 18, 2018
2,575
1,142
California
✟46,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Married
That's understanding that passage in an isolated manner.
No it's not. And, it's not out of context. It relates directly to my point and it's connected to the thread. The biblical God claims responsibility for killing humans or the threat of death in the case of Issac. There is no backing out of this.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,473
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,087.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
No it's not. And, it's not out of context. It relates directly to my point and it's connected to the thread. The biblical God claims responsibility for killing humans or the threat of death in the case of Issac. There is no backing out of this.

I know that liberal mainline Protestants wouldn't accept that interpretation. God is revealed clearly in Jesus, not in bronze age Hebrew religion. Jesus is the hermeneutic for understanding the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
A straightforward reading of the text says that God didn't know what Abraham was going to do.

There has been a discussion on this topic here: Is God in charge of everything that happens?

We don't know "where" God is. Under some reasonable models he can't, even in principle, know the future, because it isn't determined. I don't believe Biblical statements on God's power and knowledge contradict this. The other thread was based on the passages saying that God changed his mind.

We can dismiss all of these as anthropomorphic statements not meant literally. I'm not convinced. More plausibly, we can say that the OT authors had an earlier and incomplete knowledge of God. But I think it's plausible that they're right, and translating Biblical statements into more abstract terms needs care. It's not unreasonable to say that God knows everything that's knowable, but the future isn't, at least not perfectly.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Caliban

Well-Known Member
Jul 18, 2018
2,575
1,142
California
✟46,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Married
I know that liberal mainline Protestants wouldn't accept that interpretation. God is revealed clearly in Jesus, not in bronze age Hebrew religion. Jesus is the hermeneutic for understanding the Bible.
Yep, there is always some other way to interpret what the Bible says. Which means there are no right answers. Because the Bible is essentially unclear. Can you really blame people for thinking that this text is merely the work of men with multiple theological needs and not the work of a god?

Your statement conveniently places the Hebrew Bible in a category that is off limits for criticism? Jesus doesn't get to ride off into the sunset unscathed. Almost every doctrine of Hell comes from the teachings of Jesus. The burning...the worm that never dies (Mark 9:48. Not so mean and mild.

Jesus is not a hermeneutic for interpreting the HB/OT. Those texts predate Jesus and in no way do I believe in biblical compatibilism or the inspiration of the scriptures. You will have to meet the arguments of biblical criticism head on without appealing to the miraculous or to progressive revelation.
 
Upvote 0