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

[jayem]

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.

 

[zippy2006]

Could not the event have been transformative for Abraham himself? Speaking merely of knowledge and self-awareness seems to fall short of the way that this event may have shaped him.

It also seems strange to say that omniscience precludes tests. "God can't test anyone because he already knows what will come." Of course I would agree that the test is not for God's sake, so the testing must benefit his creatures.

 

[RichardY]

Maybe God is not Omniscient. Omniscience. Knowing suppose a "who". What if there is no self, but a soul instead.

Obedience to God, exceeds all.

“Consciousness”: Wheeler emphasizes the difficulty of making a general distinction between the form of information processing characteristic of humans, and that characteristic of various complex systems and devices that may or may not be “conscious”. “The line between the unconscious and the conscious begins to fade…” he states; “We may someday have to enlarge the scope of what we mean by a ‘who’.” The term who, he suggests, is too specific to man, life and consciousness; its anthropic connotations are anti-Copernican, while the concepts of life and consciousness are subject to revision as science advances. “It would seem more reasonable,” he suggests, “to dismiss for the present the semantic overtones of ‘who’ and explore and exploit the insights to be won from the phrases, ‘communication’ and ‘communication employed to establish meaning.’” - Christopher Langan CTMU.

 

[HTacianas]

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.

View attachment 254670

The dilemma you find yourself in is that you see now that strict predestination cannot be supported by the bible. The idea that every single event in history is preordained isn't "biblical". The events of Exodus and the worship of the golden calf is an even more striking example.

Some will say "but if you don't believe in predestination you must be an open theist" because open theism is the opposite end of the scale. But the strictest of open theism is also refuted by the idea that God has preordained His plan for mankind and will do as He chooses to see that plan through.

The truth is neither predestination nor is it open theism. The truth is somewhere in between.

 

[TuxAme]

God already knows how we will respond- we (and anyone who might be our "audience") don't. Scripture would be very different if this event had been recorded instead as, "And the Lord knew that Abraham was a righteous man- that he would offer his only Son Isaac, whom he loved, if the Lord demanded him. And so with this knowledge the Lord promised to make Abraham's descendants more numerous than the stars in the sky and the sand of the earth- though Abraham did not know".

Aside from this, although God knows (and we don't) how we might respond to such requests, wouldn't we say that it's wrong to reward someone for a good deed which they didn't know- or, at least, to punish someone for something which they refused to do, although they didn't have the chance to at least prove their abilities (or inabilities, willingness or unwillingness) to themselves?

 

[Tree of Life]

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.

View attachment 254670

I would say that the event is a typological foreshadowing of Jesus' sacrifice for sure. The author of Genesis also believed it was a foreshadowing of the future temple system. Abraham offered up Isaac on Mount Moriah - which would later become the temple mount.

As far as the contradiction is concerned, I think you're correct. It would not be consistent with an omniscient God to say that God learned something from this event. So I would interpret God's words in a more metaphorical sense. God has not learned something, but Abraham has definitively demonstrated his faith. Now his faith has really been proven.

Proven to whom? Proven to himself, proven to his family, proven to all who would read these words for the rest of history. But not proven to God. Then why does God say: "Now I know..." I believe God is condescending here and speaking in metaphorical language. He doesn't mean that he has learned something, but that Abraham has indeed demonstrated his faith in this ultimate action.

 

[crossnote]

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)

And neither did God withhold His Only Begotten Son from us.

 

[mark kennedy]

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.

View attachment 254670

Hebrews makes it clear that Abraham believed God could raise him from the dead:

By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death. (Hebrews 11:17-19)
​

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Rubiks]

Could not the event have been transformative for Abraham himself?.

Transformingly traumatizing, perhaps.

 

[Ken C.]

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.

View attachment 254670

It could be that God chose not to know what the outcome would be. Jeremiah 19:5 says: They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I commanded not, nor spoke it, neither came it into my mind. There are two other instances in Jeremiah 7:31-32 and Jeremiah 32:35 that say the same thing.

 

[TuxAme]

It could be that God chose not to know what the outcome would be. Jeremiah 19:5 says: They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I commanded not, nor spoke it, neither came it into my mind. There are two other instances in Jeremiah 7:31-32 and Jeremiah 32:35 that say the same thing.

If that was the case, then He could not be omniscient.

 

[RDKirk]

Back when I entered the Air Force, on the second or third day our instructors put us on a bus and drove us past the half-mile-long obstacle course, which they called the "Confidence Course."

They paused a moment to let us watch the other men work through the different physical obstacles and told us that we would have to pass that course in order to finish basic training.

I'd been a long-distance runner in high school track, so I wasn't much daunted by the prospect, but I heard gasps and "Oh, god!" and such from a lot of the guys around me...some of whom had yet in their lives to move their bodies a whole half a mile in one effort.

But this is the thing: Our instructors knew the training they would put us through in the weeks before we would face that challenge. They had faith in their training, and they knew that those of us who were still in the program by then would be able to pass the test.

We would not realize until we had met the challenge and gotten to its end how much we had been changed by their training.

 

[Ken C.]

If that was the case, then He could not be omniscient.

Oh, I believe He is omniscient. The New Testament also says He doesn't remember our sins against us anymore. How He does that I haven't a clue either. Maybe it's His choice.

 

[RDKirk]

Oh, I believe He is omniscient. The New Testament also says He doesn't remember our sins against us anymore. How He does that I haven't a clue either. Maybe it's His choice.

The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days. And God remembered Noah....

To say that "God remembered Noah" does not mean that God had ever forgotten Noah. "Remember" as scripture uses it means at that point in time, God took a specific action in consideration of His intentions toward Noah.

When scripture says that God will not "remember" our sins, it means He will not take any actions against us because of our sins. It's not gone from His memory, but it is blotted out of His "account book." He is not going to hold us accountable.

 

[RichardY]

If God knows everything I do, I have no freewill. The issue is the level of connection to God.

If everything I do, is to result in "a necessarily greater good." (ala Leibniz) overall because this is the "Best of All possible worlds". Then my freewill extends only to taste. Logos Lite.

If one the other hand, it is possible to do irredeemable Evil in the World. For whatever reason. Then the maximum possible freewill is permitted. Logos MAX.

Going from Panenthesim to Pantheism is Evil. Such as in the Aztec Religion, or Hegel's Idealism(Master Race).

A true Pantheist is dead. God of Nature(Einstein's God). There are ways of getting there imo, something I hope to keep in my opinion, as from what I can tell, all routes are Evil. There is no connection to God, it is absolute Logos.

An Atheist has no belief in the supernatural, without which there can be no Evil, or existence... Existence is a brute fact. "Existence Exists" - Ayn Rand. Independent of observation. No Logos, only tautology.

"He who hears not me, but the Logos will say: All is one." - Heraclitus.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

If that was the case, then He could not be omniscient.

I think that God knew, through His foreknowledge, that Abraham would be prevented from sacrificing Isaac. But His foreknowledge would not have influenced Abraham's choice. If God had not stopped him, Abraham would have sacrificed Isaac, believing that God would raise him from the dead. So Abraham demonstrated that he would obey God even though the whole future of mankind would have been affected. So the issue would not have limited to just the sacrifice of a son, but the promise of God that Abraham would be the father of many nations and that it would not come through Ishmael but through the child borne by Sarah. This was the strength of Abraham's faith, and it was counted as righteousness in him by God.

 

[jayem]

As far as the contradiction is concerned, I think you're correct. It would not be consistent with an omniscient God to say that God learned something from this event. So I would interpret God's words in a more metaphorical sense. God has not learned something, but Abraham has definitively demonstrated his faith. Now his faith has really been proven.

Proven to whom? Proven to himself, proven to his family, proven to all who would read these words for the rest of history. But not proven to God. Then why does God say: "Now I know..." I believe God is condescending here and speaking in metaphorical language. He doesn't mean that he has learned something, but that Abraham has indeed demonstrated his faith in this ultimate action.

Thanks for responding. I'm not a religious believer, but your post comes closest to my view. The Genesis author (Moses? Or others unknown) wrote the text from a human perspective. Thus, the OT God has some very human characteristics--jealously, anger, and authoritarianism, to name a few. Another could certainly be doubtfulness or uncertainty about someone's obedience. The ancient myths and folklore that became Genesis are not to be taken as literally true word-for-word. The Hebrews' scripture is definitely metaphorical, and reflects an understanding and personification of their god in human terms. Which is what all societies do. They create their gods as idealized representations of themselves.

 

[Ken C.]

The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days. And God remembered Noah....

To say that "God remembered Noah" does not mean that God had ever forgotten Noah. "Remember" as scripture uses it means at that point in time, God took a specific action in consideration of His intentions toward Noah.

When scripture says that God will not "remember" our sins, it means He will not take any actions against us because of our sins. It's not gone from His memory, but it is blotted out of His "account book." He is not going to hold us accountable.

Thanks for straightening me out. I was only offering a view based on other scripture that might make the statement in Genesis make sense, particularly as it pertains to the statement ' for now I know...' And you didn't mention anything of the verses in Jeremiah.

 

[Tree of Life]

Thanks for responding. I'm not a religious believer, but your post comes closest to my view. The Genesis author (Moses? Or others unknown) wrote the text from a human perspective. Thus, the OT God has some very human characteristics--jealously, anger, and authoritarianism, to name a few. Another could certainly be doubtfulness or uncertainty about someone's obedience. The ancient myths and folklore that became Genesis are not to be taken as literally true word-for-word. The Hebrews' scripture is definitely metaphorical, and reflects an understanding and personification of their god in human terms. Which is what all societies do. They create their gods as idealized representations of themselves.

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.

 

[Brian Mcnamee]

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.

View attachment 254670

You are missing the point..Abraham was asked to offer his only son...When the LORD stopped him he offered the ram that was caught in the thicket..Abraham named this place God will provide Himself a sacrifice. This whole thing is prophetic. Abraham knew that Isaac was the promised seed and the faith is that God would have to raise him from the dead to keep the promised. Abraham was already righteous through faith as the scriptures declared he believed God and God accounted it to him for righteousness. There are many scenes played out that God is in control over. God sent the serpents to punish those in the exodus and had Moses create a bronze serpent and lift it up so who ever was bit would not die. Jesus then pointed to that and said as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness so too will the son of man be lifted up. The serpent a symbol of sin and bronze the metal of judgment and Jesus took on the sin of the world and bore our judgment that all who look to Him will not perish. this is the way to look at the sacrifice of Isaac who by now was not a lad but a grown man and willing laid himself on the altar too.