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

[Caliban]

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.

Then how does this understanding not make prophesy impossible? If the biblical God can't know the future because it hasn't happened yet--what room for prophetic speech.

 

[hedrick]

Then how does this understanding not make prophesy impossible? If the biblical God can't know the future because it hasn't happened yet--what room for prophetic speech.

Prophecy isn't prediction. It states what God intends to do. God doesn't need detailed foreknowledge, nor does he need to determine every action of every individual to carry out the kinds of plans the prophets talk about. Remember, a lot of their predictions were things that were obviously coming. Their contribution was to show how those things were God's will.

 

[Caliban]

No. a prophesy cannot logically be what a god intends to do because what is intended may not come to pass. The god would have to know the outcome. And, if the god knows the outcome, it is omniscient.

 

[hedrick]

No. a prophesy cannot logically be what a god intends to do because what is intended may not come to pass. The god would have to know the outcome. And, if the god knows the outcome, it is omniscient.

It is possible for someone to know they're going to be able to accomplish a task without knowing every specific action they're going to take. And particularly without knowing every action someone not involved in the task is going to take.

 

[Caliban]

I'm sorry, no. You cannot KNOW you will accomplish a task. An individual can have a degree of confidence that they will accomplish it, they can have strong resolve to accomplish it but, they cannot guarantee the fulfillment of the goal with absolute certainty. To claim other wise is disingenuous. If such a thing is not possible for humans, why would it be possible for a god?
A being with the limited ability to guarantee a specific outcome is incapable of an actual prophetic utterance.

 

[hedrick]

I'm sorry, no. You cannot KNOW you will accomplish a task. An individual can have a degree of confidence that they will accomplish it, they can have strong resolve to accomplish it but, they cannot guarantee the fulfillment of the goal with absolute certainty. To claim other wise is disingenuous. If such a thing is not possible for humans, why would it be possible for a god?
A being with the limited ability to guarantee a specific outcome is incapable of an actual prophetic utterance.

I think "I'll do what it takes to make ... happen" has a different meaning when God is the speaker and I am.

 

[Caliban]

I think "I'll do what it takes to make ... happen" has a different meaning when God is the speaker and I am.

Like I asked--Why is it different for a god or the biblical God? Details please.

 

[Hollow Man]

[QUOTE="jayem]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.[/QUOTE]

First of all, when God says, "Now I know", He's not talking about gaining knowledge. He's talking about a condition having been met.

Second, that Isaac doesn't die is the whole point. Isaac represents man, and the ram represents Christ. Issac, the man, is slated to die. But Christ the ram takes his place and dies, instead.

 

[Caliban]

[QUOTE="jayem]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.

First of all, when God says, "Now I know", He's not talking about gaining knowledge. He's talking about a condition having been met.

Second, that Isaac doesn't die is the whole point. Isaac represents man, and the ram represents Christ. Issac, the man, is slated to die. But Christ the ram takes his place and dies, instead.[/QUOTE]
That's if you assume progressive revelation--not many biblical scholars do. Orthodox Jews do not.

 

[JackRT]

Remember, a lot of their predictions were things that were obviously coming.

One of the rules that have been proposed for determining legitimate prophesy fulfillment is:

The event being predicted must consist of something that cannot be explained by an intelligent guess. --- Example: Jeremiah predicting that Babylon, clearly an expansionist power, would soon sack Judea. This is mundane punditry, not supernatural prophecy.

 

[hedrick]

One of the rules that have been proposed for determining legitimate prophesy fulfillment is:

But this sees the prophets primarily as soothsayers. Obviously if a prophet says God is about to destroy them and he doesn't, there's a problem. (More seriously, the prophets saying "there's no problem, go ahead with what you're doing" are false.) But the main job of a prophet is to proclaim God's message and tell us his will, not to predict the future. I don't deny that there are statements both about the near future and visions of God's final restoration. But the near future was generally foreseeable and the point of the restoration was reassurance of God's continuing commitment to his people and his intention to restore them.

 

[Temirlan]

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 think maybe God or somebody acting as as God wanted to entrust Abraham with a certain task and devised this test. Probably there were many "Abrahams" who failed the test and were rejected, and only this one showed total faith and loyalty. Pretty cruel, if you ask me. No idea of love there whatsoever. "Hey you go kill your own son as proof of your being scared of me and willing to do anything I ask of you". An episode from Godfather motion picture, rather.

 

[Hawkins]

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)

You highlighted the wrong part.