Abraham's sacrafice

[mark_a]

Since God already knew that Abraham was willing sacrafice Isaac, was this "test"really for Abraham to learn more about himself or his faith?

Are “tests” really for our own benefit?

 

[pyropam]

Since God already knew that Abraham was willing sacrafice Isaac, was this "test"really for Abraham to learn more about himself or his faith?

Are “tests” really for our own benefit?

God was asking Abraham to do exactly as God himself was willing to do.

Difference is that God stopped Abraham from sacraficing his son.

GOD ALLOWED HIS SON TO DIE A HORRIBLE DEATH FOR US!

So, was God testing himself?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Since God already knew that Abraham was willing sacrafice Isaac, was this "test"really for Abraham to learn more about himself or his faith?

Are “tests” really for our own benefit?

God knows how people will act, but doesnt force people to act.
If God asked Abraham to do that and Abraham refused then his relationship with God would have been ruined.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

This sacrifice not only involved Abraham’s willingness to obey God to the hilt, but also ISAAC’s willingness to be a sacrifice to God.

According to rabbinical literature, Isaac was between 18 and 37 years old at the time of this event and could easily have fought back against his elderly father’s attempt to sacrifice him.

This is why the sacrifice is also known as the Aqedah or Akedah, which literally means the binding. It is also Isaac’s willingness to BE a sacrifice at his father’s hand. He was amply big enough to fight back but he didn’t. (see Thomas Nash, WORTHY IS THE LAMB, 2004 Ignatius Press)

This whole thing foreshadows God the Father’s sending Jesus to earth and Jesus’s willing death on the cross for our sins.

Isaac carried the wood for the sacrifice on his back.
Jesus carried the cross, the wood for his own sacrifice,
on his back.

There are many parallels here.
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[Baraq]

God knows how people will act, but doesnt force people to act.
If God asked Abraham to do that and Abraham refused then his relationship with God would have been ruined.

The Canons of Dordt
The First Main Point of Doctrine
Divine Election and Reprobation
Article 9: Election Not Based on Foreseen Faith

This same election took place, not on the basis of foreseen faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, or of any other good quality and disposition, as though it were based on a prerequisite cause or condition in the person to be chosen, but rather for the purpose of faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, and so on. Accordingly, election is the source of each of the benefits of salvation. Faith, holiness, and the other saving gifts, and at last eternal life itself, flow forth from election as its fruits and effects. As the apostle says, He chose us (not because we were, but) so that we should be holy and blameless before him in love (Eph. 1:4).

Rejection of the Errors
Who teach that the incomplete and nonperemptory election of particular persons to salvation occurred on the basis of a foreseen faith, repentance, holiness, and godliness, which has just begun or continued for some time; but that complete and peremptory election occurred on the basis of a foreseen perseverance to the end in faith, repentance, holiness, and godliness. And that this is the gracious and evangelical worthiness, on account of which the one who is chosen is more worthy than the one who is not chosen. And therefore that faith, the obedience of faith, holiness, godliness, and perseverance are not fruits or effects of an unchangeable election to glory, but indispensable conditions and causes, which are prerequisite in those who are to be chosen in the complete election, and which are foreseen as achieved in them.

This runs counter to the entire Scripture, which throughout impresses upon our ears and hearts these sayings among others: Election is not by works, but by him who calls (Rom. 9:11-12); All who were appointed for eternal life believed (Acts 13:48); He chose us in himself so that we should be holy (Eph. 1:4); You did not choose me, but I chose you (John 15:16); If by grace, not by works (Rom. 11:6); In this is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son (1 John 4:10).

 

[thistle]

The Canons of Dordt
The First Main Point of Doctrine
Divine Election and Reprobation
Article 9: Election Not Based on Foreseen Faith

This same election took place, not on the basis of foreseen faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, or of any other good quality and disposition, as though it were based on a prerequisite cause or condition in the person to be chosen, but rather for the purpose of faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, and so on. Accordingly, election is the source of each of the benefits of salvation. Faith, holiness, and the other saving gifts, and at last eternal life itself, flow forth from election as its fruits and effects. As the apostle says, He chose us (not because we were, but) so that we should be holy and blameless before him in love (Eph. 1:4).

Rejection of the Errors
Who teach that the incomplete and nonperemptory election of particular persons to salvation occurred on the basis of a foreseen faith, repentance, holiness, and godliness, which has just begun or continued for some time; but that complete and peremptory election occurred on the basis of a foreseen perseverance to the end in faith, repentance, holiness, and godliness. And that this is the gracious and evangelical worthiness, on account of which the one who is chosen is more worthy than the one who is not chosen. And therefore that faith, the obedience of faith, holiness, godliness, and perseverance are not fruits or effects of an unchangeable election to glory, but indispensable conditions and causes, which are prerequisite in those who are to be chosen in the complete election, and which are foreseen as achieved in them.

This runs counter to the entire Scripture, which throughout impresses upon our ears and hearts these sayings among others: Election is not by works, but by him who calls (Rom. 9:11-12); All who were appointed for eternal life believed (Acts 13:48); He chose us in himself so that we should be holy (Eph. 1:4); You did not choose me, but I chose you (John 15:16); If by grace, not by works (Rom. 11:6); In this is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son (1 John 4:10).

What has this got to do with the thread topic?

 

[mark_a]

This sacrifice not only involved Abraham’s willingness to obey God to the hilt, but also ISAAC’s willingness to be a sacrifice to God.

That’s good info. Thanks.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I’m rather sorry that we didn’t get Isaac’s thoughts on the matter.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I’m rather sorry that we didn’t get Isaac’s thoughts on the matter.

I bet you Isaac got WHATEVER he wanted for Christmas that year.

 

[Crumpy]

Since God already knew that Abraham was willing sacrafice Isaac, was this "test"really for Abraham to learn more about himself or his faith?

Are “tests” really for our own benefit?

Not too fast here. Yes, God knew that Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac, but Abraham didn’t know what he would do, did he? Even if Abraham knew what he would do, it still took three days of travel to get to the place of sacrifice (although it seems that it shouldn’t have). And, from what is thought to be known about Mount Moriah, they shouldn’t have had to take wood there, either.

Was this a “test”? Why not? As depicted in Genesis, it was a command from God. Every command(ment) is a test from God, no?

Some people see this incident as saying that “god” or “god’s son” doesn’t need to die for anybody’s salvation, but that the salvation of many nations and people did not require such a sacrifice but only the sign of Abraham’s righteousness – quite an anti-Christian argument.

I think it’s quite the reverse, that ONLY God’s sacrifice or the sacrifice of God’s Son is the only one that would suffice; that’s why Isaac’s life was not required, in the end.

 

[Nita]

Since God already knew that Abraham was willing sacrafice Isaac, was this "test"really for Abraham to learn more about himself or his faith?

Are “tests” really for our own benefit?

My vote is “yes” - tests are for our own benefit. The only way to develop spiritual muscles/powers/virtues is to have opportunities to exercise them - to put them in practice. Just as there are physical things that one can learn only by “doing” them (eg. swimming, walking,…), there are spiritual things that can be learned and developed only by doing them. This applies to such things as trust in God, obedience to God, patience, …

So, St. Paul could even say of Jesus:
Heb 5:8 Although He was a son, He learned obedience through what He suffered.

A couple more Scripture verses on this topic:
Romans 5: 3-5 More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not disappoint us…

James 1:2-3 Count it all joy, my brethren, when you meet various trials, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness.

 

[rcjones]

I think it’s quite the reverse, that ONLY God’s sacrifice or the sacrifice of God’s Son is the only one that would suffice; that’s why Isaac’s life was not required, in the end.

The picture of Christ is not complete with Isaac alone. Abraham said that God would provide himself the sacrifice and provided the ram.

Together Isaac and the ram are a picture of the dual nature of Christ. Isaac represents Jesus’s perfect obedience in life as man emptied of deity (kenosis). Jesus’s perfect obedience was insufficient to save us from sin. The ram represent the divine nature of Christ, God providing himself AS the sacrifice. This is the sacrifice that saves us from sin.

If Abraham had killed Isaac, the picture painted would be that a simple man died for us. The picture is properly painted that it is the divine Christ that dies for us.

A similar picture is painted with Cain and Abel. Cain offered an ordinary sacrifice. Jesus’s perfect obedience was an ordinary sacrifice in that it is the sacrifice that we all are supposed to be offering. It is no more than what is required of each of us, but in which we fail. As such Cain represents Jesus in kenosis. His sacrifice is insufficient to save. Abel represents the divine nature of Christ. In the picture, the man-nature of Christ kills the divine nature, which simply says that no man took Jesus’ life from him but that he laid it down of his own accord.

So both Isaac-Ram and Cain-Abel are the same picture that it was not his perfect obedience that saves us, but his death upon the cross when God himself was torn as the Father could not even bear to look upon his son. The Father had left, and the Son had been made to be sin for us, and the world was desolate indeed.