How to understand the scripture about God telling Abraham to kill his son Isaac?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rozellelily
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think what he’s getting at is that people immolate the people they want to be like and who they want to be around. It’s group social cohesion when everyone knows the expected and acceptable responses to dealing with the rivals of that group. So with the leadership of a deity and to establish a relationship with that entity, they look at the written character of that being. You can make a direct connection to immoral actions of this entity and thus people that also want to win over their rivals look to the character of this being for what it allows and what it does for how to combat your rivals. That is not that hard to understand and you still keep giving excuses for the bad behavior of this entity that have been brought up.

It appears that the poster, Russell, believes that your holy texts are just a historical fiction. We can all rally around the idea of King Arthur for example, find wisdom of how to be the just leader, find love in his relationship between Arthur and Merlin and his fellow knights, etc. They don’t have to actually exist for us to explore these concepts. That’s why we love watching movies soo much. We get to explore and experience a different story with characters that we identify with.
 
Hi!

Consider what was once introduced: “it’s all relative.”

While it is a good thing for you to recognize that humanity has come a long way from those barbaric days when humans were sacrificed to “gods,” we live in a world that is just as cruel and as calculating.

Consider the determination of “enlightened” people to claim that “science” cannot tell when “life” begins… juxtapose this reality: can’t tell when human life begins (at conception, of course!) a woman’s health must include her right to abort her children (contraception, morning-after pill, abortion, full-term abortion, and letting children who survive the abortion process die on a cold container in a hospital’s post-abortion deathsery (nursery place where children are left to die).

Now, the difference between Abraham’s Call to sacrifice his son, Isaac and the sacrifice/killings that we perform (past, present, and future) is that God demanded a sing of obedience from Abraham and Abraham had full trust in God’s Omnipotence and knew that God’s Promise (first born Isaac) would take place regardless of his sacrifice of Isaac (Abraham trusted God to Accomplish what He Promised–remember that Abraham was near 100 and Sarah infertile when Yahweh God Provided for their son’s conception).

Since God does not repeat His Incarnation, it is safe to know that He will not ask such sacrifice from us today. Yet, what He does asks is that which is fully within our means and abilities… this is the real deal… why is it that man refuses to subject his will to God’s even in such minute demands as Loving God above all and our neighbor as ourselves?

Maran atha!

Angel
 
TK421 said:
Note that God had already promised Abraham that he would proliferate his lineage through Isaac.
Click to expand...
Exactly!

This is what people keep missing–they focus on the demand of the sacrifice: Trust in the Yahweh, the Lord, your God is translated ‘unless you feel that he is wrong in demanding too much of you’ (this from the same people who believe in abortion, contraception, adultery, fornication and all sort of ‘liberties’ and ‘freedoms’)–Faith, Obedience, and Submission are things to experience only as “approved” by the individual’s “conscience.”

Maran atha!

Angel
 
It’s wild to think - that God - killed his only son - for us.
And his son - agreed to it… “ not my will, but thy will - be done “
How absolutely angelic and heroic 😇
 
Eric_Hyom said:
We have hindsight, so we can be sure that it was God’s intention that Isaac would not die.
Click to expand...
Yet, Abraham was operating from Faith; he trusted Yahweh God to Keep His Promise!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Mintaka said:
The subtext is that Isaac (like Christ) was a willing victim.
Click to expand...
Not when he is accepting his father’s explanation that God would provide for the lamb–which in both cases God would (the type and the Actual Lamb of God).

Isaac, as Abraham, was operating on the Faith and Obedience mode: Trust, God, your Father.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Last edited:
I don’t think the claim that Isaac was a willing victim is plausible. Abraham deceived him (“God will provide the sacrifice”), which would not have been necessary if Isaac were a willing sacrifice.
 
gregoryphealy said:
Isaac did not have descendants at the time of God’s trial, therefore it’s evident that Isaac could not have been killed lest God would be lying.
Click to expand...
…or Abraham Believed and Trusted that Yahweh God could raise him back from the dead (again a type, even if just in Abraham’s expectation).

Maran atha!

Angel
 
God doesn’t change so I would have told God, “Doesn’t this go against your Commandments?” “Where’s that Divine Mercy?” 😅

Granted, Abraham couldn’t know any of this.
 
meltzerboy2 said:
is He an unwitting Lamb, Who does not know what will happen to Him and does not ask G-d why He has been forsaken? Besides which, as I have previously noted, the blood of the lamb is connected to the Hebrews’ mocking of an EGYPTIAN god during the initial Passover.
Click to expand...
We know from Christ’s own Word that He is fully aware of what will transpire; even when He struggles with the issue (in my estimation because the Word that existed from the Beginning with God and was God, Knew (parable of Lazarus and the rich man) that not all would Believe and be Saved), He is fully cognizant of what His Purpose Is.

…as for the Blood of the Lamb, consider too that the blood of the lamb (the type: the Angel of the Lord “passing over” the homes where the Hebrews placed the “sign” of the blood of the lamb) was brought into the spiritual reality when those who “Saved” by the Blood of Lamb join Christ in the Kingdom.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
I don’t think Abraham was deceiving him, more like comforting him and deferring the explanation till they arrived at the place of sacrifice. There doesn’t need to be an assumption of deceit here. This is one of Abraham’s biggest tests of faith and he comes out with shining colors. He is approved by God as being completely obedient to Him.

Once they were there on top of the mountain, I’m sure all became clear. Isaac was likely a strong, healthy young man. Abraham was very old. He could not have tied Isaac up unless he was willing. Scripture doesn’t record how much of a conversation they had about this, but that doesn’t mean that it didn’t take place. I’m sure Isaac knew that God had spoken to his father.

Also, Isaac was a prefigure of Christ. He carried the wood for his death up the mountain on his back. He trusted his father completely, even in the face of death and was led like a lamb to the slaughter, just like Christ. Isaac trusted, like Abraham, that God could raise him again.

Jesus also carried the wood for His death up a hill. He was willing to lay down His life, and actually did so, trusting that the Father would raise Him again. He did not defend Himself against His accusers but was led like a lamb to the slaughter.
 
ShowersofRoses said:
I don’t think Abraham was deceiving him, more like comforting him and deferring the explanation till they arrived at the place of sacrifice. There doesn’t need to be an assumption of deceit here. This is one of Abraham’s biggest tests of faith and he comes out with shining colors. He is approved by God as being completely obedient to Him.
Click to expand...
If you came to my car lot (don’t have one) and I offered you a deal of the century–giving the keys to a collectible (say a Ferrari), letting you drive it on the lot, and trade the Ferrari to you for some old shoes… then when the signing takes place I walk you to the back of the lot and let you jump of the Ferrari, an old miniature donkey, and send you on your way… have I not been deceptive?

Maran atha!

Angel
 
ShowersofRoses said:
I don’t think Abraham was deceiving him, more like comforting him and deferring the explanation till they arrived at the place of sacrifice. There doesn’t need to be an assumption of deceit here.
Click to expand...
It’s not an assumption. The statement “God will provide the sacrifice” would have been taken to mean that God will provide an animal on the spot (as actually happened though Abraham didn’t know it), not that Isaac himself was the sacrifice.

It’s possible that Isaac was a willing sacrifice when Abraham explained what would actually happen on the mountaintop, but Abraham’s use of deception would indicate that he didn’t expect that.
 
meltzerboy2 said:
Rejected or deferred? Therein lies the tale.
Click to expand...
For a Christian, who sees in the ‘ram’ a sacrifice (but not the lamb that was promised), a deferral – which God fulfills with the Incarnation of Jesus.

For a non-Christian? I don’t know – does it feel like a ‘rejection’ to you, then?
 
God is the author of life, and consequently, he can do whatever he wishes with it. He can give it and take it away and use any means to do that.
 
Sorry, you completely missed my point. The two situations are not comparable. I don’t think Abraham did a bait-and-switch with Isaac or that he hood-winked him into climbing atop the pile of stacked wood. You are free to believe what you want, however, so we can agree to disagree about this.
 
And, being G-d’s creations, He reserves the absolute right to do with us as He pleases. Many today seem oblivious to that fact, and justify lack of faith by applying human precepts to G-d. Some have the temerity to hold the L-rd to the Decalogue, laws meant for man.

As well, in our (mis)information age, we demand to have knowledge - if not understanding - of all things, forgetting that G-d is infinite in all things, perhaps especially mystery.

EDIT: sorry for the numerous and on-going typos. An unintended consequence of a nightmare medical resumé.
 
Last edited:
Arkansan said:
The statement “God will provide the sacrifice” would have been taken to mean that God will provide an animal on the spot (as actually happened though Abraham didn’t know it), not that Isaac himself was the sacrifice.
Click to expand...
I think this is an assumption on your part to claim exactly what Abraham meant or how Isaac interpretated his statement. We weren’t there and don’t know what else was said. Scripture didn’t record every word of their conversation.

But we can agree to disagree about this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top