The binding of Isaac

[DanAl]

A common argument against God’s goodness is the command God gave to Abraham to sacrifice his son. The intuition here is that morality would be incoherent if God commanded us to go against other commandments or that God is capricious and able to give contradictory commandments and that would threaten his perfection:

1-Do not kill

2-sacrifice (kill) your son.

There are several ways to answer the apparent contradiction, but I’ll limit myself to one argument that is rarely used. There’s no contradiction between 1 and 2. God asked Abraham to attempt to break the commandment. Since God cannot contradict himself he had no intention of letting Abraham fulfill the sacrifice of Isaac, so the apparent contradiction is just that apparent, thoughts?

 

[ClearWater]

When he asked that of Abraham, the 10 commandments were not in existence, yet.

He asked Abraham to offer his only son, but he stopped him before it was completed. He didn’t want him to kill him, but he wanted to see to what point Abraham would obey him.

 

[meltzerboy]

A common argument against God’s goodness is the command God gave to Abraham to sacrifice his son. The intuition here is that morality would be incoherent if God commanded us to go against other commandments or that God is capricious and able to give contradictory commandments and that would threaten his perfection:

1-Do not kill

2-sacrifice (kill) your son.

There are several ways to answer the apparent contradiction, but I’ll limit myself to one argument that is rarely used. There’s no contradiction between 1 and 2. God asked Abraham to attempt to break the commandment. Since God cannot contradict himself he had no intention of letting Abraham fulfill the sacrifice of Isaac, so the apparent contradiction is just that apparent, thoughts?

As I had stated in a previous thread on this topic, while the common interpretation of the event according to Jewish teaching is that of G-d’s testing Abraham’s faith, another interpretation is that Abraham failed the test in reality since he obeyed G-d. G-d was hoping that Abraham would argue with him that killing Isaac would be contrary to moral law and thus committing an evil deed. And since Abraham failed to question and debate G-d, G-d no longer spoke to him directly but only through an angel. Further, Abraham failed to consult his wife, Sarah, of his decision to obey G-d by killing Isaac. So he failed on two counts. The moral of the story, according to this interpretation, is that one should always question authority and avoid blind obedience.

 

[DanAl]

As I had stated in a previous thread on this topic, while the common interpretation of the event according to Jewish teaching is that of G-d’s testing Abraham’s faith, another interpretation is that Abraham failed the test in reality since he obeyed G-d. G-d was hoping that Abraham would argue with him that killing Isaac would be contrary to moral law and thus committing an evil deed. And since Abraham failed to question and debate G-d, G-d no longer spoke to him directly but only through an angel. Further, Abraham failed to consult his wife, Sarah, of his decision to obey G-d by killing Isaac. So he failed on two counts. The moral of the story, according to this interpretation, is that one should always question authority and avoid blind obedience.

Thank you for sharing, that is an interesting reading of the text and worthy of thought.

 

[Qoeleth]

I suppose, had I been in Abraham’s situation, I would have thought “How do I know this is really God talking to me? Could it be a hoax, an hullucination, an evil spirit? If it really is God, perhaps I am misunderstanding what He is asking?”

 

[Celtic_Maiden]

As I had stated in a previous thread on this topic, while the common interpretation of the event according to Jewish teaching is that of G-d’s testing Abraham’s faith, another interpretation is that Abraham failed the test in reality since he obeyed G-d. G-d was hoping that Abraham would argue with him that killing Isaac would be contrary to moral law and thus committing an evil deed. And since Abraham failed to question and debate G-d, G-d no longer spoke to him directly but only through an angel. Further, Abraham failed to consult his wife, Sarah, of his decision to obey G-d by killing Isaac. So he failed on two counts. The moral of the story, according to this interpretation, is that one should always question authority and avoid blind obedience.

You must be a progressive Jew, as all in my family would totally disagree with you, as all of them are Ultra Orthodox, and they certainly don’t question once the Rabbi has given his interpretation that is it, its set in stone. It would be considered rude in the extreme and his word is law.

 

[Neofight]

A common argument against God’s goodness is the command God gave to Abraham to sacrifice his son. The intuition here is that morality would be incoherent if God commanded us to go against other commandments or that God is capricious and able to give contradictory commandments and that would threaten his perfection:

1-Do not kill

2-sacrifice (kill) your son.

There are several ways to answer the apparent contradiction, but I’ll limit myself to one argument that is rarely used. There’s no contradiction between 1 and 2. God asked Abraham to attempt to break the commandment. Since God cannot contradict himself he had no intention of letting Abraham fulfill the sacrifice of Isaac, so the apparent contradiction is just that apparent, thoughts?

Murder is different from killing. While sacrifice entails death, it is not the same as murder. If it is, the Father’s plan for salvation of man would not have been an act of sacrifice, but the murdering of His beloved son…and we can all agree that God did not murder Jesus.

Peace and all good!

 

[meltzerboy]

You must be a progressive Jew, as all in my family would totally disagree with you, as all of them are Ultra Orthodox, and they certainly don’t question once the Rabbi has given his interpretation that is it, its set in stone. It would be considered rude in the extreme and his word is law.

I am a Reform Jew, but surely you must be familiar with the fact there are different interpretations, major and minor, of the Law within Orthodox Judaism in the Mishnah and commentaries upon the commentaries. Famous rabbis’ and sages’ words throughout the ages are duly considered but not totally binding, particularly in the case of disputes. But yes, after one consults on a complex and controversial issue with one’s rabbi, generally one abides by the rabbi’s decision.

 

[Cathoholic]

DanAl. Be careful with the Abraham as a “failure” interpretation in this pericope or episode. It may affect your view of Abraham’s fulfillment (Jesus) too.

Abraham was a real man, but Abraham was also a prefigurement. Abraham (interiorly) did not withhold his only son (Genesis 22:2) as a sacrifice, his son carried the wood up the hill in the land of Moriah (Genesis 22:2), after the episode, the ram had a crown of thorns, I mean it had its head stuck in a thorn bush, etc.

Abraham was a prefigurement of God the Father offering His only Begotten Son. Isaac was a prefigurement of God’s only begotten Son, Jesus who obediently (Hebrews 10:7) carried the wood of the cross up Calvary Hill (in the land of Moriah). The sacrificial ram and the thorn bush were even prefigurements or foreshadows.

But Abraham talked of a sacrificial LAMB providing “himself” in Genesis 2:8—“ Abraham replied, “God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son”; and they both went on together.” Yet now we get a “ram” instead . . . The “lamb” of God comes later (the “lamb of God” John 1:29).

“God will provide himself the lamb.”

Fulfillments are always greater than their prefigurements so the events are not going to match perfectly—nor should they.

Abraham obeyed the Lord and thus was considered NOT A FAILURE but a SERVANT of God in the context of offering his only son. Abraham had failures to be sure, but this wasn’t one of them.

**GENESIS 22:15-18 ** 15 And the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven, 16 and said, “By myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will indeed bless you, and **I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven **and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies, 18 and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice.”

Moses talks to God in the context of Abraham and his sacrifice (interiorly) of Isaac. Moses does not refer to Abraham as a “failure” in this context but rather as God’s “servant”.

This is NOT what MOSES SAID . . . .

**NOT Genesis 32:13a ** 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy failures, to whom thou didst swear by thine own self, and didst say to them, 'I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, . . . .

Moses DOES refer to Abraham in the context of the Isaac sacrifice as being God’s “servant”.

This IS WHAT MOSES SAID . . .

**GENESIS 32:13a ** 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou didst swear by thine own self, and didst say to them, 'I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, . . . .

And notice what the angel of the Lord DIDN’T say . . .

**NOT Genesis 22:12 ** 12 He said, “Don’t lay your hand on the boy! Don’t do anything to him! For now I know that you are an utter failure, because you have not debated with me or consulted your wife.”

Here is what the angel of the Lord DID say . . . .

**GENESIS 22:12 ** 12 He said, “Don’t lay your hand on the boy! Don’t do anything to him! For now I know that you are a man who fears God, because you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.”

CCC 145c . . . . And by faith Abraham offered his only son in sacrifice.6

CCC 60 The people descended from Abraham would be the trustee of the promise made to the patriarchs, the chosen people, called to prepare for that day when God would gather all his children into the unity of the Church.18 They would be the root on to which the Gentiles would be grafted, once they came to believe.19

CCC 1819 Christian hope takes up and fulfills the hope of the chosen people which has its origin and model in the hope of Abraham, who was blessed abundantly by the promises of God fulfilled in Isaac, and who was **purified by the test of the sacrifice.**86 "Hoping against hope, he believed, and thus became the father of many nations."87

(All Scripture bold and underline mine, italics in CCC 1819 original)

 

[Cathoholic]

DanAl. Contrast Abraham’s obedience to Saul’s disobedience.

King Saul was told to go into battle against the Amalekites and smite them (even their infants!). Not to debate God or consult his wife.

1st SAMUEL 15:3 (NIV) Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

But here is what Saul did.

Saul AND THE PEOPLE partially obediently destroyed the Amalekites . . . most of them. But disobediently not ALL of them.

Also Saul AND THE PEOPLE partially obediently destroyed much of the sheep, lambs, fatlings, etc. but disobediently not ALL of them.

1st SAMUEL 15:9 9 But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep and of the oxen and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them; all that was despised and worthless they utterly destroyed.

And here was God’s reaction through the Prophet Samuel . . . (hint: God does not tell Saul he is a failure for the obedience portion of what he did, rather he is a failure because of his disobedience to God) . . . .

**1st SAMUEL 15:12-23 ** 12 And Samuel rose early to meet Saul in the morning; and it was told Samuel, “Saul came to Carmel, and behold, he set up a monument for himself and turned, and passed on, and went down to Gilgal.” 13 And Samuel came to Saul, and Saul said to him, “Blessed be you to the LORD; I have performed the commandment of the LORD.” 14 And Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of the sheep in my ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?” 15 Saul said, “They have brought them from the Amalekites; for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen, to sacrifice to the LORD your God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed.” 16 Then Samuel said to Saul, “Stop! I will tell you what the LORD said to me this night.” And he said to him, “Say on.” 17 And Samuel said, “Though you are little in your own eyes, are you not the head of the tribes of Israel? The LORD anointed you king over Israel. 18 And **the LORD sent you on a mission, and said, Go, utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are consumed.’ 19 Why then did you not obey the voice of the LORD? **Why did you swoop on the spoil, and do what was evil in the sight of the LORD?” 20 And Saul said to Samuel, “I have obeyed the voice of the LORD, I have gone on the mission on which the LORD sent me, I have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and I have utterly destroyed the Amalekites. 21 But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the best of the things devoted to destruction, to sacrifice to the LORD your God in Gilgal.” 22 And **Samuel said, “Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. 23 For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has also rejected you from being king.” **

Why was Saul told to smite them and why God would NOT tell us today to genocidally smite enemies today? That question is for a different thread, but in brief it has to do not just with judgement upon the Amalekites but with grace and in part our ability to rise above sin with that given grace the world received from the work of Jesus.

God doesn’t want the Israelites to take ANYTHING from the Amalekites (the people and the booty are people and booty, but they are also symbols of the Amalekites life too).

The reason WHY God would not have us genocidally smite enemies today, has to do NOT with a change in God (God cannot change), but has to do with a change in us.

The Israelites initially were not ordered to genocidally wipe out ANY of their enemies BEFORE the golden calf.

For example concerning the seven nations, in Deuteronomy 7 we see “no mercy” meaning not make covenants with them etc. But “no mercy” was not to genocidally wipe them out either at that point.

Why should the Israelites show “no mercy” to their enemies here in Deuteronomy 7? Fortunately Moses tells us why in Deuteronomy 7:4. “For they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods; then the anger of the LORD would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly.”

DEUTERONOMY 7:4 4 For they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods; then the anger of the LORD would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly.

Later as Israel’s sin deepened and the Israelites succumbed to more pagan practices including illicit sexual relations, they deepened their own sin which causes effects in humanity (sin has effects). Then how much MORE would the Israelites be set up for sponges for sin surrounding them?

Now a more radical separation from these pagan people was necessary for Israel as the poor Israelites could not rise above sin. Admittedly this is only part of the reason, but it is beyond the scope of this thread to detail more.
**
What about today?**

Why should we NOT carry out these genocides of enemies now in the New Testament era despite the sin that surrounds us today too?

Because the whole world now has grace from the work of Jesus the Christ (not the same grace as Baptism of course, but the whole world gets grace from Jesus’ work—see John 1:16 and CCC 35 and CCC 388 and elsewhere for example). “Behold I make all things new” (Rev. 21:5) was fulfilled at the time of Jesus’ work on Calvary and will also have an eschatological dimension (end times fulfillment layer) at the end of time too.

 

[meltzerboy]

DanAl. Be careful with the Abraham as a “failure” interpretation in this pericope or episode. It may affect your view of Abraham’s fulfillment (Jesus) too.

Abraham was a real man, but Abraham was also a prefigurement. Abraham (interiorly) did not withhold his only son (Genesis 22:2) as a sacrifice, his son carried the wood up the hill in the land of Moriah (Genesis 22:2), after the episode, the ram had a crown of thorns, I mean it had its head stuck in a thorn bush, etc.

Abraham was a prefigurement of God the Father offering His only Begotten Son. Isaac was a prefigurement of God’s only begotten Son, Jesus who obediently (Hebrews 10:7) carried the wood of the cross up Calvary Hill (in the land of Moriah). The sacrificial ram and the thorn bush were even prefigurements or foreshadows.

But Abraham talked of a sacrificial LAMB providing “himself” in Genesis 2:8—“ Abraham replied, “God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son”; and they both went on together.” Yet now we get a “ram” instead . . . The “lamb” of God comes later (the “lamb of God” John 1:29).

“God will provide himself the lamb.”

Fulfillments are always greater than their prefigurements so the events are not going to match perfectly—nor should they.

Abraham obeyed the Lord and thus was considered NOT A FAILURE but a SERVANT of God in the context of offering his only son. Abraham had failures to be sure, but this wasn’t one of them.

**GENESIS 22:15-18 ** 15 And the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven, 16 and said, “By myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will indeed bless you, and **I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven **and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies, 18 and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice.”

Moses talks to God in the context of Abraham and his sacrifice (interiorly) of Isaac. Moses does not refer to Abraham as a “failure” in this context but rather as God’s “servant”.

This is NOT what MOSES SAID . . . .

**NOT Genesis 32:13a ** 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy failures, to whom thou didst swear by thine own self, and didst say to them, 'I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, . . . .

Moses DOES refer to Abraham in the context of the Isaac sacrifice as being God’s “servant”.

This IS WHAT MOSES SAID . . .

**GENESIS 32:13a ** 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou didst swear by thine own self, and didst say to them, 'I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, . . . .

And notice what the angel of the Lord DIDN’T say . . .

**NOT Genesis 22:12 ** 12 He said, “Don’t lay your hand on the boy! Don’t do anything to him! For now I know that you are an utter failure, because you have not debated with me or consulted your wife.”

Here is what the angel of the Lord DID say . . . .

**GENESIS 22:12 ** 12 He said, “Don’t lay your hand on the boy! Don’t do anything to him! For now I know that you are a man who fears God, **because **you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.”

CCC 145c . . . . And by faith Abraham offered his only son in sacrifice.6

CCC 60 The people descended from Abraham would be the trustee of the promise made to the patriarchs, the chosen people, called to prepare for that day when God would gather all his children into the unity of the Church.18 They would be the root on to which the Gentiles would be grafted, once they came to believe.19

CCC 1819 Christian hope takes up and fulfills the hope of the chosen people which has its origin and model in the hope of Abraham, who was blessed abundantly by the promises of God fulfilled in Isaac, and who was **purified by the test of the sacrifice.**86 "Hoping against hope, he believed, and thus became the father of many nations."87

(All Scripture bold and underline mine, italics in CCC 1819 original)

As I had stated, the interpretation concerning Abraham as having failed G-d’s test is NOT the major Jewish interpretation of the event. However, even if this were the favored interpretation, it would not mean that Abraham’s whole life is an utter failure. G-d still loves him, blesses him and makes him the father of a nation, and remembers his many good deeds, just as G-d still loves Adam and Eve (as Genesis reveals) after they committed the greater sin of DISOBEYING Him and had to leave the Garden of Eden. This kind of interpretation might also show us that even such a blessed man as Abraham has faults and is not perfect, yet G-d forgives our imperfections provided we repent and endeavor to change our behavior for the better and, according to Jewish teaching, even in cases when we do not change our behavior.

 

[Cathoholic]

Melterboy.

You stated:

the interpretation concerning Abraham as having failed G-d’s test is NOT the major Jewish interpretation of the event.

Well said. I don’t want to imply that it is a “major Jewish interpretation”. I agree it is not a “major Jewish interpretation” (I have family members who are Jewish and I would probably know if this were a major Jewish interpretation—incidentally, we get along wonderfully and have never personified any of the historical acrimony that has existed at times between some people within the various rabbinic Jewish communities and some of the people in the Church).

Personally I don’t think this interpretation should be a minor Jewish interpretation either but that’s beyond the scope of this discussion. But my purpose was not to assert this as a major Jewish interpretation, but rather to warn DanAl (or any other readers) that to internalize this interpretation of Abraham as a “failure” in this context, can have effects in the way one thinks theologically beyond the immediate text.

You also stated:

it would not mean that Abraham’s whole life is an utter failure.

I concur with that too. That’s why I stated . . . .

. . . a SERVANT of God in the context of offering his only son.

Interesting dialogue on the “binding of Isaac”. Thank you and all the posters here.

 

[livingwordunity]

It’s interesting how much the binding of Isaac resembles a kind of passion play with Abraham playing the role of God the Father and Isaac playing the role of God the Son. The ram (a male lamb) with its head caught in a thicket is an early symbolic image of Jesus the Lamb of God with a crown of thorns around his head. And the place where it happened is the same place where Jesus would be crucified on Mount Moriah.

Genesis 22:8
Abraham said, “God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.” So they went both of them together.

 

[meltzerboy]

It’s interesting how much the binding of Isaac resembles a kind of passion play with Abraham playing the role of God the Father and Isaac playing the role of God the Son. The ram (a male lamb) with its head caught in a thicket is an early symbolic image of Jesus the Lamb of God with a crown of thorns around his head. And the place where it happened is the same place where Jesus would be crucified on Mount Moriah.

Genesis 22:8
Abraham said, “God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.” So they went both of them together.

Note, however, that Abraham, the father, does NOT sacrifice Isaac, his son. He is explicitly told by G-d not to do so. Later in the Hebrew Bible, Moses is also told by G-d not to offer himself as a sacrifice for his people. Judaism interprets this as meaning that G-d does not want ANY human sacrifices; atonement toward G-d for one’s sins is the responsibility of each individual person. Further, the ritual of animal blood sacrifice is meaningless to G-d, Who says so, if it is not accompanied by sincere prayer and repentance. Even then, it is only used for unintentional sins, not intentional sins, and poor people who cannot afford blood sacrifices are permitted to use grain. Further, after the Temple is destroyed, G-d tells the Jewish people that prayer and repentance can absolve them of all their sins without any sacrifice whatsoever.

 

[livingwordunity]

Note, however, that Abraham, the father, does NOT sacrifice Isaac, his son.

Sometimes we can be focused on one tree rather than seeing the whole forest. On the surface, the point was to test Abraham’s faith. But the deeper meaning was to give us a preview for what God would do for us about 1800 years later with Jesus’ death on the cross on Mount Moriah. Our God leads by example. Rich in symbolism, in the big picture it was a passion play of God’s design.

If it had been God’s intention to actually kill Isaac it would have happened. Isaac wasn’t the one sacrificed on Mount Moriah because the point of it wasn’t to sacrifice Isaac. But the story is still about how father Abraham (even the name Abraham means "“father of a multitude”) went up the mountain to sacrifice his only son. To Christian ears, the symbolic meaning of this rings loud and clear.

Isaac and the male lamb are inseparably linked in this story of sacrifice. There is the one who would have been sacrificed and the one who actually was sacrificed. If we combine Isaac with the male lamb it’s easy (at least for a Christian) to see how Isaac foreshadows Jesus in how Isaac was Abraham’s only son while the male lamb with its head caught in a thicket (thorn bush) was a symbolic foreshadowing of Jesus the Lamb of God with a crown of thorns on his head.

Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, and Jesus is the Lamb of God. He sacrifices the lamb, and Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Each element of the story of the binding of Isaac in one way or the other was symbolic of the sacrifice that Jesus would carry out in that same location about 1800 years later.

I recommend the following video which explains it better than I can: “Abraham: Father or Master?” Dr. Scott Hahn

 

[livingwordunity]

Further, after the Temple is destroyed, G-d tells the Jewish people that prayer and repentance can absolve them of all their sins without any sacrifice whatsoever.

Which OT verse are you referring to that says this?

 

[Flimmy]

God asked Abraham to attempt to break the commandment.

Would one ask one to break?

 

[meltzerboy]

Which OT verse are you referring to that says this?

First, a little background about sacrificial rituals. There were several kinds, including sin offerings for unintentional sins against G-d’s Law, trespass offerings (done AFTER repentance toward one’s neighbor), thanksgiving offerings of gratitude and praise of G-d after escaping bodily harm and danger, national communal offerings to atone for unintentional misdeeds by the whole congregation, and peace and burnt-offerings, the latter for the main purpose of evil thoughts BEFORE misdeeds were committed.

In several verses of the Hebrew Bible, it is emphasized that blood rituals (or those of flour, including in one instance barley flour for the very poor, which were none the less acceptable in the eyes of G-d), are insufficient for atonement, with the explicit indication that G-d looks unfavorably upon them. Why then does G-d allow them? They serve as an outward sign of internal grace and repentance, which mankind is encouraged to perform in the exercise of its free will. A few of the verses that reveal the disfavor of blood rituals include: 1 Samuel 15:22, Psalms 50:7, Isaiah 1:11, 56:3, and most of 57, and Jeremiah 7:22-23.

During the era of the destruction of the Temple, Isaiah, who chides the Jewish people for their dishonorable behavior at the start of Isaiah 1, concludes toward the close in Isaiah 1:16-19 that the people should NOT depend on blood sacrifices but instead: “Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from before my eyes; seek justice, correct oppression…and though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow.” Hosea foretells the same exclusive means of atonement of which Isaiah speaks.

The reinstatement of offerings during the Messianic era when the Third Temple will be constructed and restored, of which many Torah Jews speak, usually does not refer to sin offerings but rather offerings of thanksgiving and praise of G-d.

 

[livingwordunity]

Meltzerboy,

Which verses in the New Testament do you disagree with on the subject of sacrifice and atonement for sins? Also, please address what was said in post #15 of this thread. And, if you don’t mind, please watch the Dr. Scott Hahn video and tell me what parts you don’t agree with and why. The reason why I would like you to watch the video is because Dr. Scott Hahn can explain the Catholic point of view a lot better than I can. So, if you are interested in a greater challenge than me I’d recommend seeing if you can find error in what Dr. Hahn says.

Post #15

Sometimes we can be focused on one tree rather than seeing the whole forest. On the surface, the point was to test Abraham’s faith. But the deeper meaning was to give us a preview for what God would do for us about 1800 years later with Jesus’ death on the cross on Mount Moriah. Our God leads by example. Rich in symbolism, in the big picture it was a passion play of God’s design.

If it had been God’s intention to actually kill Isaac it would have happened. Isaac wasn’t the one sacrificed on Mount Moriah because the point of it wasn’t to sacrifice Isaac. But the story is still about how father Abraham (even the name Abraham means "“father of a multitude”) went up the mountain to sacrifice his only son. To Christian ears, the symbolic meaning of this rings loud and clear.

Isaac and the male lamb are inseparably linked in this story of sacrifice. There is the one who would have been sacrificed and the one who actually was sacrificed. If we combine Isaac with the male lamb it’s easy (at least for a Christian) to see how Isaac foreshadows Jesus in how Isaac was Abraham’s only son while the male lamb with its head caught in a thicket (thorn bush) was a symbolic foreshadowing of Jesus the Lamb of God with a crown of thorns on his head.

Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, and Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Each element of the story of the binding of Isaac in one way or the other was symbolic of the sacrifice that Jesus would carry out in that same location about 1800 years later.

I recommend the following video which explains it better than I can: “Abraham: Father or Master?” Dr. Scott Hahn

 

[DanAl]

Would one ask one to break?

Thanks for noticing this error. God ordered Isaac to attempt breaking the fifth commandment.