Abraham and Isaac

[The Revolting Man]

[EDIT: This thread is a fork from the Divorced, Abandoned, Put Away, or Kicked to the Curb thread. We're looking here at the relationship between the things we hear directly from God and those things that are revealed in the scriptures, focused particularly on how it came to pass that Abraham was about to slay his son Isaac when interrupted by God and offered a substitute sacrifice.]

So the conundrum is to figure out if God will hold you responsible for not violating His Word when He tells you to? Do you obey what He's written to the world or what He's whispered in your heart? If the two commands conflict then one must be obeyed and thence one is disobeyed.

That is a hard position to be in. You want to be obedient but God has called you to disobey Him. You have to disobey to obey or obey and thus disobey.

Either way you're violating His Word, the written or the received. That is a thorny issue that I can't resolve.

 

[andrew]

The scriptures say that God told Moses "do not murder", but He told Abraham to slay Isaac. How do you resolve that? (Sincere question, no sarcasm.)

It would be less of a conundrum if we all quite referring to the scriptures as "the Word". While you're doing word studies, run a string search on "word of God" and let me know what you come up with.

You search the scriptures, for in them you think ye have eternal life, and these are they which testify of me. But you will not come to me that you might have life.

 

[The Revolting Man]

God didn't tell Abraham to slay Isaac. He told him to offer him as a burnt offering. Abraham did offer him as a burnt offering. God just didn't take it. He substituted in a ram. No murder was ever in the offing.

Excuse the pun.

I don't know what a string search is but I did find Isaiah 40:8 which says "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth, but the word of our God shall stand forever."

There was 1 Peter 1:25 that says, " But the word of the Lord endureth forever. And this the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."

There were a lot more in the same vein. A lot.

 

[andrew]

God didn't tell Abraham to slay Isaac. He told him to offer him as a burnt offering. Abraham did offer him as a burnt offering. God just didn't take it. He substituted in a ram. No murder was ever in the offing.

Excuse the pun.

Good pun! But the rest of it is just a typical rationalization. (I mean that in the technical definition sense, not as a dismissal.)

When does a burnt offering ever not get killed before it is burned? What does this mean, anyway?:

And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. (emphasis added)

In obedience to God's direction, Abraham was prepared to slay his son. Why is that hard to accept? And sure we know how the story ended, but Abraham didn't know that when he got in the morning to go do the deed. And it's not recorded that Abraham gave God any backtalk about how wrong that would be, either. Why is that hard to accept? And Abraham did not offer Isaac as a burnt offering. I'm not even sure what to say about that, because I can't imagine why you would say he did. The whole point of the story is that God intercepted Abraham and provided a ram for the burnt offering instead.

And Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. (emphasis added)

Instead of, as in, in the place of, as in the son wasn't offered as a burnt offering, because the ram was provided instead.

I don't know what a string search is but I did find Isaiah 40:8 which says "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth, but the word of our God shall stand forever."

There was 1 Peter 1:25 that says, " But the word of the Lord endureth forever. And this the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."

There were a lot more in the same vein. A lot.

A string search is computer geek talk for what I should probably have referred to as a phrase search. A search for a 'string' of characters.

Okay, but where are the scriptures referred to in the scriptures as the "word of God" or the "word of the Lord"?...

 

[andrew]

Note to Zec (I meant to say this in my previous post but forgot): If we want to continue on the 'word of God' thing, let's take it to another thread. Or we can drop it. Either way let's not continue here.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Good pun! But the rest of it is just a typical rationalization. (I mean that in the technical definition sense, not as a dismissal.)

When does a burnt offering ever not get killed before it is burned? What does this mean, anyway?:

In obedience to God's direction, Abraham was prepared to slay his son. Why is that hard to accept? And sure we know how the story ended, but Abraham didn't know that when he got in the morning to go do the deed. And it's not recorded that Abraham gave God any backtalk about how wrong that would be, either. Why is that hard to accept? And Abraham did not offer Isaac as a burnt offering. I'm not even sure what to say about that, because I can't imagine why you would say he did. The whole point of the story is that God intercepted Abraham and provided a ram for the burnt offering instead.

Instead of, as in, in the place of, as in the son wasn't offered as a burnt offering, because the ram was provided instead.


A string search is computer geek talk for what I should probably have referred to as a phrase search. A search for a 'string' of characters.

Okay, but where are the scriptures referred to in the scriptures as the "word of God" or the "word of the Lord"?...

I have no problem with the idea that Abraham was willing to slay his son for God. My contention is that God never told Abraham to murder (or slay) his son. So there was no contradiction between God's spoken command and the written one He would give Moses in a few centuries.

As far as what "word" all those scriptures refer to I am going to have to just say that the obvious choice is the written words we have in the Bible. I got myself in over my he's with the apostle thing and am not even going too pretend I can look into that one adequately right now.

 

[Mark C]

I have no problem with the idea that Abraham was willing to slay his son for God. My contention is that God never told Abraham to murder (or slay) his son. So there was no contradiction between God's spoken command and the written one He would give Moses in a few centuries.

Agree and disagree, Zec. Although any difference may be purely semantic. (And, perhaps marginal, to topic. )

I contend and teach that was all about attitude for Abraham. He KNEW that the Promise was through Yitzak. Therefore, ANYTHING he did in obedience to Yah would not void that Covenant. Hence, he obeyed without question.

I picture a VERY excited father and son thinking, "WOW! How is He gonna do THIS?" Knowing full well the OUTCOME was guaranteed, just not the path that YHVH would use to get them all there.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Agree and disagree, Zec. Although any difference may be purely semantic. (And, perhaps marginal, to topic. )

I contend and teach that was all about attitude for Abraham. He KNEW that the Promise was through Yitzak. Therefore, ANYTHING he did in obedience to Yah would not void that Covenant. Hence, he obeyed without question.

I picture a VERY excited father and son thinking, "WOW! How is He gonna do THIS?" Knowing full well the OUTCOME was guaranteed, just not the path that YHVH would use to get them all there.

I love this imagery and I hope this is how it went but I can't help but think there had to be some doubts in both of their minds as he was raising the knife. I'm not trying to be cute or argumentative this just seems like an episode pregnant with all the ranges of human emotion.

 

[Mojo]

The scriptures say that God told Moses "do not murder", but He told Abraham to slay Isaac. How do you resolve that? (Sincere question, no sarcasm.)

It would be less of a conundrum if we all quite referring to the scriptures as "the Word". While you're doing word studies, run a string search on "word of God" and let me know what you come up with.

Can't help but thinking that if God could void the Laws of thermodynamics and cosmology as we know it from time to time, he can override his own biblical laws when he sees fit. He's his own court of appeals

 

[andrew]

I have no problem with the idea that Abraham was willing to slay his son for God. My contention is that God never told Abraham to murder (or slay) his son. So there was no contradiction between God's spoken command and the written one He would give Moses in a few centuries.

If this is not simple logic chopping, I don't know what is.

Right. God never told Abraham to murder his son. He told him to offer him as a burnt offering, which means FIRST you kill him and THEN you set him on fire. But strictly speaking, he didn't use the words "murder" or "slay", so when Abraham raised the knife "to slay his son", he probably misunderstood God, kind of an over-achiever.

Whatever makes you feel better about the story....

In the interest of full disclosure, I have to relay the following. Some of you have heard this before.

The story of Abraham and Isaac is extremely important to me personally. Formative, you might say, because it is the story God used to compel me to add Ginny and Ann to my family.

Contemplating the story of Abraham and Isaac, I noticed that Abraham did not ask Sarah what she thought about the plan. I realized at that moment that I was waiting on Cheryl to give the green light, and it wasn't fair to her. Was I going to obey God, or was I going to wait for Cheryl to give me permission? I saw my relationship with Cheryl as the offering, and the only question was whether I was going to move forward in obedience or continue to sit on my hands, putting the responsibility on Cheryl for the final decision.

On top of that, one of the women in our home fellowship just didn't get the Abraham/Isaac story, and her response was "yeah, but he didn't have to kill him!" (imagine that loud and angry). She left that day and never came back (missing the whole point of the story, btw).

Death and resurrection are important bible themes; mind games not so much. I can agree with Mark up to a point, and can agree with the point he's making, but only if that's directed toward a resurrection outcome. Not if it implies that Abraham's "faith" was that God would let him off the hook somehow if he just went through the motions. There is no doubt in my mind that as Abraham had the knife raised, he was ready to do what he had to do.

If one of the moderators would like to split the appropriate posts between me and Zec into a separate thread, it wouldn't hurt my feelings.... Or they can just stay here if they are seen as pertinent to VV76's line of discussion. VV76, you're a moderator, why don't you make the call.

 

[andrew]

As far as what "word" all those scriptures refer to I am going to have to just say that the obvious choice is the written words we have in the Bible.

Why do you think that's "obvious"? It's not obvious at all if you look at the NT.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

It might be best to split it with a link and note so if a reader wants to follow this thought in conjunction with the divorce thread they can. I'm down to pecking on my phone right now so if one of the other moderators could do that I'd appreciate it.

 

[andrew]

It might be best to split it with a link and note so if a reader wants to follow this thought in conjunction with the divorce thread they can. I'm down to pecking on my phone right now so if one of the other moderators could do that I'd appreciate it.

Ack! I'm just having to bail and run, but I'll do it when I get back if no one beats me to it.

 

[The Revolting Man]

If this is not simple logic chopping, I don't know what is.

Right. God never told Abraham to murder his son. He told him to offer him as a burnt offerin.

Exactly. Remember the original question in this rabbit hole was how I treated Abraham and Isaac vis a vis the commandment not to murder. Did God contradict His written word in His spoken word to Abraham. The answer is no. This is not an example of obeying a spoken word over the written. The written hadn't been given yet but even if it had the two don't conflict. I'm not saying it wasn't hard. I'm not saying that it isn't tempting to try and fill in the blanks and jump to the next step. I'm his saying that if you take God literally, the way I would if He were my drill instructor then there is no conflict.

 

[andrew]

Dude, your drill instructor must have never given you a multi-part instruction. If I tell one of my sons to wash the car, and he doesn't vacuum the carpet, I have to explain to him that a complete job of washing the car includes vacuuming the carpet (and windexing the windows, bug cleaner, armor all, etc). You don't just hit it with a hose and call it done. All the parts are included in the instruction to accomplish the project.

Meanwhile, Abraham was clearly about to kill his son. Are you saying he just misunderstood his DI's orders? About to sin there? Or was he acting in obedience?

Meanwhile, if you're commanding officer orders you to take an objective, is it understood that you're supposed to kill anyone that tries to prevent you from accomplishing the mission, or does he have to line that out separately?

 

[Slumberfreeze]

So the conundrum is to figure out if God will hold you responsible for not violating His Word when He tells you to? Do you obey what He's written to the world or what He's whispered in your heart? If the two commands conflict then one must be obeyed and thence one is disobeyed.

That is a hard position to be in. You want to be obedient but God has called you to disobey Him. You have to disobey to obey or obey and thus disobey.

Either way you're violating His Word, the written or the received. That is a thorny issue that I can't resolve.

If I'm CERTAIN God has spoken to me something that seems to contradict His Word, I obey the spoken directive and trust that God has not contradicted Himself. I do not need to understand His logic to obey it. I will be keenly interested to be shown the wisdom that rightly divides the two, but that can come later, in His own good time.

 

[Mark C]

Re: "it was all about attitude for Abraham. He KNEW that the Promise was through Yitzak. Therefore, ANYTHING he did in obedience to Yah would not void that Covenant. Hence, he obeyed without question." And 'murder' was ultimately not possible.

...[Love the imagery BUT]...

there had to be some doubts in both of their minds as he was raising the knife.

Au contraire. That is the difference between the kind of faith that moves mountains and confirms a Patriarch worthy of being party to Covenant through whose seed "all the nations of the earth shall be blessed,"
...and those who may "believe IN God" but don't truly BELIEVE Him.

It's part of why I find the story of the man who told Yahushua "I believe!" but still then added "strengthen Thou my faith,"
so poignant.

 

[Jim an Apostle]

You cannot judge the voice on content! All you can do is judge who the voice is! This requires a high level of maturity. A Baby or a small child may have a hard time distinguishing whose voice is speaking. (or at least whether or not the voice has a right to speak)

John 10:4-5
And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. [5] And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.

John 10:27
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

We must be followers of Him! (Does God want you the live by a' life manual' or have a living relationship with Him?)

As we mature we should get better and better at recognizing who the voice is, over just following what the voice says.

If the voice is not of God, you should disobey even if it quotes scripture. Satan referenced Scripture in tempting Jesus. What mattered was who the voice was.

Matthew 4:4
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Proceedeth not proceeded.

God's spoken word trumps everything! If it is His voice!

 

[Mark C]

You cannot judge the voice on content! All you can do is judge who the voice is! This requires a high level of maturity. A Baby or a small child may have a hard time distinguishing whose voice is speaking. (or at least whether or not the voice has a right to speak)

... John 10:27
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow Me:

We must be followers of Him!
...As we mature we should get better and better at recognizing who the voice is, over just following what the voice says.

And the way we do that is by "study, to show yourself approved," and to develop discernment, based on KNOWING His Word. Line by line, precept by precept, and consistent from "Bereshiet [Genesis] to maps."

More times than I would like, I've heard people who claim to "know him" (Matthew 7:23) say they are "guided by the holy ghost" and thus don't have to keep His commandments as Written. My standard response has become, "I don't doubt that there's a spirit that is talking to such folks, but it sure as hell ain't holy!"

If the voice is not of God, you should disobey even if it quotes scripture. Satan referenced Scripture in tempting Jesus. What mattered was who the voice was.

True, and Kefa/'Peter' reminded us just how the "unlearned and untaught" twist it. Especially the difficult, Torah-intense midrash from Shaul/Paul. (II Peter 3:15-16)

If we "know Him," and His character (which is what it MEANS to 'come in the Name of YHVH'), then we can recognize that Adversarial twisting.

Matthew 4:4
But He answered and said, 'It is Written, man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of Yah.'

Many evangelicals are familiar with the 'test the spirits' line from I John 4. Unfortunately, most are not nearly so well-acquainted with the many earlier tests as that Taught One would have been. [Including from last week's and upcoming annual-cycle parashot like Deuteronomy chapter 7, 12, and especially chapter 13.]

 

[frederick]

As far as I can see, there is no contradiction in what God told Abraham and what Abraham was prepared to do in obedience to God's command. It is written in Hebrews 11:17-19; By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, "In Isaac your seed shall be called," concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense.

Abraham took God at His word in every respect, regarding both the command to offer Isaac and the promised blessings through Isaac; "concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead... . (v:19)".

Since all that exists belongs to God, He can do with it as He wills. Just because He commands people not to do something doesn't mean He is not allowed to do it. Parents frequently make rules for their kids that the parents are not bound by, and God has the same freedom to command against murder yet He can take someone's life at any time He chooses. And even though He has commanded against murder, He has given governments and armies the right and responsibility to put some to death. Perhaps you might consider Deuteronomy 21:18-21 also in this regard(?)