What would've happened if Abraham had been successful in sacrificing Isaac?
This story has always bothered me. If God was capable of asking Abraham to kill Isaac, was He really all-good? Could He bend the rules of right and wrong, the unethical and ethical that the Bible also asserts is axiomatic? It plagued my mind and actually sent me into a minor depression, a dysthymia directed towards my faith. Recently I have really put a great deal of thought into it. I’ve struggled for months over this story and the idea that God could ask someone to sacrifice their innocent child --a fundamentally evil act-- when it goes against God's pure and all-good nature. I've read and reread in many translations and studied analysis, as well as discussed it with my brother who has an M.Div. and was educated in ancient Greek. In the scriptures it says that God did this to “test” Abraham, but I believe this to be false. Perhaps it was an effort by the authors of the Bible to understand why God would do this to Abraham, or as a way to excuse or deal with the concept of God commanding someone to do evil. Later, I will get to why I think this is an incorrect conclusion.
After all of this study, my consternation and mental stress culminated in a vivid, fever dream last night, that I believe has shown me the true nature of Isaac's near-sacrifice.
In the dream, I was in Biblical clothing. I sat at the deathbed of a man who I knew to be my father, though he did not look like my earthly father. I did not fully understand the situation at the time, but I believe that in the dream I had been placed in the role of Jacob, and I was discussing the story of Abraham and the young Isaac's almost-sacrifice with Isaac himself. We did not speak as if the story was a memory, but as if it had happened to someone else long ago. Looking back it seems odd that I would have an in depth discussion of my theological dread with someone on their deathbed, but my subconscious kind of forgot as the conversation went on that this old man was supposed to be on his death bed. His vitality increased with every question and his sentences grew in complexity and penetrative insight as the time went on. His intimate knowledge of the story, his insightful questions, my unspoken but internally known role as his son, as well as his being mostly blind and quite old are what led me to believe when I awoke that he was Isaac in his old age. After waking from this dream, I believe I understand the story now.
(2/2) The reason God called Abraham to sacrifice Isaac was not a test, but because it would've been an eternal sacrifice for all future sin, on the same level as Jesus' crucifixion in the New Testament. Isaac was young and free from sin at that point, paralleling Jesus' purity. I believe this was one of God’s early “solutions” seeking to atone for mankind’s sins and reunite us with God, but because of His all-good nature, it was impossible for Him to carry out such a thing, so He provided Abraham with the ram. Perhaps even God himself experienced some form of temptation when He nearly carried out an immoral act (asking Abraham to kill his “only son, whom he loved”). If the outcome would’ve been the atonement for mankind’s sin, on par with Jesus’ later sacrifice, I can understand why God may have experience the temptation to carry out one single immoral act in order to save the generations of men who came after. In order to atone for sin and death, God would have had to sacrifice someone pure.
I also believe this to be the moment God realized (or perhaps the moment He showed mankind His reasons, since God is outside of time and all-knowing, therefore most likely doesn't "realize" anything) He could not ask Abraham to sacrifice his own son for the sins of the world, so He would have to take Abraham’s place, and his burden, sacrificing His own son (which is why Jesus is called "the lamb", a pure and younger version of the ram that Abraham sacrificed) in mankind's stead.
I believe this to be the true nature of the Akedah.
Jeremiah Lee
Are you there Kierkegaard? It's me, user.
Juan Thomas
This is pretty cool actually OP thanks but I dont know enough about it to add or criticise.
Charles Miller
Thanks my man, I appreciate it.
Gabriel Morales
I think you're wrong. When Jesus was on the cross, God stopped loving him. The anger of all the sin that has been and will be committed was on him. If Abraham had killed Isaac, it would have been because God told him to. I doubt it would have forgiven any sins. I doubt Isaac was sin-free either, because of muh human nature. When I read the story it shows me how devoted Abraham was. You should be more committed to God than anything else.
Jayden James
Big fan of Kierkegaard, thanks user. I was going for a biblical-Borges/Kierkegaard spin.
Kevin Jones
This gave me new insight into the story even after Kierkegaard (granted however that I was not a Christian to begin with). Thank you
Gavin Harris
It was always God's solution for Jesus to be the sacrifice for humanity, as written in Genesis 3:15. The reason everyone says it's a test is because that's exactly what it was. Abraham was making an idol of his own son, so God reminded him where his priorities ought to be.
>Isaac was free from sin Anything to back that claim up?
Matthew Howard
That interpretation of Genesis 3:15 is one I have never come across, and one I disagree with.
It's unclear whether children can be fully responsible for their sin, and depending on who you ask there are Christians who believe that a certain age or level of self awareness must be reached before a child bears the full weight.
Perhaps Isaac was not completely free from sin, but he was innocent on Moriah, and I believe God would have accepted his life as sacrifice.
This post was mainly just an educated and thoughtful explanation on a challenging section of the Bible, and how I have come to understand it. It is not provable either way.
Lucas Anderson
*fear and trembling intensifies*
Jackson Flores
Did Abraham really believe that he would get Isaac back? Or did he just enter complete resignation?
Wyatt Baker
The Hebrew YHWH exists beyond the concept of Good and Evil, or the moral and ethical concepts laid out by later philosophers. Why you would think the ancient Hebrew would ascribe these notions to their deity when such notions were nonexistant is completely beyond me.
Lucas Garcia
This is touched on in the epistle to the Hebrews. Abraham had been promised a genealogical line through Isaac. So if he was subsequently commanded to sacrifice him before the promised line of heirs had emerged, he (theoretically) would have also trusted to receive Isaac back from the dead.
Christopher Brown
>When Jesus was on the cross, God stopped loving him.
What a horrible theology. God save you from it, brother.
Christopher Perez
You are trying to make sense of a Jewish text with a Christian bias. Also, this
Daniel Roberts
>What would've happened if Abraham had been successful in sacrificing Isaac? this is a non-question
>If God was capable of asking Abraham to kill Isaac, was He really all-good? this is so presumptuous
>Could He bend the rules of right and wrong this is sooooooo presumptuous
Repent, ye of perverse mind and indefatigable pride
Angel Evans
Yea what is this?
Your do-it-yourself Christianity may feel more intellectually stimulating or something, but, as any believer can attest, it is the road to orthodoxy that is the most challenging.
Andrew Evans
>do-it-yourself Christianity lmfao nice turn of phrase
this is what I meant >Many Bible commentators and teachers have promoted the idea that Jesus became sin for us and therefore the holy God had to forsake him because God cannot stand sin. This idea comes from 2 Corinthians 5:21, which in the NIV reads, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God.”
he was the biological father of sons by two different mothers
Evan Johnson
>>>NIV Lmao
John Russell
He was a fictional character in some ancient rabbi porn. The story is about unswerving obedience. The clerical class of the Hebrews ruled their people with such psychological drivel.
Matthew Myers
Theologically I have always understood this verse to be Christ having undergone the ultimate sacrifice for us- to have truly felt the depths of human sorrow he would need to have His connection to His Father severed at least once. If he had always been perfectly connected with the Divine, how could his Atonement be truly perfect, as he had not felt God's abandonment as we sometimes suppose ourself to?
For this to have happened at Christ's lowest point was for Christ to have truly gone through everything for us.
Thanks for a good laugh, pal.
Brody Cooper
I agree that it was a similitude of the Savior's sacrifice. The sacrifice of Isaac is effective in helping us to understand some inkling of the divine nature - what is it about the personality of Abraham that gave him strength to do such a thing? What is it about the personality of God that causes him to allow his Only Begotten to endure such agonies? Diligence, faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, kindness, charity.
After all, God did the same thing many centuries later. Except it was His own son He sacrificed, and he actually went through with it that time. Let yourself be concerned with the injustices which God allowed to be placed upon the only innocent being there ever was, his own son.
However I cannot agree that God was tempted, and had actually come a hair's breadth away from committing sin in the sacrifice of Isaac. This suggests that the devil has some degree of power over God.
James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
Levi Brooks
I object to the simple equivocating of "forsaken" with "stopped loving." I know that it's a popular notion that God "turned away" or "hated" Jesus Christ when he was on the cross, but it's a deficient atonement model that demands Jesus be punished for sin in this way.
For nothing can separate us from the love of God, right? That may lead to discipline, but even discipline is meted out in love.
Nought but Anabaptism, son.
Jayden Sullivan
>I agree that it was a similitude of the Savior's sacrifice. There's no need to agree, it's plainly obvious
>"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up" - John 3:14
>“The Old is in the New revealed and the New is in the Old concealed.” –Augustine
Ethan Rivera
>misunderstanding a simple text THAT much I really really hope this is a bait
Samuel Sanchez
agreed :^)
William King
The Holy Bible is anything but simple my friend. It is the most complicated and depth-filled text in the entire universe. It's multitudes will not be fully revealed in this life.
Elijah Nguyen
thanks
Adrian Foster
dont know
Alexander Kelly
You calling it a non-question is the blandest and emptiest thing you could have said. It has no meaning, serves no purpose, and contributes nothing to the discussion.
Gabriel Rodriguez
Abraham probably killed Isaac in one of the versions of the story that ended up spliced together in Genesis. Notice how the story refers to God as "God (El/Elohim)" up until the intercession by an angel of "the LORD (YHWH)". This difference is a marker of two different sources ("Elohist" and "Yahwist"). In the Elohist material, Isaac never reappears after the Binding. He is only mentioned in the Yahwist material after that point. Make of that what you will.
Adam Rodriguez
t. A pseud who never read more than 3-4 bible books
Andrew Carter
that question is the philosophical equivalent of "dude what if i'm dreaming right now;" honestly, it's even lower- both questions are meaningless but the 'dream' is at least possible. God cannot do other than that which he wills (this is the definition of omnipotence). God can do whatsoever he wills (this is also omnipotence).
If God had willed for Abraham to kill Isaac, Isaac would have been sacrificed. He obviously didn't will it, and that ends the discussion. This thread is a charade, the real question asked is whether an omnipotent God is or is not omnipotent. Presented in this manner, it is plainly stupid to ask.
If you want to debate God's omnipotence, don't drag the Bible into it.
Connor Hall
>If God had willed for Abraham to kill Isaac, Isaac would have been sacrificed. Is this a full predestinarianism? How does free will figure in? What's the point of the test of Abraham's loyalty/faith if his decision wasn't really ultimately up to him anyway?
Jason Walker
Read Fear and Trembling.
Kayden Torres
a truly free will acts in accordance with God's will.
Camden Garcia
Maybe according to some strange notion of freedom, but you're still denying that Abraham even could have failed God's test, which destroys its very status *as* a test.
Ryan Diaz
myths have no rooms for "what if"s you doof
Oliver Watson
My last post was inadequate. Sorry, I'm busy and on mobile.
Anyways, nothing can thwart God's good purpose. If Adam and Eve had never eaten the fruit it would have been easier for us, but things still worked out. Obedient or not, we cannot defeat his perfect design. When Moses failed, Aaron was raised up.
James Evans
Then God's original design condemns us to sin and damnation without cause or recourse. On this theology, there is no point to any covenant, since it is not ultimately up to us whether we keep it. You reduce God into a malicious and capricious demon. You reduce Providence into the Original Whim.
Anthony Sanchez
No it doesn't, we chose to sin. God created a world with necessary failsafes (because he knew they would be necessary). His design was to obtain the requisite number of Saints. This is being accomplished.
Gavin Lewis
>His design was to obtain the requisite number of Saints. A preposterous telos. God requires nothing and already has everything.
Luis Cox
It was God's will that Isaac not be sacrificed. You can believe that Abraham had the free will to decide to sacrifice Isaac or not, but either way Isaac would have lived according to God's will. In that sense OP's question is a "non-question" because God would never have allowed Isaac to be sacrificed. At least I think that's the user's point (though he does admittedly seem to be veering more towards total predestination in general).
Connor Brooks
then why create anything?
he created the angels, many fell, he created man.
Matthew Sullivan
Why assume you know the mind of God?
Cameron Rodriguez
i dont, but you've expressly disclaimed any 'purpose' fulfilled by creation. I say only this: he created it because he saw that it would be good. It's obviously not good if all are lost.
Ryan Howard
The entirety of the Christian and Jewish faiths are built on assumption of the mind of God. Almost none of the New or Old Testament is a product of Divine Inspiration.
Samuel Hall
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't mankind created AFTER the declaration that Creation is Good in Genesis?
Brandon Martinez
>And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
Jose Hernandez
wow, this makes too much sense. i've always been interested in a text that clearly delineates the usage of elohim vs. yhwh. i also don't understand when elohim is singular or plural.
Evan Young
>Almost none of the New or Old Testament is a product of Divine Inspiration.
Well Christians would say that the Holy Spirit has guided the creation and collection of the Bible, even if none of the writers heard God's voice directly (and there are certain writers who even claim that).
Christopher Martin
>even if none of the writers heard God's voice directly Moses Matthew Mark Paul John etc. etc.
Ian Harris
It's just a story with a moralistic message, Isaac had plot armor. So it's pointless to think about "what if" because the story wouldn't exist then.
Among many jewels, what is perhaps a partial refutation of your notion: > the thought that the God of Israel was sympathetic to child sacrifice is inconsistent with lots of remarks in the prophetic literature
From a Christian standpoint, it's worth mentioning that the death of a mere human would have infinitely less theological import than the crucifixion of Christ (who is God). So no, I don't think Isaac was God's "first attempt." Moreover, by standard Christian theology, the plan of salvation through Christ pre-dates the creation of humans and the fall itself (it's not like Christ was God's Plan B), so I don't think there's much merit in looking for "previous attempts" in the first place.
Justin Long
>What would've happened if Abraham had been successful in sacrificing Isaac?
It's impossible for Abraham to have succeeded in sacrificing Isaac. Doing so wold not be in accordance with God's plan.
Noah White
>UC Riverside hahahaha pleb-tier
Aaron Cooper
The assembled Biblical canon has one overt purpose: to create a body of work that both justifies and explains the separation of the Hebrew/Judaeo/Israelite people from all other nations. The primary importance of the halted sacrifice is to fully separate the Hebrews from others that practiced human sacrifices, using instead only animal sacrifices and animal sacrifices that common people would be capable of performing, not the elaborate divination ceremonies that the upper castes only could afford.
Jace Collins
"El" is singular and "Elohim" is plural, but the plural doubles as an intensifier in Hebrew
Christopher Walker
Anyone else find some merit in the idea that Isaac was actually sacrificed in earlier versions of the story?
Connor Hughes
no, and why would anyone waste their life on 'biblical scholarship' if their only goal is to be a heretic? Is it because they desire to lead as many as possible astray? If so, that's demonic... God have mercy on those who cause his little ones to stumble; that they receive no more punishment than the millstone!
