This is key. When Jesus said, "Come, follow me," the disciples had no clue what they would end up doing. But they went. And so should we.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What is the Moral Justification of God's Asking Abraham to Sacrifice Isaac?
- Thread starter StefanM
- Start date
This is key. When Jesus said, "Come, follow me," the disciples had no clue what they would end up doing. But they went. And so should we.
To give us the marvelous type(s) that put us at awe at His word and cause our hearts to soar like hawks.
The Offering Up Of Isaac - A.W. Pink
4 for, as many things as were written before, for our instruction were written before, that through the endurance, and the exhortation of the Writings, we might have the hope. Ro 15
9 for in the law of Moses it hath been written, `thou shalt not muzzle an ox treading out corn;` for the oxen doth God care?
10 or because of us by all means doth He say it? yes, because of us it was written, because in hope ought the plower to plow, and he who is treading ought of his hope to partake in hope. 1 Cor 9
11 And all these things as types did happen to those persons, and they were written for our admonition, to whom the end of the ages did come, 1 Cor 10
Comparisons between the "offering up" of Isaac in sacrifice found in Genesis 22:1-18, know in Hebrew as the "akeidah" [the binding] and the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Isaac and Jesus were "only, beloved" sons of a righteous father; Ishmael had been sent away in Genesis 21:14 [Genesis 22:2].
Both Isaac and Jesus are identified as the "son of Abraham" [see Genesis 21:3; 22:2; Matthew 1:1].
Both were offered in sacrifice [Genesis 22:2; John 1:29; Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:33; John 11:5019:17-18].
The sacrifice was offered in the land of Moriah – Jerusalem [Genesis 22:2; 2 Chronicles 3:1; Matthew 16:21-23].
Both sons carried the wood for their own sacrifice [Genesis 22:6; John 19:17]
Both were "bound" and placed on top of the wood [Genesis 22:9; John 19:18-19; Philippians 2:8].
Both willingly allow themselves to be offered in sacrifice [Genesis 22:7-8; Colossians 2:6-8].
Both sons were "resurrected" or "given back" the their fathers on the third day. Isaac was essentially "dead" to his grieving father when God commanded him to sacrifice his son. On the "third day" God provided another sacrifice and his son was restored. God's son died on the Cross and was resurrected on the third day! [Genesis 22:4; Matthew 16:21; 17:23; 20; 19; Mark 9:31; 10:34; Luke 9:22; 18:22; 24:7, 44-47; Acts 10:40; 1 Corinthians 15:4].
Last edited:
Is not "Isaac" the "promised seed" to Abraham in his old age? Isn't that "seed" ultimately representative of Christ?
Gal. 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Gal. 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
Why can't Isaac by a type of both the believer "in Christ" according to promise and of Christ also?
You think the numerous similarities between the two are just a coincidence?
Yeah. That too:
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, so also it is now. Gal 4
Zactly.
"How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord,
Is laid for your faith in His excellent Word!"
I believe Paul's comments are suggesting the opposite---that Christ, not Isaac, not the nation of Israel, is ultimately the "seed."
Perhaps one could interpret the type in "double duty" terms, but I just personally don't think that's the clearest route. That doesn't mean that someone else can't have a strong argument in the other direction. And, as always, I can very easily be wrong!
Nevertheless, Paul's argument in Galatians seems to hinge more on Isaac representing the promise and the prototypical "redeemed" figure that ultimately represents all of those redeemed by Christ, the promised seed, in opposition to Ishmael, who was the son of the slave Hagar, and the prototypical figure of those who remain in bondage (to sin).
I think some of the similarities mentioned might be a bit shoehorned into the narrative of Isaac-as-a-type-of-Christ. Even so, I admit there are some definitely worth of consideration.
Here's where I differ. I still think that even the similarities don't push us toward viewing Isaac as a type of Christ. They illustrate the punishment that we deserve that Christ took on. Isaac was spared at the last moment because of God's provision. Similarly, Christ spares us through his sacrifice. In some aspects, Jesus recapitulated Isaac's journey to the altar, but instead of being spared, he gave his life for us. He completed the journey while Isaac was saved from having to complete it.
Thus, Isaac is not a type of Christ; he is a type of the one Christ saves. Christ takes on every single aspect of the journey to death, but by completing it, he allows us to be saved. If anything, the ram is more of a type of Christ than Isaac, IMO.
That being said, I will say that there are Christ-like elements in Isaac's journey. I'm not denying that at all. I just don't think that, as a whole, Isaac is a type of Christ. We may actually not be that far apart. I'm just a bit more reticent to use the term "type."
The emphasis from the scriptural standpoint is not that Isaac was spared, he was received back from the dead 'in type' of resurrection:
19 accounting that God is able to raise up, even from the dead; from whence he did also in a figure receive him back. Heb 11
Again the emphasis from the scriptural standpoint is on the resurrection, not 'being spared':
7 Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and having been heard for his godly fear, Heb 5
Christ was saved from death, God raised Him from the dead.
Last edited:
Amazing isn't it? A type within a type.
You make good points there. I'll reflect on them.
May I point out that the use of the singular "seed" of promise is first found in Genesis 3:15 and it is then narrowed down through the lineage of Abraham that promised "seed" would come and then it was further limited to the house of David that the promised "seed" would come. There is no question Christ is that promised "seed" as that is the whole point of Paul in Galatians 3:16 and the explicit restriction of the "singular" number "seed" is to demonstrate that the very promise of a "seed" to Abraham must have its ultimate application to Christ whereas the immediate application is Isaac:
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. - Gal. 3:16
Indeed, the very gospel preached to Abraham by God is "in thee" shall all nations be blessed and that is not fulfilled by Isaac, although it cannot be fulfilled apart from Isaac either as Christ literally came through the lineage of Isaac. So the promised seed necessarily must include both Isaac as the immediate promise but Christ as the ultimate promise as they both are inseparable from that promise.
Last edited:
I can agree with this fully.
I really appreciate your good attitude brother.
Check out this index:
Gleanings in Genesis By Arthur W. Pink
One of the most profound books I've ever read. Pink was a 'master of types'.
Thank you for the resource!
Did Adam or God sin? It was Adam, therefore Adam, and all his posterity stand before God guilty of freely and willingly commiting sins. Did God plant the tree of knowledge in the Garden? Yes. So there was a desire for sin in some way from God, but none of us are privy to the why in God's mind. Yet, when Adam sinned, he freely did what God decreed. How is that too hard to comprehend? Just like the crucifixion of Christ. Men freely did what God decreed.