The sacrifice of Isaac would not have sufficed for what Christ would do at the Cross. Isaac was a sinner and could not be a substitute. And I don't believe that was God's intent in asking this of Abraham . It was but a test. (Gen. 22:1) Had the sacrifice been allowed, it would have only proved that for which it was for, which was a test of Abraham's faith. That it pointed to the sacrifice of God's only Son, yes. And how much grief must Abraham felt leading up to that on the mount in Moriah even though he knew God would raise him from the dead. (Heb. 11:17-19)
That first sentence ought to suffice to make the notion of child sacrifces of no good purpose, as we agree only Jesus could satisfy God. All others are simply killings by comparison.
I know most Bibles with comments say it was a test for Abraham, but the Hebrew in in Gen 22:1 means ""prove", as in burning dross off the gold, not testing the gold to confirm it is gold being put through the fire, what is said to be assaying the gold to determine its purity. Is there any dross to come out? I believe God already knew what was in Abraham's heart, but Abraham probably didn't know yet. I lean more to it being a direct command from God, that Abraham obeyed sufficiently by taking the act in hand.
It's also interesting that in
Hebrews 11:17-19 (KJV)
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten
son,
18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
19 Accounting that God
was able to raise
him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
the word "tried" is from the Greek peirazō, which has it's root in peira, assay/trial. peirazō is best said to prove as with a metallurgic examination more in line with the Hebrew in Gen 22:1. From those it appears God knew the substance of his heart, which he knows of us too. He would not tempt us with chance, not knowing what we would think or do, not being a tempter of man.
And, as God does so many times with His people, He brought Abraham into His (God's) grief. Abraham was made to feel as God felt. We usually center on Jesus Christ suffering at the Cross, which is understandable. But another grief we cannot imagine is that of the Father. Christ's being forsaken was horrible for Him (Christ). How much more it must have been for the Father to have to forsake Him for a time. And to make it worse, it was His idea, His plan of salvation, His responsibility. We tend to forget that God in all His omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience, feels. Woe to the man who comes before God having rejected His Son.
Consider that had Abraham felt the level of grief such as the Father had over His Son, who was with the Father in the beginning, his heart might have failed. Surely no mortal man could hold up to that. What I do see is tremendous faith that God knows what is happening, that whatever happens, whether we can imagine it or not, if God commands, it can be trusted. So yes, the Father's grief over Jesus, and over his mankind creation, over sin, is unfathomable to us.
Genesis 22:18 (KJV)
18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
Though Chris'ts sacrifice in time came much later, it really wasn't delayed, as it occurred at the exact moment God wanted it to. (Gal. 4:4) As you say, there was much preparation going before.
Yes, Isaac was of Sarah, not Hagar. Of the free woman, not the bondwoman. Much to the anger of the muslims. (Gal. 4:22-31) Which of course they deny and change in their false religion.
Quantrill
Good discussion!
