• Gen 22:9b . . Abraham built an altar there; he laid out the wood;
This was a place where, apparently, Abraham had never worshipped before because
he had to build an altar.
• Gen 22:9c . . he bound his son Isaac;
If Isaac was old enough, and strong enough, to shoulder a load of firewood (Gen
22:6) then he was old enough, and strong enough, to get away from Abraham,
who, at the time, was past 100 years old.
Note: If perchance Gen 23:1 took place immediately following the Akedah, then
Abraham would have been 137 at this point in the narrative seeing as how he and
Sarah were ten years apart in age. (Gen 17:17)
If they had not already talked it over, then when Abraham pulled out his rope and
assayed to bind Isaac; the lad would surely request an explanation; don't you
think?
Had Isaac not consented to the ritual, then he could have easily escaped because
Abraham was alone; he had no one to assist him to restrain Isaac: the servants
having remained behind with the burro. Besides, Isaac had to agree or the whole
affair would disintegrate into a ritual murder.
Binding was for Isaac's own good. No doubt he was willing enough to die; but
nobody is comfortable with injury. When the knife would begin to make an incision
in Isaac's neck to sever his carotid artery, he might reach up and grab his father's
hand, the meanwhile twisting and thrashing in a natural response to pain and fear--
similar to what most anybody would do in a dentist's chair without Novocain.
The binding would help keep him still and avoid collateral damage; otherwise,
Abraham might accidentally cut off Isaac's nose or poke him in the eye and quite
possibly disfigure him horribly instead of succeeding in killing the lad in a humane
fashion.
• Gen 22:9d . . he laid him on the altar, on top of the wood.
That may seem impossible for a man of Abraham's age, but no specifications for
altars existed at that time. They could be two feet high, ten, or just a rudimentary
hearth of stones laid right on the ground like a campfire or in a shallow excavation
like a wood pit barbecue.
At that moment, even before Isaac was dead, and even before the tiniest spark of a
fire was kindled: Abraham's offering of his son was complete. In other words: had
God not wanted Abraham to sacrifice his son, He would have stopped the
proceedings before Abraham laid his son on the wood because once that happens
the offerer relinquishes control over his offering.
From that point on; the offering belongs to God; and it becomes His prerogative to
do with it as He pleases-- to kill Isaac or not to kill him was God's executive right
and privilege. Bottom line is: it wasn't necessary for Isaac to be dead in order to
count as a sacrifice: he only had to be laid on the wood of the altar to count.
"By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received
the promises offered up his only begotten son (Heb 11:17-18)
"Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he
offered his son Isaac on the altar?" (Jas 2:21)
It's easily seen from those passages in James and Hebrews that not all human
sacrifice is evil. In point of fact, in certain cases; it's the right thing to do. But the
point is: James and Hebrews makes it clear that Isaac counted as an offering even
though he was not slain.
I just don't know why it is that people think that the 22nd chapter of Genesis
teaches God's supposed abhorrence for all manner of human sacrifice when it is so
obviously meant to convey the quality of Abraham's confidence in God's promise
made at Gen 15:2-6.
In other words: if Abraham was to go on to generate a posterity through his son
whose numbers would be too many to count; then God would have to restore Isaac
to life in order to make good on the promise; and according to Heb 11:17-19
Abraham was counting on that very thing. In other words: according to Jas 2:21
23, Abraham's willingness to kill his son validates Gen 15:2-6 where it's stated that
Abraham believed God.
• Gen 22:10a . . And Abraham picked up the knife
Abraham didn't just pick the knife up and hold it in his hand in some sort of
symbolic gesture. No, he picked it up with the full intention of using it on his boy;
as these next words of the narrative fully indicate.
• Gen 22:10b . . to slay his son.
Do you think Abraham was messing around? I guarantee you he was NOT. He fully
intended to slit Isaac's throat.
_
This was a place where, apparently, Abraham had never worshipped before because
he had to build an altar.
• Gen 22:9c . . he bound his son Isaac;
If Isaac was old enough, and strong enough, to shoulder a load of firewood (Gen
22:6) then he was old enough, and strong enough, to get away from Abraham,
who, at the time, was past 100 years old.
Note: If perchance Gen 23:1 took place immediately following the Akedah, then
Abraham would have been 137 at this point in the narrative seeing as how he and
Sarah were ten years apart in age. (Gen 17:17)
If they had not already talked it over, then when Abraham pulled out his rope and
assayed to bind Isaac; the lad would surely request an explanation; don't you
think?
Had Isaac not consented to the ritual, then he could have easily escaped because
Abraham was alone; he had no one to assist him to restrain Isaac: the servants
having remained behind with the burro. Besides, Isaac had to agree or the whole
affair would disintegrate into a ritual murder.
Binding was for Isaac's own good. No doubt he was willing enough to die; but
nobody is comfortable with injury. When the knife would begin to make an incision
in Isaac's neck to sever his carotid artery, he might reach up and grab his father's
hand, the meanwhile twisting and thrashing in a natural response to pain and fear--
similar to what most anybody would do in a dentist's chair without Novocain.
The binding would help keep him still and avoid collateral damage; otherwise,
Abraham might accidentally cut off Isaac's nose or poke him in the eye and quite
possibly disfigure him horribly instead of succeeding in killing the lad in a humane
fashion.
• Gen 22:9d . . he laid him on the altar, on top of the wood.
That may seem impossible for a man of Abraham's age, but no specifications for
altars existed at that time. They could be two feet high, ten, or just a rudimentary
hearth of stones laid right on the ground like a campfire or in a shallow excavation
like a wood pit barbecue.
At that moment, even before Isaac was dead, and even before the tiniest spark of a
fire was kindled: Abraham's offering of his son was complete. In other words: had
God not wanted Abraham to sacrifice his son, He would have stopped the
proceedings before Abraham laid his son on the wood because once that happens
the offerer relinquishes control over his offering.
From that point on; the offering belongs to God; and it becomes His prerogative to
do with it as He pleases-- to kill Isaac or not to kill him was God's executive right
and privilege. Bottom line is: it wasn't necessary for Isaac to be dead in order to
count as a sacrifice: he only had to be laid on the wood of the altar to count.
"By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received
the promises offered up his only begotten son (Heb 11:17-18)
"Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he
offered his son Isaac on the altar?" (Jas 2:21)
It's easily seen from those passages in James and Hebrews that not all human
sacrifice is evil. In point of fact, in certain cases; it's the right thing to do. But the
point is: James and Hebrews makes it clear that Isaac counted as an offering even
though he was not slain.
I just don't know why it is that people think that the 22nd chapter of Genesis
teaches God's supposed abhorrence for all manner of human sacrifice when it is so
obviously meant to convey the quality of Abraham's confidence in God's promise
made at Gen 15:2-6.
In other words: if Abraham was to go on to generate a posterity through his son
whose numbers would be too many to count; then God would have to restore Isaac
to life in order to make good on the promise; and according to Heb 11:17-19
Abraham was counting on that very thing. In other words: according to Jas 2:21
23, Abraham's willingness to kill his son validates Gen 15:2-6 where it's stated that
Abraham believed God.
• Gen 22:10a . . And Abraham picked up the knife
Abraham didn't just pick the knife up and hold it in his hand in some sort of
symbolic gesture. No, he picked it up with the full intention of using it on his boy;
as these next words of the narrative fully indicate.
• Gen 22:10b . . to slay his son.
Do you think Abraham was messing around? I guarantee you he was NOT. He fully
intended to slit Isaac's throat.
_