|
|
Post by michelle on May 31, 2009 18:56:18 GMT -8
So, question about Abraham's faith being tested. Can anyone tell me why God tells Abraham to sacrifice his "only son"? (Gen 22:2 Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about." Wasn't Ishmael born first?
My best guess is that Abraham was either not in contact with Ishmael anymore, so it was like Ishmael was no longer his son? Or because he was born out of wedlock he somehow wasn't "technically" (in God's eyes) Abraham's son? Or that Ishmael had already died, but that doesn't seem right since Esau married one of his daughters?
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jun 1, 2009 7:50:59 GMT -8
Well here is how I see it. Ishmael was cast out, and it did grieve Abraham, but Issac was if fact Abraham's only remaining son at this point, and the only son that would receive the inheritance promised to Abraham. Now God was going to test Abraham, and see if he was willing to cast out (sacrifice) his only remaining son.
Also, Ismael could not have been dead, because we read this in Genesis 25:8-10.
8 Then Abraham breathed his last and died in a good old age, an old man and full of years, and was gathered to his people. 9 And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah, which is before Mamre, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite, 10 the field which Abraham purchased from the sons of Heth. There Abraham was buried, and Sarah his wife.
I hope this helps.
Robin
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 1, 2009 10:38:34 GMT -8
That's my take too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Margot on Jun 1, 2009 18:09:36 GMT -8
I agree with Robin and Josh.
I think the point is that Issac was the "child of the promise, " while Ismael was pretty much the result of what happens when we take control of the situation and won't wait on God. (Speaking as someone who likes to take control--but doesn't like waiting...) So they were both Abraham's biological sons, but in God's view, Issac was "the" Son that would receive all the promises.
~I've always thought it was interesting how much kindness and grace God extends to Ishmael and his mother when Sarah gave them such a raw deal. Ishmael was not Plan A, and yet God goes on to make provision for him. (Even if his personality did kind of nullify all that...)
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jun 2, 2009 7:31:25 GMT -8
Hi Margot,
Could you expand on this a little more. I'm not quite sure what you mean, though I may have an idea.
Robin
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 2, 2009 7:40:51 GMT -8
I'm just going off of memory here, but I don't think Scripture necessarily implies that Ishmael was a bad dude, just that he was a bit wild, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jun 2, 2009 8:10:45 GMT -8
I'm just going off of memory here, but I don't think Scripture necessarily implies that Ishmael was a bad dude, just that he was a bit wild, right? I suspect that Margot may be eluding to the idea that Ishmael is the father of the modern day Muslims. Am I right, Margot? |
|
|
|
Post by Margot on Jun 2, 2009 17:37:41 GMT -8
Hi Margot, Could you expand on this a little more. I'm not quite sure what you mean, though I may have an idea. Robin Hi Robin, I was referring to Gen 16:12 where the Lord talks about Ishmael saying: "And he will be a wild donkey of a man, His hand will be against everyone, and everyone's hand will be against him; And he will live to the east of all his brothers." And later, in Gen. 25:18, (oops! we haven't really gotten there yet, have we?) In talking about Ishmael's descendants, it says: "And they settled from Havilah to Shur which is east of Egypt as one goes toward Assyria; he settled in defiance of all his relatives."He doesn't sound like the friendliest guy around. Like you said, Robin, I have also been told that Ishmael is thought to be the father of the Muslim nation. BTW, do either of you know the source for that idea? Is it what is explained in the geneology in Chp. 25? |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 2, 2009 19:15:25 GMT -8
Well, OK, maybe between bad and wild   |
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jun 3, 2009 2:51:41 GMT -8
romans says that 'not all children of avraham are Yisrael, just as not all Yisrael is Yisrael'... meaning, the arabs born of Yishmael are not jews. the only children of avraham that qualified through the promise is the children of promise, of which only Yitzeck was part of. therefore, since Yah was speaking through the cov't, Yitzeck WAS avrahams only son.
shalom- john
|
|
