.jpg)
In our ladies Bible study tonight we came upon this verse:
Genesis 22:12
And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only [son] from me.
The ladies wanted to know why God said, "... thine only son from me." when he was NOT Abraham's only son.
Any ideas?
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Question for Biblical Scholars
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Dh and I discussed this a bit and we think it's because Isaac was Abraham and Sarah's only son, Isaac was also the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham, Ishmael was Hagar's son and the result of Sarah taking God's promise of a child into her own hands.
I am by no means a scholar Julie, but I asked Paul and he said that because Isaac was the only "legitimate" son of Abraham that God used the words "only son". Also in Gen 21:11-13 God tells Abraham that it is through Isaac that his offspring will be reckoned and that he will make the son of Hagar into a nation also.
Boy are we ever fighting that war!! =)
In chapter 21 Ishmael was sent away.
Isaac was the promised son.
Here is what I found in "Matthew Henry Complete Commentary"
1. The person to be offered. (1.) "Take thy son, not thy bullocks and thy lambs;" how willingly would Abraham have parted with them by thousands to redeem Isaac! "No, I will take no bullock out of thy house, Psalms 50:9. I must have thy son: not thy servant, no, not the steward of thy house, that shall not serve the turn; I must have thy son." Jephthah, in pursuance of a vow, offered a daughter; but Abraham must offer his son, in whom the family was to be built up. "Lord, let it be an adopted son;" "No, (2.) Thy only son; thy only son by Sarah." Ishmael was lately cast out, to the grief of Abraham; and now Isaac only was left, and must he go too? Yes, (3.) "Take Isaac, him, by name, thy laughter, that son indeed," Genesis 17:19. Not "Send for Ishmael back, and offer him;" no, it must be Isaac. "But, Lord, I love Isaac, he is to me as my own soul. Ishmael is not, and wilt thou take Isaac also? All this is against me:" Yea, (4.) That son whom thou lovest. It was a trial of Abraham's love to God, and therefore it must be in a beloved son, and that string must be touched most upon: in the Hebrew it is expressed more emphatically, and, I think, might very well be read thus: Take now that son of thine, that only one of thine, whom thou lovest, that Isaac. God's command must overrule all these considerations.
Hope that helps.
Mark
I did a Bible study on Genesis a couple of years ago and have to agree with their conclusion. Isaac was the only son of promise. Ishmael was Abraham's son but he was the result of Abraham and Sarah running ahead of God.
Post a Comment