Hebrews 11:17

By faith Abraham, being tried, offered up Isaac: yea, he that had gladly received the promises was offering up his only begotten son; even he of whom it was said, In Isaac shall thy seed be called: accounting that God is able to raise up, even from the dead; from whence he did also in a figure receive him back.

Without question, these verses refer to the most astounding demonstration of true faith in God to be found in the entire history of faith. Abraham's faith had already been cited by the author of Hebrews, but in these verses is an even more overwhelming example of it. Students of God's word in all ages have marveled at it; and, in the words of Albert Barnes, "It is the strongest illustration of faith, undoubtedly, which has ever been evinced in our world."[21]

Abraham, being tried is a reference to the remarkable test of his faith recorded in Genesis 22:1ff. It is said there that God did "tempt" Abraham, but the word "tried" is the true meaning. Although the word here rendered "tried" is translated "tempted" no less than 57 times in the New Testament, such a translation here would be erroneous; because as Barnes noted:

It does not mean here, as it often does, to place inducements before one to lead him to do wrong, but to subject his faith to a trial in order to test its genuineness.[22]

That God never tempts any man in the sense of an inducement to evil is certain: "For God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempteth no man" (James 1:13). The factors in this supreme test of faith included an APPARENT CONTRADICTION in the word of God himself who had promised Abraham that all of the wonderful promises of the covenant were to be realized through the posterity of Isaac, called here his "only begotten son" (which he was, as far as children by his legitimate wife were concerned); but who then was commanded to be offered up as a sacrifice to God. Any man of ordinary faith would have concluded that the two aspects of God's word were irreconcilable and would have rejected the command to offer up Isaac, such a command being contrary to every instinct of Abraham's heart and which seemed, on its face, to nullify the promise of an innumerable posterity through Isaac. The manner in which Abraham reconciled God's apparently contradictory messages constitutes the glory of his faith. See articles below on "Apparent Contradictions" and "Concerning Human Sacrifice."

Offered up Isaac. Isaac's faith is singled out for more particular attention in Hebrews 11:20; and yet there are a number of considerations which force it upon our attention here as a vital part of the trial of Abraham. When God commanded Abraham to offer up Isaac, he was a man of some 130 years of age, and Isaac was in the prime of life. Josephus declares him to have been 25,[23] and others have fixed his age at 36;[24] but the conclusion of Adam Clarke that he was 33[25] is in all probability correct, it being implicit in Isaac's status as a type of Christ that he should have been, when offered, of about the same age as our Lord when he was crucified. The common Sunday school card presentation of Isaac as a beautiful little boy when Abraham offered him is ridiculous. Being in the prime and vigor of life, the heir apparent of all that Abraham had, and possessing without doubt the loyalty of every servant Abraham owned, Isaac would most certainly have had the power to frustrate Abraham's purpose if he had chosen to do it. His consent was therefore just as vital a part of that great demonstration of faith as was Abraham's willingness to obey.

ISAAC; A TYPE OF CHRIST

The typical importance of Isaac is seen in the following: (1) He was supernaturally the son of Abraham; Christ's birth also was supernatural. (2) He was the "only begotten" of his father (in the sense noted above), and Christ was the only begotten Son of God (John 3:18). (3) Both Isaac and Jesus consented to be sacrificed. (4) Both of them bore the wood, Isaac the firewood, Jesus the cross. (5) Both were sacrificed by their fathers, Isaac by Abraham, and Jesus by the heavenly Father. (6) The sacrifice of each of them occurred upon the very same location, one of the mountains of Moriah.[26] (7) Both were in the prime vigor of life when offered, and very likely of the same age. (8) Isaac (in a figure) was dead three days and nights, this being the time lapse between God's command that he be offered and their arrival at Moriah, during which time, to all intents and purposes, Isaac was already dead; Christ also was dead and buried three days and nights. (9) Isaac was a model of love and affection for his wife, symbolizing the great love of Christ for the church. (The student desiring to pursue this thought further will find an astonishing number of typical things in Rebekah as a pre-figuration of the church. Isaac courted her through a messenger as Christ woos people through a messenger; for Rebekah there was a water test, as there is for the church in baptism; Rebekah wore a veil as she went to meet Isaac, as the church, too, sees through a veil darkly; Rebekah's endowment with many gifts benefited her whole house who likewise received gifts, just as the world receives many prime benefits through God's blessing on his church; and in a number of other instances, the analogies are too strong to be overlooked.) See Genesis 24.

God is able to raise up, even from the dead. Here is the secret that explains Abraham's willingness to offer up Isaac. The knowledge of this in his heart enabled Abraham to reconcile what otherwise was a contradiction. God had promised through Isaac an innumerable posterity; and yet at a time when Isaac had no child, or even a wife, God commanded him to be sacrificed. Is such a contradiction? Not to Abraham, who only concluded that God intended to raise him from the dead! Two things of great importance come to light here, and both shall be noticed more fully; these are the problems of apparent contradictions and the doctrine of the resurrection.

APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS?

Abraham had no doubt whatever that the One who had given the great promises to be fulfilled through Isaac was at the time of his trial requiring him to offer Isaac as a sacrifice. Since God's promise required the survival of Isaac in order to its fulfillment, and since Isaac was then to die, how could God's promise be true? Many writers have dwelt impressively upon the turmoil in Abraham's heart over such a dilemma; but the astonishing fact is that there seemed to be no such turmoil in Abraham. It simply was not there! As Bruce noted:

The impression that we get from the Biblical narrative is that Abraham treated it as God's problem; it was for God, not for Abraham, to reconcile his promise and his command. So when the command was given, Abraham promptly set about obeying it; his own duty was clear, and God could safely be trusted to discharge his responsibility in the matter.[27]

It was, to be sure, Abraham's faith in God's power of resurrection that enabled him to reconcile the promise and the command, this being evident from Genesis 22:5, where Abraham is said to have promised his servants that both he and Isaac would return, AFTER they worshipped God. (Note: the Hebrew in that verse should be rendered, "We will come again.") Below is a discussion of the resurrection; but of concern at the moment is the problem of seeming contradictions in God's word.

The requirements imposed by so tremendous a task as identifying the God-man, the Messiah, Christ, when he should come into the world, plainly demanded that seemingly contradictory things should be foretold concerning him. Thus, on the one hand, he was hailed as Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace, Lily of the Valley, Fairest of Ten Thousand, the Bright and Morning Star, and the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, etc.; while, at the same time, the Scriptures described him as despised and rejected by men, a root out of dry ground, with no beauty or comeliness that people should desire him, and as being chastised, pierced, encompassed by the wicked, and crucified. Certainly, such apparent contradictory prophecies were an enigma to the Pharisees; and it was evidently in reference to this that Jesus raised his famous question of how David's son could be David's Lord (Matthew 25:45,46). Significantly, had the Pharisees been true sons of Abraham, they would, like Abraham, have believed all that God said, even the seemingly contradictory things; and the very fact that the ancestor of all the Jews had given so astounding an example of doing that very thing makes the Pharisees all the more culpable in their guilt. No less than the ancient Pharisees, people today need Abrahamic faith with reference to all God has spoken, even regarding the things which appear contradictory.

Another example of this same problem, but with opposite results, is the case of Ahab, who was warned by the prophet of God that in the very place where the dogs had licked the blood of Naboth, they would lick his blood, even Ahab's (1 Kings 21:19). Later, another one of God's prophets told Ahab that if he went up to Ramoth-gilead, he would not return at all! Ahab surely must have considered these prophecies contradictory. He might easily have reasoned, "How is it that I shall shed my blood where Naboth died, if I am going to get killed at Ramoth-gilead?" At any rate, he embarked on the venture at Ramoth-gilead, where, of course, he was slain. And what about the dogs licking his blood in Samaria, where Naboth died? The king bled to death, the blood running down in the chariot; and they took him, chariot and all, down to Naboth's home in Samaria, where they buried him;

And one washed the chariot in the pool of Samaria (now the harlots washed themselves there); and the dogs licked up his blood; and they washed his armour; according to the word of the Lord which he spake (1 Kings 21:19; 1 Kings 22:37,38).

Let it be taken forever into account that God's word is never, in a true sense, contradictory, although instances of its seeming so are plentiful. In the matter of God's promise and command to Abraham, the contradiction was only an apparent one. The greatness of Abraham's faith is that regardless of how they seemed, he believed both; and the basis of Abraham's being able to do this was another thing God had revealed to him, the doctrine of the resurrection. Lenski said:

Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac has been used to illustrate the supposed fact that our faith must believe things that are contradictory to the word of God; for, does not God say two things to Abraham that are absolutely contradictory? This is shown to be an imperfect deduction, one that is made by faulty reasoning on our part. Abraham HARMONIZED the apparent contradiction and thus removed the contradiction; he did not do this by means of his own reason or on the basis of human ideas but by means of the doctrine of the resurrection and the infinite power of God. When we are told, then, not to combine one doctrine with another, not to let the light of one doctrine fall on another in aid of faith, but to accept each separately, the example of Abraham directly upsets such derogatory ideas about the teachings of God's word, NONE OF WHICH ARE CONTRADICTORY.[28]

THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION

Abraham believed that "God is able to raise up from the dead." The insinuation of some, therefore, that the doctrine of the resurrection arose long afterward among the Jews, probably introduced to them from Persia, is false. Faith in the resurrection antedates even the time of Job and his faith in it (Job 19:25-27), for Abraham was before Job, as also is Genesis. The certainty that Abraham did believe in the resurrection derives from the plain import of these words, and also from the deduction that unless he had so believed, it would have been impossible for him to have acted as he did in the offering of Isaac. Moreover, the whole concept of looking "for the city that hath the foundations," and counting himself a sojourner and pilgrim in the earth (Genesis 23:4), is absolutely incompatible with any lack of true faith in the resurrection of the dead.

True, it is properly said that our Lord brought "life and immortality to light through the gospel" (2 Timothy 1:10); but nevertheless, the Old Testament is not without its sure and certain witness of the resurrection. "For thou wilt not leave my soul in Sheol (that is, `the grave'); neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption" (Psalms 16:10). This is nothing if not a prophecy of resurrection. Also, Daniel said, "Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to everlasting shame and contempt" (Daniel 12:2).

Our Lord, to be sure, went far beyond all of the marvelous intimations of immortality, resurrection, and eternal life found in the Old Testament, and flatly declared that all the dead, good and bad, small and great, shall be raised from the graves to confront God in the judgment. The entire teaching of Christ is oriented to the doctrine of the resurrection. The author of Hebrews makes it one of the fundamentals of the faith (Hebrews 6:1ff); also see John 5:24-29; Matthew 25; and especially three instances in which Christ actually raised the dead. These were the raising of Jairus' daughter (Mark 5:35ff), the raising of the son of the widow of Nain (Luke 7:11ff), and the resurrection of Lazarus after he was dead four days (John 11:11ff). The entire fabric of the New Testament is woven upon the sturdy warp of the doctrine of the resurrection. See more on this under "Six Fundamentals" in Hebrews 6.

REGARDING HUMAN SACRIFICE

The moral problem imposed by the fact of God's commanding Abraham to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice is easily resolved in the light of a number of considerations. God never approved human sacrifice and summarily intervened and forbade Abraham to carry forward the execution of even God's order requiring it. Even the contemplation of so terrible a thing, and the near accomplishment of it, as enacted by Abraham under God's directive, we may be certain, was founded in the very greatest necessity on God's part to instruct more adequately the human family in regard to redemption, especially the means and cost of it. As Adam Clarke expressed it,

Abraham earnestly desired to be let into the mystery of redemption; and God, to instruct him in the infinite extent of divine goodness to mankind, who spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, let Abraham feel by experience what it was to lose a beloved son, the son born miraculously when Sarah was past child-bearing, as Jesus was miraculously born of a virgin.[29]

Surely, it must have been in that very experience that Abraham received a vision of the day of Christ, as John wrote: "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it and was glad" (John 8:56). God provided in Isaac a type of our Lord, as noted in the article above; and it was inherently required in such a thing that the type resemble as nearly as possible him who was the great Antitype, hence the necessity of Isaac's being offered. Macknight wrote in this connection, "The sacrifice of Isaac was commanded also for the purpose of being a type of Christ."[30]

Further, it was imperative that the family of mankind should understand with what propriety God had chosen Abraham to be the father of the faithful, in whom all subsequent generations of the saved should be reckoned as Abraham's seed; but, as almost everywhere throughout the ancient pagan world, human sacrifice was extensively practiced, with great kings sacrificing even their own sons (as Manasseh did), and since that abominable pagan practice was so influential in the ancient order (Jeremiah 32:25), and because in such sacrifices, as awful as they were, there was a germ of the sublime truth regarding the cost of salvation - for all these reasons, it was a matter of eternal consequence that the faith of Abraham be demonstrated as SUPERIOR to the faith of pagans IN EVERY PARTICULAR. Barmby wrote that the offering of human sacrifice was

due, we may say, to the perversion of a true instinct of humanity - that which suggests the need of some great atonement, and the claim of the Giver of all to our best and dearest, if demanded from us.[31]

Indeed, in another sense, human sacrifice is yet required of them that would truly serve God, not killing of victims, of course, but the relegation of every loved one to a secondary place in believing hearts, the first place being reserved to Christ alone. Did not Jesus say, "If any man cometh unto me, and hateth not his own father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26)?

As for the slander that God, in any sense, approved of human sacrifice, Jeremiah's words, alluded to above, are ample refutation. "And they built the high places of Baal which are in the valley of the sons of Hinnon, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin" (Jeremiah 32:35), these being, of course, the words of God himself.

Whence he did also in a figure receive him back ... is a reference to Abraham's faith in God's power to raise the dead; but some have erroneously thought this to be a reference to Isaac's supernatural birth and not to his being slain in the purpose of Abraham; but, as Boatman said it, "Some think this refers to Isaac's supernatural birth, but this is poor exegesis. Abraham received him back from the altar as one raised from the dead."[32] Lenski also observed the same thing, saying

It is stated that this is a reference to Hebrews 11:12, the miraculous birth of Isaac from parents who were as good as dead; but few will think such a thing in a connection that deals with something that is so entirely different.[33]

[21] Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1963), Vol. Hebrews, p. 272.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Josephus, Life and Works of, translated by William Whiston (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston), p. 49.

[24] Adam Clarke, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 138.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Ibid., p. 139.

[27] F. F. Bruce, op. cit., p. 311.

[28] R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epistle of James (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House, 1938), p. 402.

[29] Adam Clarke, op. cit., p. 136.

[30] James Macknight, op. cit., p. 563.

[31] J. Barmby, op. cit., p. 302.

[32] Don Earl Boatman, op. cit., p. 364.

[33] R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 403.