Why would Abraham ...

@philokalia said
(1) God did not allow Satan to appear as an angel, but he appeared as a snake.

(2) Abraham had faith that he would be prevented in the end, I believe, as he went through the entire process. It was a long, elaborate process, and not a short one, which I think was going to make evident what was happening.

It is also often stated that he believed that Isaac would be ra ...[text shortened]... tries to cover it from an emotional and "existential" perspective would be Soren Kierkegaard's bit.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

1) I doubt that the form an angel takes is relevant, whether as a snake or a human-like form, given that God can speak as a burning bush.

2) Seems the more cogent point. The relevant passage is this, after a three-day journey:

Gen 22 KJV:

6 And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together.

7 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?

8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

9 And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.

10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.

11 And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.

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.

13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.

…

16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:

17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;

18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.


So, yes, it is made clear that Abraham has faith that God will provide. How God will accomplish this is not so clear during the three-day journey to the mountains; so Abraham might have imagined all kinds of possible outcomes, e.g. that he would slay his son and that the God would raise him up again, e.g. Gen 21:12 where it is said that in Isaac, not any subsequent son, "shall thy seed be called."


Can you cite a reference to Kierkegaard's work? I have Kierkegaard on my shelf, he's on the 'read this someday' list but haven't gotten round to him yet.

@divegeester said
Can you post the texts you are referring to please.

See above reply to Philokalia.

@moonbus said
See above reply to Philokalia.

Thanks, yes I knew it was Gen 22 but I was after the previous command of god, I.e. the text you say it was contradicting please. Thanks .

@galveston75 said
A few more scriptures:

The archangel, Michael, is the chief angel in terms of power and authority. The Scriptures clearly indicate that Michael is another name for Jesus Christ.​—1 Thessalonians 4:16; Jude 9.

Seraphs rank very high among the angels in privileges and honor, and they are in attendance around God’s throne.​—Isaiah 6:1-3.

Cherubs too have high rank a ...[text shortened]... rs serve as the Most High’s agents and deputies in carrying out the divine will. *​—Hebrews 1:7, 14.

Thank you for your detailed replies.

Next question: does it not strike you that Paul should state (Gal. 1:8) that what he, Paul, preached in the church at Galatia should take precedence over what an angel might have preached? (Actually, in my KJV, Paul refers to himself in the plural as "we".) I interpret Galatians that Paul had founded a church there, that the parish had been 'tempted' by some false teachings, and that Paul addressed his letter to them to bring them back to righteousness. Is this just hyperbole? 'Stick to what I told you before, even if an angel should tell you otherwise."

@divegeester said
Thanks, yes I knew it was Gen 22 but I was after the previous command of god, I.e. the text you say it was contradicting please. Thanks .

Gen 21:12.

@moonbus said
Gen 21:12.

As I said can you post the texts you are referring to please? Preferably with the translation version for contextual reference.
I’m not trying to be pedantic Moonbus but you are making a claim that one thing x contradicts another thing y. It would be helpful in this type of assertion if the poster posted the specific text with version notation so that readers to examine it.

Your question as I understand it is:

“Would Abraham think that an angel had authority to contradict a prior command given directly by God?”

Thanks again .

@kellyjay said
Exodus 3:2
And the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush. He looked, and behold, the bush was burning, yet it was not consumed.

God uses angels to speak for Him throughout the OT and the NT. That is a good question I have to say, it is one I had not thought about. I would think, off the cuff that if God is speaking through the an ...[text shortened]... e different than an angel speaking relaying a message. So a distinction could be made by the hearer.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I am still puzzled why God is represented as speaking directly to Abraham in once instance ("Go kill your son" ) but indirectly, through an angel, later on when the command is rescinded. Whoever wrote that must have given some thought to these two modes of address between God and man, so I suppose it must have meant something at the time it was written. But I can't make out what.

@divegeester said
As I said can you post the texts you are referring to please? Preferably with the translation version for contextual reference.
I’m not trying to be pedantic Moonbus but you are making a claim that one thing x contradicts another thing y. It would be helpful in this type of assertion if the poster posted the specific text with version notation so that readers to examine ...[text shortened]... that an angel had authority to contradict a prior command given directly by God?”

Thanks again .

God says 'go kill your son' in direct speech to Abraham in Gen 22:2. Later, when Abraham has the knife in his hand and is about to strike, God speaks to Abraham indirectly, through an angel, and says, 'ok, you passed the test, don't kill him,' Gen 22:11.

The second command ('don't kill him' ) contradicts or countermands the first command ('go kill him' ). The question is, why is the first command given by God directly to Abraham, whereas the second one, which countermands the first one, is given through an angel? And why would Abraham have thought that an angel's mediated word carried enough authority to countermand the prior direct immediate command?

@moonbus said
God says 'go kill your son' in direct speech to Abraham in Gen 22:2. Later, when Abraham has the knife in his hand and is about to strike, God speaks to Abraham indirectly, through an angel, and says, 'ok, you passed the test, don't kill him,' Gen 22:11.

The second command ('don't kill him' ) contradicts or countermands the first command ('go kill him' ). The quest ...[text shortened]... an angel's mediated word carried enough authority to countermand the prior direct immediate command?

I don’t understand your question, “the angel of the Lord” is the manifestation of God himself, same as the burning bush and the fire on the mountain and any other manifestation which god directly reveals himself through.

@divegeester said
I don’t understand your question, “the angel of the Lord” is the manifestation of God himself, same as the burning bush and the fire on the mountain and any other manifestation which god directly reveals himself through.

No, it isn't a direct manifestation. Read the passages. When God directs Abraham to kill his son, there is no mention of "an angel of the Lord" but there is when the command is later countermanded.

EDIT: I'm going by what it actually says in the Bible. Sometimes "God said X" and sometimes "an angel of the Lord said X". Are these equivalent? Do they have the same authority? Do they carry the same weight? If so, then cite passages which establish this. But then, how can Paul say, in Galatians, 'believe what I, Paul told you, even if an angel tells you otherwise.' ?

@eladar said
I suppose the overall question of this thread is when do you listen to an angel and when do you not.

Accordingly to Galatians if the angel brings a message other than the gospel, ignore the angel. Jesus said something similar by saying judge fruits.

Of course yhis advice is meaninhless to moonbus and other spiritually blind people around here since they can not tell the difference between a message from God and a message from Satan.

@Eladar

Thanks for chiming in here. I call your attention to the passage below (KJV):


6 And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together.

7 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?

8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.


The son, clearly familiar with the practise of animal sacrifice, having watched his father do this many before, asks a direct question, "Daddy, where's the lamb?" ? Would you, had you been in Abraham's place, have answered the brutal truth, "You're it, son; God told me to kill you" ? Because, at that point in the ordeal, Abraham could not have known that an angel would appear at the critical moment and countermand the order to kill Isaac.

But no, rather than terrifying his son with the brutal truth as he then knew it, Abraham says something "enigmatic and gentle": "God will provide."

@kellyjay said
Exodus 3:2
And the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush. He looked, and behold, the bush was burning, yet it was not consumed.

God uses angels to speak for Him throughout the OT and the NT. That is a good question I have to say, it is one I had not thought about. I would think, off the cuff that if God is speaking through the an ...[text shortened]... e different than an angel speaking relaying a message. So a distinction could be made by the hearer.

I would think that an angel bearing a message from God has the full authority of God.

Fallen angels, though, are another matter. They react on their own because of sin.

@suzianne said
I would think that an angel bearing a message from God has the full authority of God.

Fallen angels, though, are another matter. They react on their own because of sin.

So, why would Abraham not have thought, 'hey, this may be a fallen angel, tempting me to disobey God's command? The last time someone disobeyed a direct order from God, because an angel said it would be ok, it got everybody into a hell of a lot of trouble.' ??

@moonbus said
So, why would Abraham not have thought, 'hey, this may be a fallen angel, tempting me to disobey God's command? The last time someone disobeyed a direct order from God, because an angel said it would be ok, it got everybody into a hell of a lot of trouble.' ??

Wouldn't a fallen angel rather be urging him to do it?

Especially given that Israel would descend from Isaac?

@moonbus said
God says 'go kill your son' in direct speech to Abraham in Gen 22:2. Later, when Abraham has the knife in his hand and is about to strike, God speaks to Abraham indirectly, through an angel, and says, 'ok, you passed the test, don't kill him,' Gen 22:11.

The second command ('don't kill him' ) contradicts or countermands the first command ('go kill him' ). The quest ...[text shortened]... an angel's mediated word carried enough authority to countermand the prior direct immediate command?

Let's examine the two passages.

Genesis 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, [here] I [am]."

And now

Genesis 22:11 "And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I."

I submit that it is God speaking to Abraham both times. The verses are structured similarly, with God saying "Abraham", and Abraham saying "Here I am", or "Here am I." In the KJV, especially, the "angel of the Lord" is considered a manifestation of God himself.