For fun, let's assume you have it all correct. Then, per Gen. 12:7, my previous argument stands.
All I'm claiming to have correct at this point is that Gen 12:1-3 is a conditional promise--conditioned on Abram's response to God's calling him out of Haran to some unnamed place.
Let me ask before I stick my foot in my mouth (as I've done plenty of times before), what argument are you saying is assured based on that conditional promise?
To go onward and then say that this promise is not going to be fulfilled if and until until God "knows" (Gen. 22:12) something about Abraham that He did not already know (Abraham will be obedient) is looking at matters incorrectly.
What promise? Are you talking about Gen 12:7? Why? Why does God giving the land of Canaan to Abraham's seed have to depend somehow on whether or not Abraham obeys God at this point? Is God not able to give the land to Abraham's seed JUST BECAUSE HE DEPARTED FROM HARAN AND JOURNEYED TO CANAAN? The condition had already been met, and the promise had BECOME unconditional (no more conditions needed to be met). Thus, the covenant of Gen 15.
What about the covenant of Gen 17? That one is conditional again, so it can't be the same as the one in 12:1-3. This one is where the covenant is passed from Abram to Abraham's descendants, conditional on circumcision. And God's part is that He will be the God of Abraham's descendents--specifically through Isaac:
But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year. [Gen 17:21 KJV] (God named Isaac, claiming him for His own, here.)
For that matter, Abraham had no doubt what was going to happen, per Gen. 22:7-8. The plain reading of the Isaac account in question is often assumed to mean that God meant for Abraham to actually kill Isaac. No. The passage "and offer him there for a burnt offering" at Gen. 22:2 only states to place Isaac upon the altar, to offer Isaac up. The faith of Abraham was never in question by Abraham, certainly not God.
If Abraham's faith was not in question even by Abraham, and "certainly not God", what was the purpose of this "temptation"? For those that think God already knew the results ahead of time, they say it was for Abe's benefit. Tambora says it was for God's. I suppose the remaining party was Isaac, which is a decent possibility. But then the text would have to say, "Now Isaac knows what kind of God I am--Jehovah-the-provider. I will provide for him." But it doesn't say that.
The best we know for why God "tempted" Abraham was what was revealed to us in the passage--for
God to know. The text doesn't provide any other reason, and it is a preconception that would make anyone think it did. (Mind you, that doesn't mean God doesn't orchestrate plenty of other things with this scenario. Abraham's faith was no doubt strengthened. Isaac's, too. And I've heard some say God used this to get people to stop doing human sacrifices. All that may be true, but not given as reasons in the passage. And see note about Keturah in next paragraph.)
And why did God reward Abraham (did He?) for passing the test, if there was nothing really at stake in it? God rewarded Abraham by increasing the promise. "Blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thy seed. (want to know how He did this? [Personal speculation warning!!] He caused Sara to become disenchanted with Abraham, probably because he took Isaac to sacrifice him, and she died soon afterward, apart from him--then Abraham was free to marry Keturah and have more children, from which nations were birthed.)
And Gen 22:18 is the first time God says He will bless the world through Abraham's SEED instead of through Abraham, as in Gen 12:3. Who knows what might have happened if Abraham had withheld Isaac at this point. God wasn't restricted to using Isaac as the line of Christ until this point, was He?
And, no, I don't think the expected result is that Isaac ends up dead. Nothing in the passage indicates that, and the other option--that Abraham does not display such trust in God's providence--leaves Abraham and Isaac back at home, with God having more work to do to get Abraham where He wants him to be.
Read Genesis 22:12 thusly:
Now I, God the Father, have what I designed and desired; now I have made you, Abraham, and others to know—now I know—just as the Spirit of God and of Christ is said to cry Abba, Father in Galatians 4:6, when the Spirit of God makes us to cry so, Romans 8:15.
Why do I want to read it that way? Is it more correct, or just fits your point better?
I think there's a significant danger in assuming all the covenants are one.
While on the topic, here is a nice resource folks should add to their electronic libraries;
http://ge.tt/9ibtzhn2 (
Summary of Christian Doctrine, Berkhof). Click the Download link to the right of the page.
AMR
Always good to have good resources. Thanks!
