Genesis 22 is the Biblical account of Abraham being tested in sacrificing his son. It begins:
After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” 2 He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.”
Some Christians this account is a prophecy or foreshadowing of Jesus being crucified. A few points in refutation
1. The Old Testament teaches nobody can die for somebody else’s sins and innocent person cannot die for the sins of the wicked. Ezekiel 18:13 and 18:20-23
2. Human sacrifice is not biblical. “It (human sacrifice) is forbidden and an odious abomination” – rabbi Tovia Singer.
3. If early Christians believed Genesis 22 was a foreshadowing of Jesus’ crucifixion why did Paul not mention this? This notion did not occur to any writer in the Bible. This notion is a fabrication which comes from the author of a forgery called the Epistle of Barnabas (non canonical book). This book almost made it into the canon. It was also advanced by a Catholic church father, Justin, in the 2nd century. The key point is why is this idea not in the NT? Why didn’t one of the authors not put this into the Bible? Aren’t these protestants who believe in sola scriptura? There seems to be an evolution of thought as time progressed.
4. In Genesis 22 it mentions, in the opening, that God tested Abraham. It announces clearly what this chapter is about, testing Abraham’s faith.
5. Michael Skobac mentions the way Christians view these passages is an approach which works backwards. Nobody reading Gen 22 prior to Christianity would have thought this was a prophecy about the Messiah.
6. It can’t be speaking about Jesus, it’s clear from the passage that this offering is meant to be a burnt offering. Obviously Christians don’t believe Jesus was burnt.
7. There’s no indication that this offering in Gen 22 was for sin.
8. When John (in his Gospel) announces Jesus as the Passover lamb it’s peculiar as this lamb was never brought for atonement of sin in Jewish practice. It was brought for commemoration of an event in Jewish history. The most appropriate analogue would have been the Yom Kipur scapegoat as this was the only animal which bore the sins of all the people (the others were limited) but this scapegoat is not said to be killed in the Bible (it’s sent off into the wilderness).
9. In verse 13 of Gen 22, this story is fulfilled. Abraham sacrifices the lamb. 13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him was a ram, caught in a thicket by his horns. And Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son.
Categories: Islam, Speakers Corner
Blogging Theology 
Hey now, it’s not about human sacrifice. It’s about Divine Self-sacrifice…
😂😂😂
LikeLike
Then their theologians like RC Sproul say it was only the human nature that died
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, as if less abominable isn’t still an… ABOMINATION 😨
LikeLiked by 1 person
> 1. The Old Testament teaches nobody can die for somebody else’s sins and innocent person cannot die for the sins of the wicked. Ezekiel 18:13 and 18:20-23
Ezekiel is not denying the sacrifice of atonement for sin in fact he teaches it 40:39, 42:13, 44:29, 45:17, 25, 16:63. 18:20-21 calls upon the Israelites to individually repent. Please read the whole book because Ezekiel 18 is not a chapter from the Qur’an.
> 2. Human sacrifice is not biblical. “It (human sacrifice) is forbidden and an odious abomination”
God commanded Abraham to do it. God does not test us by asking us to sin but by asking us to do what is right when we want to sin.
> 3. If early Christians believed Genesis 22 was a foreshadowing of Jesus’ crucifixion why did Paul not mention this?
This is a straw man argument. They do not have to exegete the Old Testament.
> 4. In Genesis 22 it mentions, in the opening, that God tested Abraham. It announces clearly what this chapter is about, testing Abraham’s faith.
I agree.
> 5. Michael Skobac mentions the way Christians view these passages is an approach which works backwards. Nobody reading Gen 22 prior to Christianity would have thought this was a prophecy about the Messiah.
I agree but the event does establish the principles and categories for the Messiah.
> 6. It can’t be speaking about Jesus, it’s clear from the passage that this offering is meant to be a burnt offering. Obviously Christians don’t believe Jesus was burnt.
Strawman, it is the concept of a substitutionary sacrifice. Jesus is not a ram either.
> 7. There’s no indication that this offering in Gen 22 was for sin.
I agree. The ram is a substitionary sacrifice.
> 8. When John (in his Gospel) announces Jesus as the Passover lamb it’s peculiar as this lamb was never brought for atonement of sin in Jewish practice. It was brought for commemoration of an event in Jewish history. The most appropriate analogue would have been the Yom Kipur scapegoat as this was the only animal which bore the sins of all the people (the others were limited) but this scapegoat is not said to be killed in the Bible (it’s sent off into the wilderness).
The passover was for salvation from the wrath of God coming in the Egyptians. Jesus fulfils and is understood by all the concepts of sacrifice. The Day of Atonement is discussed in the Hebrews. There were two goats not one. One is sacrificed for sin, the other carries the sins away.
> 9. In verse 13 of Gen 22, this story is fulfilled. Abraham sacrifices the lamb. 13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him was a ram, caught in a thicket by his horns. And Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son.
Agreed but what happened to Abraham is sigificant for us. This is how God teaches us. You even believe this.
LikeLike
“God commanded Abraham to do it.”
This is a big lie!
In which sense God commanded Abraham?
No idea why christians keep referring to the story of Abraham and his son. For God sake, that story has nothing to do with God being a creature to die for your sins. You’ve damaged the lesson and the beauty of that sory by your pauline pagan belief!
The question for christianis is; if Issac could be saved by a ram, why cannot the rest of people be saved by rams? Hmmm?!
Are christians trying to tell us that God gave up all his glory to die for their sins while just a ram can be used for the same purpose?
Alhamdulillah for Islam.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“God commanded Abraham to do it. God does not test us by asking us to sin but by asking us to do what is right when we want to sin.”
but then he tells his kid that god will provide the animal, he does not tell his kid that god will provide god as a human male. did he lie to his kid? why is he confident “god will provide” if he knew god really wanted the slaughtering of his son? either abraham lied to his kid or he understood that god really will provide an animal
and he knew full well that god would no go ahead with the sacrifice of human even when he is attempting to slice his son.
LikeLike
Samuel, I’ve been through your points and responded accordingly. Please have a look and get back to me if you disagree with any of my points. Note, I’ve removed point three as I hope to do a separate blog in response
> 1. The Old Testament teaches nobody can die for somebody else’s sins and innocent person cannot die for the sins of the wicked. Ezekiel 18:13 and 18:20-23
Samuel: Ezekiel is not denying the sacrifice of atonement for sin in fact he teaches it 40:39, 42:13, 44:29, 45:17, 25, 16:63. 18:20-21 calls upon the Israelites to individually repent. Please read the whole book because Ezekiel 18 is not a chapter from the Qur’an.
Me; You’ve misunderstood the point here Samuel. The rabbi is talking about humans dying for people’s sins. Where does it teach this? And as for your quip about reading the Quran, it’s the rabbi who is making these points. The rabbis book is the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), he’s reading his own book.
> 2. Human sacrifice is not biblical. “It (human sacrifice) is forbidden and an odious abomination” – Tovia Singer
Samuel: God commanded Abraham to do it. God does not test us by asking us to sin but by asking us to do what is right when we want to sin.
Me: This is a non-sequitar. The argument is that human sacrifice is considered odious in the Bible. Did Abraham carry out a human sacrifice? No. Why not? Because God prevented him from doing so. Using your logic, one would think killing male children is not against the Bible because God ordered it in 1 Samuel 15:3.
> 4. In Genesis 22 it mentions, in the opening, that God tested Abraham. It announces clearly what this chapter is about, testing Abraham’s faith.
Samuel: I agree.
Me: Again, you’re overlooking the point the rabbi is making, he’s saying it does not mention anything about it being a Messianic prophecy.
> 5. Michael Skobac mentions the way Christians view these passages is an approach which works backwards. Nobody reading Gen 22 prior to Christianity would have thought this was a prophecy about the Messiah.
Samuel: I agree but the event does establish the principles and categories for the Messiah.
Me: I’m glad you agree but how do you conclude it establishes “principles and categories for the Messiah”. You’re sola sciptura as a Protestant thus the question here is where in Scripture does it tell you this, have you got a chapter and verse reference?
> 6. It can’t be speaking about Jesus, it’s clear from the passage that this offering is meant to be a burnt offering. Obviously Christians don’t believe Jesus was burnt.
Samuel: Strawman, it is the concept of a substitutionary sacrifice. Jesus is not a ram either.
Me: It’s not the concept of human sacrifice and nor was there any burning in the church Crucifixion narrative so can you say it’s analogous with Genesis 22? That’s the point the rabbi is making. You seem to be skirting away from their points…
> 7. There’s no indication that this offering in Gen 22 was for sin.
Samuel: I agree. The ram is a substitionary sacrifice.
Me: Again, missing the point here Samuel. The rabbi’s argument here is the text does not indicate Gen 22 was a reference to a sin offering thus how can it be analogous with the Church Crucifixion and Atonement narrative? If it’s a foreshadowing of the Church blood atonement belief why is there no mention of sin offering?
> 8. When John (in his Gospel) announces Jesus as the Passover lamb it’s peculiar as this lamb was never brought for atonement of sin in Jewish practice. It was brought for commemoration of an event in Jewish history. The most appropriate analogue would have been the Yom Kipur scapegoat as this was the only animal which bore the sins of all the people (the others were limited) but this scapegoat is not said to be killed in the Bible (it’s sent off into the wilderness).
Samuel: The passover was for salvation from the wrath of God coming in the Egyptians. Jesus fulfils and is understood by all the concepts of sacrifice. The Day of Atonement is discussed in the Hebrews. There were two goats not one. One is sacrificed for sin, the other carries the sins away.
Me: Again, you’re missing the point. If the most appropriate analogue is the scapegoat why does John view Jesus as the Passover lamb and why not a goat? In addition, if the goat is the most appropriate analogue for a sin offering of the whole community then why does the goat not die?
> 9. In verse 13 of Gen 22, this story is fulfilled. Abraham sacrifices the lamb. 13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him was a ram, caught in a thicket by his horns. And Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son.
Samuel: Agreed but what happened to Abraham is significant for us. This is how God teaches us. You even believe this.
Me: You believe in sola scriptura. Where are you getting this notion that this was a foreshadowing of the Church crucifixion and atonement narrative, have you got a chapter and verse to support your view? If not then how can you claim to be sola scriptura and hold on to this idea Gen 22 is a Messianic prophecy?
LikeLike
clearly Genesis 22 is all about the test of Faith and about our patriarch Abraham. Talking about Jesus and mentioning “I am” indicates people are confusing two totally different Biblical characters, one an eternal omniscient Spirit (the God above all gods) and the other a man of flesh and blood, the son of man who is also the son of God, Jesus Christ, who gave his life as a ransom for the sins of all.
LikeLike