Types of Christ

[jaydam]

I am continuing my studies on Christ and his atoning work, and am considering the near sacrifice of Isaac and the subsequent sacrifice of the ram.

Many sources credit this as one of the strongest examples of substitutionary atonement. Isaac is the deserving human sentenced to death, and the ram is Christ who takes the death. However, I fail to see it.

God seems to let Isaac off the hook, not in return for another sacrifice, but because of Abraham's fear of God.

The sacrifice of the ram is then not tied to needing a sacrifice to replace Isaac, but from subsequent gratitude to God for releasing Abraham from killing Isaac.

In other words, Isaac was let off the hook, not through the substitutionary atonement of a ram type of Christ, but by fear of God.

Once the substitutionary atonement perspective is removed from this story, it seems Isaac more fits a type of Christ than the ram.

This makes the story more cohesive as Isaac is the one carrying the wood for his death up a hill, as an only son, to be killed at his free submission to his father (Isaac likely being older enough to stop this), and a father who loves his son but is willing to let him die.

In the case of Abraham, God prevents what will come to fruition later in the death of an only son, willingly, on a hill, etc. This story does not seem to be about substitutionary atonement, but Abraham having the heart of God to give up his precious son. Abraham is then rewarded for having God's heart by not having to kill his son.

What I have found most interesting is the substitutionary atonement people track with Isaac being Christ right up until the end, and then switch types, making the ram the type of Christ. Evidently they see no problem with inconsistency in the objects of typology? Switching what objects represent as they need to, in order to make their points.

Thoughts? Input?

[dizerner]

I think what you're sensing is just how deep and multifaceted the atonement is. I think almost all views of the atonement contain some truth about it. Both Isaac and the ram are types of Christ, clearly. It is a fact that the ram was substituted for Isaac... it was even sacrificed on the same alter intended for Isaac, a clear picture of being crucified with Christ. "On the mountain of the Lord, it shall be provided." This seems to indicate that Abraham inherently needed some type of provision. To make the covenant, obedience and sacrifice were necessary. And the very thing God asked of Abraham, when Abraham went through with it in his heart, God himself provided for him.

God seems to let Isaac off the hook, not in return for another sacrifice, but because of Abraham's fear of God.

That's a great point. And Abraham's fear of God was directly tied to his obedience to God. I'm reminded of the passage in Hebrews, that says Christ was heard because of his Godly fear and became obedient unto death, wherefore God has highly exalted him.

This story does not seem to be about substitutionary atonement, but Abraham having the heart of God to give up his precious son.

Couldn't it be about both. We could even include the resurrection, since "He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back as a type."

Evidently they see no problem with inconsistency in the objects of typology? Switching what objects represent as they need to, in order to make their points.

Symbolism isn't always an exact parallel, nor is it always one-dimensional. If you really think about it, in a way, both Isaac and and the ram were sacrificed on that same altar. Even though Abraham didn't literally go through with it, he had just as much gone through with it in his heart (Mt. 5:28). And that's pretty cool when you think about the New Testament saying that God crucified our old selves there with Christ, so much so that we can literally say, "I have been crucified with Christ." Isaac for the rest of his life could have looked back at that time and said "I was sacrificed up there on that mountain, where God provided a ram; that was virtually me."

[jriccitelli]

I noticed you wrote ‘… Isaac is the deserving human’ but Isaac is never refereed to as a ‘deserving’ human (the sacrifices by definition were the opposite of deserving. All sacrifices for atonement are by definition innocent, as were the animals. Also the fact that Isaac was young, as in innocent). So although someone may have said that somewhere, it is not correct.

‘God seems to let Isaac off the hook, not in return for another sacrifice, but because of Abraham's fear of God…’

Abraham went along and obeyed God out of fear of God initially, and Abraham was very grateful for replacing and releasing Isaac, but God still demanded a sacrifice, Abraham was not off the hook. So Abraham still should, and now could, offer up a sacrifice, which God would provide. Prior to the Law there are no specifics about the sacrifice so we don’t know if this instance was similar to any of the burnt offering that were later represented in Leviticus (or even if it was a sin sacrifice) but the sacrifice of Christ represented not only the sacrifice the primary five of Leviticus, but also the thanksgiving, wave, peace and freewill offerings (even the red heifer).

Although the ram was substituted for Isaac, I believe the point here was that God provides, and God provides His own Son. I believe the Passover lamb of the Exodus was the premier type of substitute lamb.
I am glad you noted that Abraham went up because he feared God, many Christians miss that part.

[dizerner]

All sacrifices for atonement are by definition innocent... Although the ram was substituted for Isaac, I believe the point here was that God provides, and God provides His own Son.

Didn't God provide the ram in the place of something else? Did God provide his Son... in the place of something else? I don't think anyone anywhere thinks Isaac was sacrificed by Abraham because he was a sinner deserving of death, however it seems a remarkable picture of substitution.

[jriccitelli]

Diz, you did read the OP, I was giving someone a benefit of a doubt, someone did say above that Isaac was deserving death, I said this was wrong. I certainly hold to substitutionary atonement all I said was this is not the premier passage or type, since we do not know what sort of sacrifice Abe was offering. Yet it does portray the substitutionary sacrifice extraordinarly clear.

[dizerner]

True, it must seem like an overstatement to call it "one of the strongest examples of substitutionary atonement." I guess already the simple idea of sacrificing something to God, brings the idea of not only paying for sins, but that "this is what I'd deserve and get without this sacrifice."

[jaydam]

I don't have the time right now to completely cover all of your replies, but here are a few points:

In referring to Isaac by deserving, I mean that people see him at the end of the story as a type of all of us, deserving death, but the ram is Christ who dies in our place.

22:13 does say that the ram was offered in place of Isaac, but I am finding it difficult to see it as substitutionary atonement.

Isaac was not let off the altar on the condition of another sacrifice.

Abraham offering the ram "in place of his son" could simply mean Abraham came ready to make a burnt offering, and he did, just with a ram instead of his son.

The matter with Isaac seemed settled based upon Abraham's faith, not a replacement sacrifice. The ram sacrifice seems irrelevant in the process of getting Isaac off the altar.

[TheEditor]

Hi Jaydam,

I will have to agree with Dizerner's thoughts here about not getting too caught up in what each thing means, nor expecting the ant-type to fit perfectly in every respect. Some people have created elaborate belief sytems based upon Jesus' parables; wanting to make every part of it significant, rather than just taking away the moral lesson and reckognizing that some elements are merely flourish. The same can be said of "types".

There was nothing in this account that indicates what the purpose of the offering would be from Abraham's perspective; he was merely told to make a burnt offering--nothing more. Abraham was, according to God, "God-fearing in that you have not withheld your son, your only one, from me (Genesis 22:12) this was "your son, your only son whom you so love. (Genesis 22:2),

The test proved Abraham's faith, and typified the fact that God gave His only Son, the one whom he so loved as a ransom for us. That's the basic take-away as I see it. There needn't be any significance in the fact a ram was provided as if somehow the type changed or any such thing.

Regards, Brenden.

[robbyyoung]

I am continuing my studies on Christ and his atoning work, and am considering the near sacrifice of Isaac and the subsequent sacrifice of the ram.

Many sources credit this as one of the strongest examples of substitutionary atonement. Isaac is the deserving human sentenced to death, and the ram is Christ who takes the death. However, I fail to see it.

God seems to let Isaac off the hook, not in return for another sacrifice, but because of Abraham's fear of God.

The sacrifice of the ram is then not tied to needing a sacrifice to replace Isaac, but from subsequent gratitude to God for releasing Abraham from killing Isaac.

In other words, Isaac was let off the hook, not through the substitutionary atonement of a ram type of Christ, but by fear of God.

Once the substitutionary atonement perspective is removed from this story, it seems Isaac more fits a type of Christ than the ram.

This makes the story more cohesive as Isaac is the one carrying the wood for his death up a hill, as an only son, to be killed at his free submission to his father (Isaac likely being older enough to stop this), and a father who loves his son but is willing to let him die.

In the case of Abraham, God prevents what will come to fruition later in the death of an only son, willingly, on a hill, etc. This story does not seem to be about substitutionary atonement, but Abraham having the heart of God to give up his precious son. Abraham is then rewarded for having God's heart by not having to kill his son.

What I have found most interesting is the substitutionary atonement people track with Isaac being Christ right up until the end, and then switch types, making the ram the type of Christ. Evidently they see no problem with inconsistency in the objects of typology? Switching what objects represent as they need to, in order to make their points.

Thoughts? Input?

Hi Brother jaydam,

Any and all animal sacrifices foreshadows innocent blood, and that of Christ, to forgive sin once and for all. However, the Genesis account doesn't give us the full measure or meaning behind the faith of Abraham. It's because of the author of The Book of Hebrews we come to realize the extent of His faith and Isaac's typology of Christ in the account. Let's read Hebrews 11:17-19 (ESV):

"By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back."

As you can see, Isaac was a type of Christ also regarding The Resurrection. Abraham believed YAHWEH would simply resurrect Isaac back to life, after the sacrifice, in order to fulfill His promise of Abraham's offspring through Isaac. Here, the writer of Hebrews reveals that Isaac was figuratively raised from the dead completing the typology in Christ. Abraham's faith was so complete, he knew from YAHWEH's promise, concerning Isaac, whatever YAHWEH required from him, in this case the death of his son, YAHWEH would simply resurrect Isaac back to life to fulfill His promise. What an awesome testimony of faith in our Blessed Father.

God Bless!

[willowtree]

There is one interesting observation that I have made concerning Isaac, and that is that in every story told about him, he is never the hero and often the victim.

The wonder of his birth was eclipsed by the fulfillment of God's promise and the joy shared by Abraham and Sarah. It is interesting that the angels appearing to both Sarah and Mary make reference to nothing being impossible with God.

When he was older, but before he could bear a family, God asked Abraham to take Isaac and offer him up as a sacrifice. In the face of two conflicting messages from God, one about the promise of a nation of which Isaac would of a certainty be an essential link, and the other to kill him as a sacrifice, Abraham 'sets out early the next morning' in obedience to the latter. The rescue of Isaac at the last minute climaxes the story. Again Isaac is essential to the plot, but Abraham is credited with righteousness. (The same mountain that Jesus died on?)

When Isaac needs a wife, the prime actors in the story are the chief servant and Rebekah. Isaac again is sidelined.

The closing of Isaac's life finds him nearly blind and the subject of a deception played out by Jacob and Rebekah over the blessing of the birthright. It was a very sad and distressing day for Isaac.

I am not sure how all this plays out as a type of Christ. Isaac is central in every story, but nowhere does he dominate the action or make critical decisions. Each story tends to take place around him.

Graeme