2 Chronicles 28:3 vs Genesis 22:2

score:3

Accepted answer

The problem here is that chronology matters.

In Abraham's time, child sacrifice was common. Reprehensible, but common. As God had never delivered the terms of the covenant to Abraham, he would not have been bound by them. For lack of a better way of explaining it, Abraham shouldn't have known any better - why wouldn't sacrificing your child be okay? Abraham knew one thing, and one thing only - God was in charge. Whatever God said, you do. As such, it would have been, in Abraham's mind, completely legitimate for God to ask Abraham to do this. (And, obviously, God made his intention and position known to Abraham through this incident, but I understand your desire to keep to the facts before this happened.)

By the time of Chronicles, however, the covenant had been given, and God's position on Molech (the local rival god who demanded such sacrifices) was well known. For Abraham, just getting to know this Yahweh God, it is understandable that he would have been unaware. For, say, Manesseh to "burn his son in the fire" was an overt, intentional act favoring Molech over Yahweh.

Intentions - especially those guided by chronology - matter here. Abraham was being obedient, Manesseh was being defiant. There was a world of difference to the practicers that exactly explains the "contradiction."

Upvote:0

The incident with Abraham and Isaac is often misunderstood. It needs to be pointed out that this was a specific incident for which God had a specific purpose and not a general precedent.

As well as testing (proving) Abraham's faith (to Abraham, not to God), at least a part of that purpose was to present the nation of Israel a picture of the Messiah, Jesus, the one who would be sacrificed by his father. And the picture extends further with God himself providing the sacrificial lamb in the end.

Abraham was able to go commit to the act only because in his great faith he recognized that Isaac was the promised seed of a great nation and that God would raise him from the dead to keep his word. So in Abraham's mind by sacrificing Isaac to God, God would supernaturally return Isaac to him.

17 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, 18 of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 19 He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.

Heb 11:17-19

Thus there is no contradiction; the time, purpose and circumstances were completely different.

Upvote:3

There's no contradiction.

Keep in mind that, while God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, he had absolutely no intention of letting him go through with it. He did it in order to show that he would provide a (quite literal) scapegoat. He would provide a replacement for Isaac on the altar. This was meant as something to predict what Christ would do on the cross for us. And, he did it in a world that existed before the Mosaic law. Again, he gave Abraham a command that didn't contradict any of his previous commands, and expected him to follow through with it, though God had other plans.

In 2 Chronicles 28:3, the practices were detestable, because by that time, God had given the Israelites the Mosaic law, and his prescription regarding how they were to worship Him. By sacrificing children, they were going outside the Mosaic law, which was given after Abraham.

It's pretty much the same answer as this question.

More post

Search Posts

Related post