Isaac And The Similitude Of Christ

[Guest Stray Pooch]

I teach Gospel Essentials in my ward and the lesson today was on sacrifice. One point made in the lesson is Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac, which, of course, was a similitude of the sacrifice of Christ. I was reading the scripture aloud (Gen 22:1-14) when I had to stop at verse 6. It states there that Abraham, who was leaving his servants to go into the mountains to sacrifice Isaac, "took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son . . ."

It immediately came to me that this was just one more parallel to Christ. Isaac had to carry the wood for his sacrifice, in much the same way that Christ had to carry his cross. Indeed, the verse is footnoted (as I just found out when I went to quote it) with a reference to John 19:17 where Christ takes his cross up.

I've read that story a thousand times and I never noticed that brief reference until I read it out loud to the class. I love this calling.

[Maureen]

I've always found the concept of foreshadowing intriguing. One of the first examples is after the fall, Adam and Eve dressed themselves in fig leaves but God gave them a covering of animal skin. The first example of sacrifice, the killing of an animal for the benefit of mankind.

M.

[Guest curvette]

I love Genesis because the characters are all so human, and it shows them warts and all. I read quite a bit of it as figurative parables and not literal historical fact. The story of Isaac has always intrigued me. I can see a clear parallel between part of the story and the later Messiah. For those who read the story literally though, something is confusing to me. The Bible makes it very clear that Isaac was Abraham's second son. He was the covenant son and so Ishmael was disinherited. The story goes on to have Abraham on the verge of sacrificing Isaac (his favorite, but not only son.) What is the purpose of Ishmael in this story? Abraham and Isaac represent God the Father and Jesus Christ, but what about Ishmael? What does he represent? Was there a disinherited son who came before Jesus or was Ishmael just an unfortunate mistake? Jesus is always represented as God's first, even only begotten. Any thoughts?

[Amillia]

I don't see it as figuretive but playing along, I would say that Ishmael is opposition. Something like Satan?

[Guest GOD'S ARMY]

Originally posted by Amillia@Aug 26 2004, 09:13 PM

I don't see it as figuretive but playing along, I would say that Ishmael is opposition. Something like Satan?

At the risk of getting involved in the conversation that was my first thought also.

[Faerie]

not that I have anything to add to this convo, but I wanted to point out that we're naming our son Isaac :)

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by GOD'S ARMY+Aug 26 2004, 09:23 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (GOD'S ARMY @ Aug 26 2004, 09:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Aug 26 2004, 09:13 PM

I don't see it as figuretive but playing along, I would say that Ishmael is opposition. Something like Satan?

At the risk of getting involved in the conversation that was my first thought also.

I thought about that too. But I believe that our church teaches that Jesus was the firstborn in spirit as well as the only one in the flesh. Ishmael was born several years before Isaac. Ishmael is also never conveyed as being evil. Anyway, if the Abraham/Isaac story foreshadows the Heavenly Father/Christ story (which it definitely seems to), I wonder why Isaac wasn't the firstborn.

[Maureen]

My thoughts regarding Isaac and Ishmael are, Isaac was God's promise to Abraham where Ishmael came about over the frustration and impatience of Sarah and Abraham. Abraham tried to convince God that Ishmael could be the beginning of his many nations, but God had already chosen Isaac. God saw Isaac as Abraham's first (heir), Ishmael wasn't even considered a spare in God's eyes.

M.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Maureen@Aug 27 2004, 09:03 AM

Ishmael wasn't even considered a spare in God's eyes.

M.

Poor kid. Oh well, who needs Dad's money when he was perfectly capable of becoming rich on his own! It does sound like he didn't suffer financially and provided well for his posterity. I still can't help but feel sorry for a young child who was sent away like that...

[Nina]

"not that I have anything to add to this convo, but I wanted to point out that we're naming our son Isaac"

I have an Isaac ... GREAT name !!!

[Matt]

Wood from the burnt offering sounds like using ash to make a mark on the forehead. Something like that.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by curvette+Aug 27 2004, 09:44 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Aug 27 2004, 09:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -GOD'S ARMY@Aug 26 2004, 09:23 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Aug 26 2004, 09:13 PM

I don't see it as figuretive but playing along, I would say that Ishmael is opposition. Something like Satan?

At the risk of getting involved in the conversation that was my first thought also.

I thought about that too. But I believe that our church teaches that Jesus was the firstborn in spirit as well as the only one in the flesh. Ishmael was born several years before Isaac. Ishmael is also never conveyed as being evil. Anyway, if the Abraham/Isaac story foreshadows the Heavenly Father/Christ story (which it definitely seems to), I wonder why Isaac wasn't the firstborn.

When looking at symbolic messages, can you really be so demanding of exactness in all details? When Moses held up the rod with the serpent, representing Christ, how would you reconcile the Lord being represented by a serpent? Wasn't Satan the serpent in Genesis?

Do we believe that a child of the unchosen would be given the first born title? Hardly. If Mary, being chosen as the mother of Christ, was important, so was Sariah being chosen to be the mother of Abrams promised first born.

[Setheus]

Originally posted by curvette+Aug 27 2004, 08:44 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Aug 27 2004, 08:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -GOD'S ARMY@Aug 26 2004, 09:23 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Aug 26 2004, 09:13 PM

I don't see it as figuretive but playing along, I would say that Ishmael is opposition. Something like Satan?

At the risk of getting involved in the conversation that was my first thought also.

I thought about that too. But I believe that our church teaches that Jesus was the firstborn in spirit as well as the only one in the flesh. Ishmael was born several years before Isaac. Ishmael is also never conveyed as being evil. Anyway, if the Abraham/Isaac story foreshadows the Heavenly Father/Christ story (which it definitely seems to), I wonder why Isaac wasn't the firstborn.

perhaps Ismael represents all of us (other children of the "father") and that we were around long before the comming of the messiah? Mabey it means that after all this time Jesus was STILL the only one who could attone us. ???? I don't know I just caught that ball from left field.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Amillia@Sep 3 2004, 09:04 PM

When looking at symbolic messages, can you really be so demanding of exactness in all details?

Sure I can. This is America; I can demand anything I want!

[Traveler]

I had a little time this labor day weekend so I thought I would add to the subject of Isaac as a type and shadow for Jesus. If there are questions concerning my comments to be directed to me, I suggest you e-mail me or I might not see it. In regards to Isaac as a type for understanding Christ. There are many notions posted with which I agree but there are a couple of missing points that I think are important. The view of history in scripture has a definite and deliberate spiritual slant. The scriptures do not just describe an event in history but also draw a spiritual line to link us with our ancient past and even beyond our ancient history to link us to events that occurred in heaven before man was found on earth. Read with me Ecclesiastes 1:9-11

9 ¶ The thing that hath been, it [is that] which shall be; and that which is done [is] that which shall be done: and [there is] no new [thing] under the sun.

10 Is there [any] thing whereof it may be said, See, this [is] new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

11 [There is] no remembrance of former [things]; neither shall there be [any] remembrance of [things] that are to come with [those] that shall come after.

Note the connection of things to things that have been to things that will be. Why is there such a reference of the eras of man to something that has been before? There is another important notion to this concept of repeating shadows in scripture. Consider Genesis chapter 41:

25 And Joseph said unto Pharaoh, The dream of Pharaoh [is] one: God hath shewed Pharaoh what he [is] about to do.

Now skip to:

32 And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice; [it is] because the thing [is] established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass.

In the economy of revelation G-d intends to manifest his secrets many times (thus the importance of the reinforcements coming from the testament of the Book of Mormon). In fact all scripture is a repetition of very few concepts or doctrines. Often when new revelation is given it may at first blush seem to be different but in the spiritual scheme of things, it is at the foundation the same spiritual information as something previously given.

Now consider Isaiah 46:

9 Remember the former things of old: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else; [i am] God, and [there is] none like me,

10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

All thing from the beginning to the end are declared by types and shadows in scripture. Finely see Matthew 6:10 “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as [it is] in heaven.”

Note that the things done on earth have been preceded and linked to what has been before in heaven. I hope that it can be seen that not only is there a shadow of things from or human past but that things that occur on earth are a shadow of what has been in heaven and that the events on earth are shadowed (preceded) by events that took place in heaven.

The question asked is: if Isaac is a type of Christ, what then is the Ishmael type. Note that the type given has to do with two brothers in conflict over the “birth right” or heir of the covenant. This scenario of two brother in conflict is repeated many time in the scripture giving importance to its spiritual significance. Consider Cain and Able, Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, Joseph and Rubin, Ephraim and Manasseh, Nephi and Laman - the list can be continued. It is interesting to me that in all such cases the “birth right” or heir of the covenant was the younger brother.

I would point out something now. Anciently the term “first born” did not mean the oldest. Although the first borne could be the oldest, the intended meaning was the most noble or highest born. Think of first class on an airplane. It means the best. First born literal meaning is the best born. When the first born of the Egyptians was taken by the angel of death in the days of Moses it meant that all fit for rule in Egypt of that empire were taken - ending the rule of that class that controlled Egypt.

In Isaiah 14:12, Lucifer(or Satan) is called “son of the morning”. Anciently this meant that Lucifer was one of the oldest of the spirit children of the Father. In light of the shadows of contending brothers for the covenant throughout the scriptures, it would appear that Lucifer could have been the oldest. But the most important thing to note is that Jesus is the “first born” or the noble son of the Father.

The scriptures tell us of something extremely important of something in heaven dealing directly with man’s salvation and the judgments and covenants of G-d. Exodus 25 is explaining how the Arc of the covenant at the temple (tabernacle) of Israel is connected directly to G-d and his covenants with man. So we read:

20 And the cherubims shall stretch forth [their] wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces [shall look] one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be.

The phrase “and their faces [shall look] one to another” in the ancient Hebrew if literally translated to English would say “and the two brothers shall face each other”. These two brothers that are given as a type and shadow in heaven will have a correspondence with brothers depicted in scripture on earth. Thus the types of brothers in conflict. The most common theme of brothers in scripture are brothers in dispute of the “birth right” or heir of the covenant. I believe the scripture intend to depict the conflict of brothers as the conflict between Jesus and Lucifer as the rightful Messianic or “Anointed” heirs of Heaven. I believe understanding this conflict between Jesus and Lucifer is basic and necessary to all true Christians that seek redemption It is a core doctrine that must be correctly understood in order that there be faith unto salvation in the redeemer - mediator of G-d the Father that is our advocate - Jesus Christ. Who is opposed in all things by the one that accuses - Lucifer or Satan.

I am sorry I do not have time to develop this notion of Jesus and Lucifer contending as “Anointed” heirs of the kingdom of heaven - but then I have posted of this subject before, along with the many supporting scriptures. I would also point out that this doctrine of opposing brothers has never been countered with any response supported by scripture that gives any other possibility to the “anointed” heirs of heaven (brothers contending for the birth right) as being anyone other than Jesus (our Advocate) and Lucifer (our Accuser). At least no one has provided to me any scriptural alternative to this most important notion of true Christianity. If anyone has any scripture to identify anyone else as the rightful holder of contending titles - please e-mail me. Other wise I may not see your message.

Good luck to all in your quest for truth.

The Traveler