Tried even as Abraham?


laronius
 Share

Recommended Posts

This is a teaching from the D&C that I have heard varying explanations about what exactly it means. Some of those explanations could be summarized by saying "The Lord doesn't really mean to try us like he did Abraham" which contradicts what the Lord said. But I think there is a general doubt among many that the Lord could possibly expect every member of the Church to endure a testing similar in magnitude to having to kill your own child as a sacrifice to him and so we scramble to produce a reasonable explanation to what the Lord means. So I am curious to hear the thoughts of my noble fellow forum members on this doctrine.

For context this comes from D&C 101, a revelation concerning the Saints who have been driven out from their inheritance in Jackson County (Zion) which the Lord suffered to happen "in consequence of their transgressions." He promises that he will yet "own them" notwithstanding their failures to keep his law but follows it with:

4 Therefore, they must needs to chastened and tried, even as Abraham, who was commanded to offer up his only son. 5 For all those who will not endure chastening, but deny me, cannot be sanctified.

The Lord then outlines some of their transgressions and promises again that he will not "utterly cast them off" but "will remember mercy." 

A couple notes of interest, at least to me, are:

1. It's not just "tried, even as Abraham" its "chastened and tried, even as Abraham." This warning to the Saints is coming as a result of transgression. So what was Abraham being chastened for? And does that effect how we interpret the verse?

2. One of the footnotes references another verse where (and I don't know off hand the details) Joseph is told "A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering as your hand, be covenant and sacrifice." So again we have a situation where a commandment is given by the Lord which he seems to never intend to actually be carried out.

 

Edited by laronius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, laronius said:

This is a teaching from the D&C that I have heard varying explanations about what exactly it means. Some of those explanations could be summarized by saying "The Lord doesn't really mean to try us like he did Abraham" which contradicts what the Lord said. But I think there is a general doubt among many that the Lord could possibly expect every member of the Church to endure a testing similar in magnitude to having to kill your own child as a sacrifice to him and so we scramble to produce a reasonable explanation to what the Lord means. So I am curious to hear the thoughts of my noble fellow forum members on this doctrine.

For context this comes from D&C 101, a revelation concerning the Saints who have been driven out from their inheritance in Jackson County (Zion) which the Lord suffered to happen "in consequence of their transgressions." He promises that he will yet "own them" notwithstanding their failures to keep his law but follows it with:

4 Therefore, they must needs to chastened and tried, even as Abraham, who was commanded to offer up his only son. 5 For all those who will not endure chastening, but deny me, cannot be sanctified.

The Lord then outlines some of their transgressions and promises again that he will not "utterly cast them off" but "will remember mercy." 

A couple notes of interest, at least to me, are:

1. It's not just "tried, even as Abraham" its "chastened and tried, even as Abraham." This warning to the Saints is coming as a result of transgression. So what was Abraham being chastened for? And does that effect how we interpret the verse?

2. One of the footnotes references another verse where (and I don't know off hand the details) Joseph is told "A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering as your hand, be covenant and sacrifice." So again we have a situation where a commandment is given by the Lord which he seems to never intend to actually be carried out.

 

The principle is that we ought not put anything in our lives above or before the Lord. God must be the center of our lives. The trial itself is something we go through every day. Do we rush through an evening prayer so we can get to bed? Do we spend our time playing games only to rush through planning a lesson for our Sunday school class? Do we attend the temple once every year despite it being only a mile away?

The sacrificing of his son was commanded of Abraham only because of Abraham’s understanding and knowledge he had. Abraham had a clear and strong g knowledge of the Lord and seemed to communicate with him more openly than anyone. Telling Abraham to put prayer before sleep wasn’t going to be difficult for him. But when the Lord came to Abraham and said “offer your son up as sacrifice”, it was because the Lord knew it would be hard.

ANOTHER WAY we can look at it is that the Abrahamic Sacrifice is not for showing the lord our faith, but rather a way the Lord shows to us our capability and helps us grow. After all, God knew what the outcome of the commandment to Abraham would be. The sacrifice could be accepting a calling we feel we are not ready for, or taking upon our selfs a difficult assignment from our church leaders. The sacrifice could be purely to help prepare ourselves for a future duty that God needs us ready for.

Now, will God come to me someday and say “offer up unto me your son as a sacrifice”? If he did, I would respond “now hold on… I’ve seen this before”. I imagine whatever sacrifice I need to make would come in more of a subtle way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Taylor quoted Joseph Smith regarding this topic...

"You will have all kinds of trials to pass through. And it is quite as necessary for you to be tried as it was for Abraham and other men of God... God will feel after you, and He will take hold of you and wrench your very heart strings and if you cannot stand it you will not be fit for an inheritance in the Celestial kingdom of God"

"Well, some of the Twelve could not stand it. They faltered and fell by the way. It was not everybody that could stand what Abraham stood. And Joseph said that if God had known any other way whereby he could have touched Abraham's feelings more acutely and more keenly He would have done so."

Some of the beginning verses in D&C 101 also say that very thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have pondered what is meant by the trial and sacrifice of Abraham.  The answer to me is that there are two trials that have types and shadows that is the one trial of G-d know to us as  the atonement of Christ.  The first is the trial of Abraham that has many elements that played out in the life of Abraham even before Isaac was born.  The second trial was the trial between Abraham and Isaac that had to include Isaac freely giving himself to be sacrificed.  So I understand that the trial of Isaac to willingly give himself is included in what is called the Trial of Abraham.  Thus when it is spoken of - the trial is that all will freely given and sacrifice themselves to keep the covenant we have with G-d.

Some would say that it is easier to sacrifice ourselves than others but because this is a type and shadow of the atonement of Christ we must understand that the two are related and tightly coupled - for there cannot be one without the other.  As I have pondered this ultimate trial I am impressed that even thought the scriptures do not speak of Sarah to in any way be related I believe that spirit speaks that such a trial also includes her as well.  I sometimes "wish" that I knew more of this trial than I do because I am quite sure that I have not yet faced nor that I am ready and prepared to face this trial but I believe there are blessing worthy for those that complete this ultimate trial.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, scottyg said:

 And Joseph said that if God had known any other way whereby he could have touched Abraham's feelings more acutely and more keenly He would have done so."

 

So do you believe the same could be said about the way the Lord tests us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, laronius said:

So do you believe the same could be said about the way the Lord tests us?

I do think something great/major will be required of each of us at some point, but what that is will vary form person to person. Abraham was much farther along in his spiritual growth than most of (if not all of) us, so he was more prepared for a more difficult test of faith. Speaking for myself, I don't really see how I could warrant a place in the Celestial Kindgom next to a prophet like him without going through a similar test, or actually having to make some kind of great sacrifice. That being said, we were all at different stages of growth before coming to Earth, and are all at different stages now. The Lord knows best what we need to grow, and will do all He can to prepare us accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trial of Abraham is not a foreshadowing of something we will have to do in this life.  It is a much kinder and gentler retelling of the real sacrifice that Jehovah and Elohim endured.

There are many of Joseph Smith’s revelations that can be interpreted as indicating that man will continued to be tried, purified, and sanctified in the hereafter - that only those that are worthy of exaltation will become as Father is.

I believe that this is one of those revelations.

We will never be tried like Elohim in this mortal probation.  But a few great men in the scriptures did pass through difficult trials that likely helped them to better understand what Jehovah and Elohim did because they love us.  (Abraham actually experienced the act from both sides - Abraham 1:15)

D&C 122 is a wonderfully loving reminder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Fether said:

The principle is that we ought not put anything in our lives above or before the Lord. God must be the center of our lives. 

I have wondered if Abraham was a little guilty with this when when it came to his son Isaac. Not that he lost his faith in God but that maybe he placed a little too much faith in his son as the source of his happiness. Of course Abraham did prove his trust in God but maybe this test help reminded him that God knows better than us what will bring us greatest happiness. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Traveler said:

So I understand that the trial of Isaac to willingly give himself is included in what is called the Trial of Abraham.  Thus when it is spoken of - the trial is that all will freely given and sacrifice themselves to keep the covenant we have with G-d.

This is a really interesting thought. The foreshadowing of the atonement of Christ is pretty clear but when speaking of the trial of Abraham we rarely put ourselves in the place of Isaac. He obviously had great trust in his father as his father was an old man by this time and Isaac could have probably resisted his father but he didn't. This is a testament to the character of both father and son and like you say an indicator of the kind or trust and true submission that God eventually requires of us. Reminds me of the talk by Elder Holland where he talks about the suffering that must have been experienced by both the Father and the Son when God had to for a time forsake his Son in his greatest hour of suffering. Like you @Traveler if that is truly a requirement of exaltation than I have a ways to go yet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

The trial of Abraham is not a foreshadowing of something we will have to do in this life.  It is a much kinder and gentler retelling of the real sacrifice that Jehovah and Elohim endured.

There are many of Joseph Smith’s revelations that can be interpreted as indicating that man will continued to be tried, purified, and sanctified in the hereafter - that only those that are worthy of exaltation will become as Father is.

I believe that this is one of those revelations.

We will never be tried like Elohim in this mortal probation.  But a few great men in the scriptures did pass through difficult trials that likely helped them to better understand what Jehovah and Elohim did because they love us.  (Abraham actually experienced the act from both sides - Abraham 1:15)

D&C 122 is a wonderfully loving reminder.

That progression continues after this life is pretty official doctrine. How that progression takes place is a little less clear. But you do make a good point. If we are taught line upon line then a testing of Abrahamic proportion wouldn't come any sooner than we are ready for it. If that is something that can be reserved till the next life I'm not sure what that would look like but like I said things are less clear. Though in section 101 it seems like the Lord is preconditioning the establishment of Zion with this kind of testing. But does make one wonder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, scottyg said:

Speaking for myself, I don't really see how I could warrant a place in the Celestial Kindgom next to a prophet like him without going through a similar test, or actually having to make some kind of great sacrifice.

My thinking is similar. But at the same time we are told that we can be made joint-heirs with Christ. So it's hard to know where the line is drawn between having proved ourselves and the great mercies of God being extended to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

D&C 132:51 is the verse that refers to Emma’s trial.  Might be interesting to look u p William Law in conjunction with this verse…

Brigham Young’s dressing down in public test as well.

Quote

A story is told of an encounter between the Prophet Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. In the presence of a rather large group of brethren, the Prophet severely chastised Brother Brigham for some failing in his duty. Everyone, I suppose somewhat stunned, waited to see what Brigham’s response would be. After all, Brigham, who later became known as the Lion of the Lord, was no shrinking violet by any means. Brigham slowly rose to his feet, and in words that truly reflected his character and his humility, he simply bowed his head and said, “Joseph, what do you want me to do?” The story goes that sobbing, Joseph ran from the podium, threw his arms around Brigham, and said in effect, “You passed, Brother Brigham, you passed” (see Truman G. Madsen, “Hugh B. Brown —Youthful Veteran,” New Era, Apr. 1976, 16).

I have always perceived Heber C. Kimball’s test with Vilate particularly heart wrenching.

 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2003/10/the-empowerment-of-humility

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/8/2021 at 8:55 PM, laronius said:

1. It's not just "tried, even as Abraham" its "chastened and tried, even as Abraham." This warning to the Saints is coming as a result of transgression. So what was Abraham being chastened for? And does that effect how we interpret the verse?

There are several instances with Abraham and his wife that come to mind.

The first was when they went down to Egypt.  A famine arose. Instead of staying in
Canaan and relying on God to provide, Abraham and Sarah leave to go down to Egypt.
Then Abraham, not trusting in God to protect his life, told Sarah to lie and say 
that she was his sister (Genesis 12:10-20).  He was "tried" in his faith and he had 
failed.  He was "chastened" in the act when he was told to leave their area (v.20).

Abraham was chastised and tried when he attempted to hasten God's promises to him by 
listening to his wife Sarah to obtain a son through human effort. Family complications 
arose as a consequence (ex. hostility between Abraham/Sarah/Hagar and subsequently 
between Ishmael and Isaac). That is why scripture refers to Ishmael as being born of 
the flesh whereas Isaac was born after the spirit (Galatians 4:22-23,29).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, romans8 said:

There are several instances with Abraham and his wife that come to mind.

The first was when they went down to Egypt.  A famine arose. Instead of staying in
Canaan and relying on God to provide, Abraham and Sarah leave to go down to Egypt.
Then Abraham, not trusting in God to protect his life, told Sarah to lie and say 
that she was his sister (Genesis 12:10-20).  He was "tried" in his faith and he had 
failed.  He was "chastened" in the act when he was told to leave their area (v.20).

Abraham was chastised and tried when he attempted to hasten God's promises to him by 
listening to his wife Sarah to obtain a son through human effort. Family complications 
arose as a consequence (ex. hostility between Abraham/Sarah/Hagar and subsequently 
between Ishmael and Isaac). That is why scripture refers to Ishmael as being born of 
the flesh whereas Isaac was born after the spirit (Galatians 4:22-23,29).

I appreciate the different take on Abraham, and the ideas of him having failed to rely on God when he left Canaan or when he described his wife as his sister are food for thought.

But I would push back a bit on your exegesis of Galatians 4.  The Greek idiom that is translated as “after the flesh” or “of the flesh” here (and in Romans 9) refers to children who were born through natural processes (as opposed to, say, adoption).  Similarly the Net Bible’s note to Gal 4:29, after a reference to Isaac’s being “born according to the Spirit”, provides a variant reading as “born by the Spirit’s power”.  The primary dichotomy Paul is setting up isn’t that Ishmael was conceived illicitly versus Isaac’s being conceived lawfully; it’s that Ishmael was conceived in the ordinary way whereas Isaac was conceived miraculously (because Sarah was well past child-bearing age). 

(Certainly a subtext here is that Ishmael, as son of a concubine/slave, didn’t enjoy the same inheritance rights as Isaac, who was born of a free woman and lawful wife; but that doesn’t impute wrongdoing to Abraham, as concubinage was routine in patriarchal times and was actually contemplated within Mosaic law).

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, romans8 said:

There are several instances with Abraham and his wife that come to mind.

The first was when they went down to Egypt.  A famine arose. Instead of staying in
Canaan and relying on God to provide, Abraham and Sarah leave to go down to Egypt.
Then Abraham, not trusting in God to protect his life, told Sarah to lie and say 
that she was his sister (Genesis 12:10-20).  He was "tried" in his faith and he had 
failed.  He was "chastened" in the act when he was told to leave their area (v.20).

Abraham was chastised and tried when he attempted to hasten God's promises to him by 
listening to his wife Sarah to obtain a son through human effort. Family complications 
arose as a consequence (ex. hostility between Abraham/Sarah/Hagar and subsequently 
between Ishmael and Isaac). That is why scripture refers to Ishmael as being born of 
the flesh whereas Isaac was born after the spirit (Galatians 4:22-23,29).

There is much we don't know about the details about the life of Abraham. I'm reading a book about him that draws heavily from apocryphal sources which helps to fill in some of gaps but there is still much we don't know but I do appreciate your thoughts on what may have been the reasoning for chastisement. One you mentioned and I've seen many times is about Abraham having lied about Sarah being his sister. This was not a lie as we find out later when he runs into the same problem with Abimelech:

Genesis 20:10 And Abimelech said unto Abraham, What sawest thou, that thou hast done this thing?
            11 And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife’s sake.
            12 And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife

So we can say there was the definitely the intent to deceive by withholding the fact they were married but she was in fact a half-sister to Abraham.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, laronius said:

So we can say there was the definitely the intent to deceive by withholding the fact they were married but she was in fact a half-sister to Abraham.

Does the fact that Abraham was obeying God's commandments to him count for anything?

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Vort said:

Does the fact that Abraham was ICC m obeying God's commandments to him count for anything?

Yes. I believe that in our agreeing to God's plan for us there was a general acceptance by us that whatever God did for our welfare was morally right and acceptable. This doesn't change the fact that deception was used just that it was intended to serve the purposes of God in providing for the eternal welfare of the parties involved and was therefore deemed moral. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Earlier today I saw someone in a Facebook group I'm in freaking out because they assumed that as we got closer to the latter days there would be more persecution and whatnot, especially online. 

I looked at the "future" they described and pointed out how the actual past, that is, what critics of the church used to do online, was worse than what they predicted and yet we as a whole emerged triumphant. 

As I tried to explain, while those of us who *had* lived through it and had fought those battles had no qualms about fighting them again if needed, it was on each individual member of the church to study matters out for themselves (scriptures, Gospel Principles, Teachings of the Presidents of the Church, et cetra), develop their own testimony, and then develop the voice with which to convey their testimony. We could help them if things ever got that bad again, but they needed to be able to stand on their own. 

It's the same thing for everyone, really: when that time comes to face a major burden, people can help, but it's your own two feet you need to stand on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 8/15/2021 at 3:54 PM, laronius said:

So we can say there was the definitely the intent to deceive by withholding the fact they were married but she was in fact a half-sister to Abraham.

I found this good article that has more explanation about it.

https://enduringword.com/bible-commentary/genesis-20/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2021 at 1:04 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

But I would push back a bit on your exegesis of Galatians 4.  The Greek idiom that is translated as “after the flesh” or “of the flesh” here (and in Romans 9) refers to children who were born through natural processes (as opposed to, say, adoption).  Similarly the Net Bible’s note to Gal 4:29, after a reference to Isaac’s being “born according to the Spirit”, provides a variant reading as “born by the Spirit’s power”

I have a different interpretation so we can agree to disagree.  Isaac was the child of promise
and born the way God had planned. Ishmael was a child produced through Abraham's and
Sarah's own attempt to enable God to do what he had said.  That is what I mean by after the
spirit vs after the flesh (which is not of God's design; even though he allowed it). 

I found a few links to explain the exegesis further.

https://www.gotquestions.org/the-flesh.html
https://www.emeryhorvath.com/are-you-after-the-flesh-or-following-the-spirit/
https://www.bibleref.com/Romans/8/Romans-8-5.html
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, romans8 said:

I have a different interpretation so we can agree to disagree.  Isaac was the child of promise
and born the way God had planned. Ishmael was a child produced through Abraham's and
Sarah's own attempt to enable God to do what he had said.  That is what I mean by after the
spirit vs after the flesh (which is not of God's design; even though he allowed it). 

I found a few links to explain the exegesis further.

https://www.gotquestions.org/the-flesh.html
https://www.emeryhorvath.com/are-you-after-the-flesh-or-following-the-spirit/
https://www.bibleref.com/Romans/8/Romans-8-5.html
 

Mais oui.  We are all entitled to our own English interpolations; we just aren’t entitled to our own Greek grammar and we aren’t entitled to write out key portions of the Genesis narrative regarding Isaac’s birth. ;) 

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share