RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

I believe that God rewarded Abraham for his faithfulness to him, but that preceded Abraham's test of faith. God had already promised that Abraham would get an heir and that a great nation would come of him. Also, the key point in Abraham's test of faith was the test, not the willingness to kill. God would not have let Abraham kill his son, but wanted to give an example of faith to the world (not the contemporary world). Abraham loved God more than anything else, including his only son which God had given him and his wife as a gift.

If God had already rewarded Abraham's faith with the gift of a son, why might He have chosen to administer this further test?

How might one's image of one's father change should he make such an equal example of his faith?

I think God administered a further test so Abraham would continue to trust God and not be satisfied with his earthly blessings.

I highly doubt God would have done this if it would have ruined the father-son relationship between Abraham and Isaac. Isaac went along with it, demonstrating that he also had great faith in God, so it was a test for him as well which God knew they would both pass.

If God knew it would be passed, wherein may have existed the need for the test? Equally, is it more or less likely that one might gain greater trust in a father who might, at a random moment of time, demand a blood offering made up of a member that one might hold dear?

Further, is it not likely that the ordeal may have at the very least caused Isaac repeated nightmares as well as a certain reluctance to join his father on any further wilderness excursions?

Finally, how might an accurate assessment be made as to God's true concern regarding this particular father-son relationship while later actions seemingly show Him holding little regard for the numerous father-son relationships brought to a bloody end during the invasion of Canaan?