As an introduction to the Lord’s Supper in church today, my pastor read and shortly discussed the implications of Genesis 22:9-13 in light of Christ’s death on the cross. Testing and confirming Abraham’s faith is certainly a major component of this scene, but just as God was after a metaphor for Christ’s work when Moses struck the rock rather than speaking to it (1), so God was commanding a metaphor about His Son’s work through Abraham and Isaac.
“Then they came to the place of which God had told him; and Abraham built the altar there and arranged the wood and bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” He said, “Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.” Then Abraham raised his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him a ram caught in the thicket by his horns; and Abraham went and took the ram and offered him up for a burnt offering in the place of his son. Abraham called the name of that place The Lord Will Provide, as it is said to this day, “In the mount of the Lord it will be provided.”
Notice that I included verse 14, because I read further after pastor stopped. In the NASB, which I read, there was a footnote before the last two words, “be provided”. The center notes read, “Lit. [literally] be seen” (2). I wondered, “What was seen?” They saw “a ram caught in the thicket by his horns.” (v.13) As I shared this thought after service, a brother pointed out that Abraham had earlier said, “God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” (v.8) Was he wrong, since it was a ram? No, God did provide (see) a lamb, as John the Baptist says, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29) But in the immediate context, God did provide a ram, which had been a lamb of course. A ram is strong, as indicated by its horns (3). The thicket involves entanglement, thorns, and suffering.
Here is the metaphor, as I saw it anew. The powerful Son of God, the same one who “will shatter kings” and “drink from the brook by the wayside” (4) in power and victory, willingly becomes caught (incarnation) in the thicket of our sinful world, so that He would be God’s provision/sacrifice for mankind. God saw to “sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin” (5).
Abraham bound Isaac and placed him on an altar on the Mountains of Moriah (6), where the temple was later built, and where Christ Jesus was much later nailed to a cross. Thus, “In the mount of the Lord it will be seen,” our provision for a sin debt we could never repay, fully paid by our victorious Savior. Praise the Lord!
- Numbers 20:8-13
- It may seem very odd that the same word could be translated “provided” or “seen”, but in the immediate context of Abraham’s (and don’t forget Isaac) need and naming of the place, it is a legitimate translation (see also Deuteronomy 33:21). Conversely, when something needed is “seen”, it is at hand and provided. Also, KJV, GNV, and WYC translations render the word as “seen”.
- Numbers 24:8; Daniel 8:6-8
- Psalm 110:5,7: Drinking from the brook seems to be a metaphor for the warrior refreshing himself after victory, almost in defiance of the downed enemies.
- Romans 8:3
- Genesis 22:2; 2 Chronicles 3:1
CreatorWorship 
Out of this World Question
Posted in Creation Articles, Cultural commentary, General, Questioning, Random thoughts, Science, Truth, Work of Jesus, tagged Astronomy, Extraterrestrial Life, Ice Sheets, Learning, Lost Squadron, Science, Thought Experiment, Truth, work of christ on August 6, 2019| 2 Comments »
Early this summer I had a student ask me a question by e-mail: “Do you think it is truly possible for someone to find the correct answer to the Drake Equation? If so, how would they prove it?”
After some research I gave the following reply:
“”The equation was written in 1961 by Frank Drake, not for purposes of quantifying the number of civilizations, but as a way to stimulate scientific dialogue…”(1) Therefore, the terms in the equation are considerations of what would have to be known in order to quantify (that is, count) civilizations. It is a thought experiment, and since we cannot go to many of those places (or probably any of them) because the distance is too great for even several lifetimes of travel [“Hey, grandkids, the goal of this mission when we started out 60 years ago was for you to visit two planets around the third star from our home star, Sun, to see if there is anybody living there. We’ll be there 40 years or so after your grandchildren are born.”], the whole scheme is pure speculation. In fact, I would go a step further and say that it is not even useful speculation.
So, to answer your question, no, it can neither be solved nor checked (proven). Based on my belief in the God of the Bible, I believe that it is not even a useful thought experiment. The Scripture says,”in as much as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.” (Hebrews 9:27-28) Since “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” (Romans 3:23), and since “Christ…offered once [died]”, then if any civilizations did exist, they would be without hope because God has not redeemed any of them. Instead, I think that it means they do not exist. And because of the distance we cannot know if they exist. The whole thought experiment becomes fruitless, a deceptive worldview way of avoiding the real truth about how [we got here and how] we “die once” and need that salvation.
A better thought experiment would be to explain how the rocks and ice we see confirm what God said about a worldwide flood in Genesis 6-9. Check out the “Lost Squadron” that landed on Greenland(2). Ask yourself some questions. 1) How deep were the “Lost Squadron” airplanes under the ice? 2) How long did it take for the ice to accumulate? 3) In how long of a time could the whole ice sheet have accumulated at that rate? 4) Has the rate of accumulation always been the same? 5) Is there any evidence for the rate of accumulation changing? 6) Comparing these estimates to the “declared age” of ice cores in Greenland, is there a problem with the present explanation of how the ice sheet got there?”
I think you will realize that the standard explanation for what the layers in the ice sheets means is flawed. Therefore, distractors are thrown up to keep us from seeing the logical fallacies of the ill-conceived conclusions masquerading as a scientific theory. There are many worthy thought experiments to be done. Einstein was particularly good at those, but much of today’s theoretical science is lacking in a creativity that adheres to truth as its basis, instead heralding false agendas and distracting from useful science. Let us be done with having any part of that.
1- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
2- https://creation.com/the-lost-squadron
Read Full Post »