Why was Abraham tested?

[NewCreation435]

In Genesis 22 it says that the Lord told Abraham to take Isaac and go to the region of Moriah and the sacrifice him there as a burnt offering. In verse 1 it says the Lord tested Abraham.
It may seem like a simple question, but since God knows everything then why did God need to test Abraham at all? Since God knows everything he would already know what Abraham would do.

 

[Lamb]

God didn't test Abraham to find out how he would do...God tested Abraham so that Abraham could learn something. Abraham's faith grew in the Lord.

 

[pinacled]

Avrm was tempered

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.

It may seem like a simple question, but since God knows everything then why did
God need to test Abraham at all? Since God knows everything he would already
know what Abraham would do.

• Gen 22:12b . . For now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld
your son, your favored one, from me.

Isn't God omniscient, and doesn't He have an ability to scan the future? Then why
did the voice say "now I know". Doesn't God always know everything there is to
know?

Knowing things as a spectator is quite a bit different than knowing things by
omniscience. God sometimes favors seeing things for Himself in real time, as an
eye witness.

Of course God knew in advance that Abraham would go thru with offering his son,
but that kind of knowing doesn't always satisfy God. No, sometimes He prefers to
be on-site and observe things unfold as current events.

So although God knew by His intellect that Abraham would comply with the angel's
instructions, now He also has a first-hand knowledge of Abraham's compliance by
personal experience, i.e. God, via the angel, was there in the bleachers, so to
speak, watching all the action from first to last.

Another example of the on-site eye witness activity of God located at Gen 11:5
where it's said:

"The Lord came down to look at the city and tower that man had built"

Why bother to come down? Doesn't the Bible's God see all and know all? Isn't God
omniscient and isn't His spirit omnipresent? Can't He see everything from right
where He is?

Well; fact of the matter is, yes, The Lord could see the city and the tower from
Heaven, but He wasn't satisfied. It was His wish to inspect everything up close and
personal; to actually visit the city and the tower in person as an on-site eye
witness.

Another example is located at Gen 18:20-21 where it's said:

"Then The Lord said: The outrage of Sodom and Gomorrah is so great, and their sin
so grave! I will go down to see whether they have acted altogether according to the
outcry that has reached Me; if not, I will take note."

Why bother to go down? Doesn't the Bible's God see all and know all? Isn't God
omniscient and isn't His spirit omnipresent? Can't He see everything from right
where He is?

Well; fact of the matter is, yes, The Lord could see and hear from Heaven
everything he needed to know about the city, but He wasn't satisfied. He had to
investigate, and establish the truth of every fact for Himself in person as on-site
eye witness, before moving against Sodom.

In future, should someone challenge The Lord by saying: How do you know Sodom
was bad? Were you there; did you actually see it yourself? Well; yes, He was there
and did actually see its badness for Himself.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
Here's another example of omniscience vs current events.

• John 21:15 . . So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter:
Simon; do you love me more than these?

» Some say that "these" refers to the other apostles, but I'm inclined to suspect that Jesus
was referring to the sea, and the fish they had just eaten, and to the boat, and to the
tackle, and to the fishing business. Certainly all of that was important to Peter seeing as
how fishing was his life.

The Greek verb for "love" in that passage is agapao, which isn't necessarily an
affectionate kind of love, rather, it's related to things like benevolence, preferences,
loyalties, and priorities. For example:

• Matt 6:24 . . No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love
the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.

• Luke 14:26 . . If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother,
his wife and children, his brothers and sisters-- yes, even his own life --he cannot
be my disciple.

The verb agapao is employed several times in the 13th, 14th, and 15th chapters of
John's gospel relative to Jesus and his apostles, and relative to the apostles among
themselves.

But then Jesus asked Peter:

• John 21:17 . . Simon, do you love me?

That time "love" is translated from the Greek verb phileo which is a very different
kind of love than agapao.

Well, the thing is: agapao is more or less impersonal; whereas phileo is just the
opposite. It's an affectionate, bonding kind of love felt among best friends, lovers,
and kinfolk.

In other words: Peter wasn't asked what he thought of Jesus, rather, how he felt
about him, viz: Jesus' question was: Peter; do you like me?

Of course Jesus already knew how Peter felt about him, but Jesus wasn't satisfied
with knowing; he wanted Peter to come out with it, and he did.

• John 21:17 . . He said: Lord, you know all things; you know that I like you.

» I'd imagine that expressing his feelings for Jesus was difficult for a rugged blue collar guy
like Peter. I worked as a professional welder for 40 years in shipyards and shops. Not many
of the men I worked alongside were comfortable talking about their feelings for each other.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
Here's another example of omniscience vs current events.

• John 21:15 . . So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter:
Simon; do you love me more than these?

» Some say that "these" refers to the other apostles, but I'm inclined to suspect that Jesus
was referring to the sea, and the fish they had just eaten, and to the boat, and to the
tackle, and to the fishing business. Certainly all of that was important to Peter seeing as
how fishing was his life.

The Greek verb for "love" in that passage is agapao, which isn't necessarily an
affectionate kind of love, rather, it's related to things like benevolence, preferences,
loyalties, and priorities. For example:

• Matt 6:24 . . No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love
the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.

• Luke 14:26 . . If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother,
his wife and children, his brothers and sisters-- yes, even his own life --he cannot
be my disciple.

The verb agapao is employed several times in the 13th, 14th, and 15th chapters of
John's gospel relative to Jesus and his apostles, and relative to the apostles among
themselves.

But then Jesus asked Peter:

• John 21:17 . . Simon, do you love me?

That time "love" is translated from the Greek verb phileo which is a very different
kind of love than agapao.

Well, the thing is: agapao is more or less impersonal; whereas phileo is just the
opposite. It's an affectionate, bonding kind of love felt among best friends, lovers,
and kinfolk.

In other words: Peter wasn't asked what he thought of Jesus, rather, how he felt
about him, viz: Jesus' question was: Peter; do you like me?

Of course Jesus already knew how Peter felt about him, but Jesus wasn't satisfied
with knowing; he wanted Peter to come out with it, and he did.

• John 21:17 . . He said: Lord, you know all things; you know that I [like] you.

» I'd imagine that expressing his feelings for Jesus was difficult for a rugged blue collar guy
like Peter. I worked as a professional welder for 40 years in shipyards and shops. Not many
of the men I worked alongside were comfortable talking about their feelings for each other.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
CANCELLED
_

 

[NathanH83]

Abraham has to be tested in order for him to pass the test. It’s not enough just for God to know that he will pass. He has to actually pass.

 

[atpollard]

Abraham has to be tested in order for him to pass the test. It’s not enough just for God to know that he will pass. He has to actually pass.

For our benefit … so we can learn something from it.