Analyzing The Deception of Isaac In Genesis 27, we read of how Jacob deceived his father in order to receive his brother Esau’s blessing. Jacob is able to accomplish for several reasons. Firstly, Isaac “could not see.” Isaac was unable to visually verify that the person he was speaking to was, in fact, Esau. Thus, he resorted to using his other senses to verify the identity of the speaker — namely, touch and hearing. Secondly, therefore, Isaac could not tactually differentiate between his two sons. Jacob anticipated his father would feel his smooth skin and infer from this that he was not Esau.
...But then we have the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. They had been with Jesus for over 3 years. They knew him intimately, or thought they did. How was it that they walked with him for several hours, engaged in a vigorous discussion and had no idea who they were talking to? Did they have such terrible memories? Were their eyes so dim? These things must needs be explained if we are to believe that knowledge (justified, true belief) comes via the senses.
Hello Hiram, for further consideration on the passage from Genesis 27....
The skins on Jacob's hands actually deceived Isaac. Isaac wrongly concluded that what he was feeling were the hands of Esau. His touch deceived him.
Same for the smell of the clothing. Yes, it was the smell of Esau, but again, he drew the wrong conclusion, that therefore this is Esau... no it wasn't.
Isaac had conflicting ideas from his senses. He heard the voice of Jacob, he touched and smelled "Esau". He also knew that the time taken for the arrival of the stew was incredibly quick. Yet Isaac doesn't hear any alarm bells ringing. What could he have done to resolve the tension? We see, just a few verses later, that there were others about, called witnesses, he could have called upon them to answer his initial question "who art thou, my son?" For we are told the wives of Esau were around (v.46), Isaac could have asked them what was happening, or perhaps some trustworthy servants. By the mouth of two or three witnesses the thing would have been established....But alas, Isaac believes at least two of his senses and ignores a conflicting one and his belly gets the better of him. His senses deceived him. His senses gave him not truth, but confusion.
Seems very similar to what happened in Genesis 3. Both Adam and Eve knew the command of God. When the serpent came whispering lies, instead of looking at the fruit and desiring it they should have called for other witnesses to decide the matter. Who could they call upon? Perhaps, the Father and the Spirit, pretty reliable witnesses. Eve's eyes did not deceive her in one aspect, the fruit was really beautiful. But even Snow White gets what's really happening. It may look good on the outside, but it bites like a serpent inside. Eve was deceived by the words of Satan, and her senses (which, by the way, were perfect) gave her no pause.....the senses gave her no opposing proposition. Her senses were not what she should have relied upon (just like Isaac) to decide between God's words and the serpent's. Only propositions deliver truth. PERFECT senses do not deliver truth. Truth comes from the mouth of God, Thy Word is truth.
Jesus walked amongst the Jews for 30 years. Yet even his own family never realised who he was (Mark 3:20-31). They had not been taught by the Father. When the penny finally drops for Peter, Jesus explains to him what had happened. It was revealed to Peter from the Father who Jesus was, he did not get that understanding from flesh and blood, nor from his senses.
The point is, we as men are dealing with a very clever and deceitful enemy. From Genesis 3 we must understand that he will stop at nothing to undermine the truth of God's Word, even using God's Word against itself as we see with Eve and later with the temptation of Jesus. The devil appeals to Jesus' senses..."Aren't you hungry? Look, turn some stones to bread to satiate your hunger, Don't you want some luxury instead of this wilderness...Look here are all the pleasures of the world"...and so on. The sensations were real, but the battle is decided by God's word, not by any other external factors.
Truth is propositional. Sounds trite perhaps, but smells and bells and tasty Irish Stew do not give us propositions. Only words do. In His temptation, Jesus does not resort to the most amazing sensations of seeing heaven opened, hearing the Father's voice and seeing the Spirt descend on Him like a dove (Luke 3), though these all happened just before his temptation six weeks later. He only resorts to the Word of His Father. He does not trust His senses or experiences to deliver truth.
Hiram, two lectures that summarise Clark's view, and the Scriptures, on this subject of epistemology are
These lectures are the best summary I have found in defence of revelation alone providing knowledge. They also demolish the empiricism brought up in your essay.
I usually don't comment at all on blogs, but I thought this is something that at least needed to be challenged and debated. "Those of you who have followed my writing for some time can see that my epistemological position has changed quite a bit." Yes, it has. Let's see if that can be changed again.
OK, so what if they're reliable sometimes and clearly not at other times. Senses dim and change over time and often deceive us. You've never experienced an optical illusion or mistaken identity? Besides, my dog can smell and hear better than I can, so I hardly think you can dress up like me and fool my dog the way Jacob fooled Issaac. Then you say, "Isaac could not see, so he relied upon his other senses." Well, how that work out for him and his plan to give Esau his rightful inheritance?
You say, "Objects, including persons, are known to us as a complex of sensible properties with repeatable patterns of modification . . . . " Clearly, they're not. Issaac didn't recognize Jabob and the disciples on the road to Emmaus didn't recognize the complex of sensible properties we call Jesus.
The question you raise is about epistemology. You've moved away from Clark, but I have no idea where you ended up.
...But then we have the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. They had been with Jesus for over 3 years. They knew him intimately, or thought they did. How was it that they walked with him for several hours, engaged in a vigorous discussion and had no idea who they were talking to? Did they have such terrible memories? Were their eyes so dim? These things must needs be explained if we are to believe that knowledge (justified, true belief) comes via the senses.
Hello Hiram, for further consideration on the passage from Genesis 27....
The skins on Jacob's hands actually deceived Isaac. Isaac wrongly concluded that what he was feeling were the hands of Esau. His touch deceived him.
Same for the smell of the clothing. Yes, it was the smell of Esau, but again, he drew the wrong conclusion, that therefore this is Esau... no it wasn't.
Isaac had conflicting ideas from his senses. He heard the voice of Jacob, he touched and smelled "Esau". He also knew that the time taken for the arrival of the stew was incredibly quick. Yet Isaac doesn't hear any alarm bells ringing. What could he have done to resolve the tension? We see, just a few verses later, that there were others about, called witnesses, he could have called upon them to answer his initial question "who art thou, my son?" For we are told the wives of Esau were around (v.46), Isaac could have asked them what was happening, or perhaps some trustworthy servants. By the mouth of two or three witnesses the thing would have been established....But alas, Isaac believes at least two of his senses and ignores a conflicting one and his belly gets the better of him. His senses deceived him. His senses gave him not truth, but confusion.
Seems very similar to what happened in Genesis 3. Both Adam and Eve knew the command of God. When the serpent came whispering lies, instead of looking at the fruit and desiring it they should have called for other witnesses to decide the matter. Who could they call upon? Perhaps, the Father and the Spirit, pretty reliable witnesses. Eve's eyes did not deceive her in one aspect, the fruit was really beautiful. But even Snow White gets what's really happening. It may look good on the outside, but it bites like a serpent inside. Eve was deceived by the words of Satan, and her senses (which, by the way, were perfect) gave her no pause.....the senses gave her no opposing proposition. Her senses were not what she should have relied upon (just like Isaac) to decide between God's words and the serpent's. Only propositions deliver truth. PERFECT senses do not deliver truth. Truth comes from the mouth of God, Thy Word is truth.
Jesus walked amongst the Jews for 30 years. Yet even his own family never realised who he was (Mark 3:20-31). They had not been taught by the Father. When the penny finally drops for Peter, Jesus explains to him what had happened. It was revealed to Peter from the Father who Jesus was, he did not get that understanding from flesh and blood, nor from his senses.
The point is, we as men are dealing with a very clever and deceitful enemy. From Genesis 3 we must understand that he will stop at nothing to undermine the truth of God's Word, even using God's Word against itself as we see with Eve and later with the temptation of Jesus. The devil appeals to Jesus' senses..."Aren't you hungry? Look, turn some stones to bread to satiate your hunger, Don't you want some luxury instead of this wilderness...Look here are all the pleasures of the world"...and so on. The sensations were real, but the battle is decided by God's word, not by any other external factors.
Truth is propositional. Sounds trite perhaps, but smells and bells and tasty Irish Stew do not give us propositions. Only words do. In His temptation, Jesus does not resort to the most amazing sensations of seeing heaven opened, hearing the Father's voice and seeing the Spirt descend on Him like a dove (Luke 3), though these all happened just before his temptation six weeks later. He only resorts to the Word of His Father. He does not trust His senses or experiences to deliver truth.
Hiram, two lectures that summarise Clark's view, and the Scriptures, on this subject of epistemology are
https://www.trinitylectures.org/MP3/Propositional_Revelation,_Part_1.mp3
and
https://www.trinitylectures.org/MP3/Propositional_Revelation,_Part_2.mp3
These lectures are the best summary I have found in defence of revelation alone providing knowledge. They also demolish the empiricism brought up in your essay.
I usually don't comment at all on blogs, but I thought this is something that at least needed to be challenged and debated. "Those of you who have followed my writing for some time can see that my epistemological position has changed quite a bit." Yes, it has. Let's see if that can be changed again.
Cheers
OK, so what if they're reliable sometimes and clearly not at other times. Senses dim and change over time and often deceive us. You've never experienced an optical illusion or mistaken identity? Besides, my dog can smell and hear better than I can, so I hardly think you can dress up like me and fool my dog the way Jacob fooled Issaac. Then you say, "Isaac could not see, so he relied upon his other senses." Well, how that work out for him and his plan to give Esau his rightful inheritance?
You say, "Objects, including persons, are known to us as a complex of sensible properties with repeatable patterns of modification . . . . " Clearly, they're not. Issaac didn't recognize Jabob and the disciples on the road to Emmaus didn't recognize the complex of sensible properties we call Jesus.
The question you raise is about epistemology. You've moved away from Clark, but I have no idea where you ended up.