"God Would Never Command Human Sacrifice": Abraham, and Isaac as a Type of Christ

[Kenngo1969]

1 minute ago, OGHoosier said:

I think i am, and it's an honor.

You could be the son I never had—just don't tell your parents!   

[CV75]

4 hours ago, MrShorty said:

@Kenngo1969 I don't want to be insensitive to your life experience, because it sounds difficult. I want to emphasize again that I believe God can ask us to do hard things, even when we cannot see the reason for doing the hard thing. If someone goes into the woods to pray about their life and comes out pushing boulders up a hill, I see no reason why God could not be behind that sort of command (no matter how meaningless the effort seems to me).

The difference is that God didn't just ask Abraham to do a HARD thing. God asked Abraham to do something that would under almost any other circumstance be considered EVIL. If we want, we can run down the rabbit trail of the Euthyphro dilemma or divine command theory, but the ultimate question we wrestle with when talking about Abraham and Isaac or Nephi and Laban or Saul and the Amalekites is the question of whether or not God would really and truly command a person to do something evil -- not just hard, not just fruitless or wasteful, but evil.

As I said, this is an area of active deconstruction/reconstruction for me, so I can't claim to really understand anything. It just seems to me that there is something very different about obedience when God tells you to do something hard, but morally neutral, and when God tells you to do something evil.

I think it is more accurate to ask, would God really and truly command a person to do something [many consider] evil. Given the Genesis 22 account, the answer is "Yes," and this is what He did, and what He did about it. So perhaps an alternative “ultimate” question is, “Since God really and truly commands people to do something many consider evil, how can this (or God) be good?” I believe there are answers to that which establish a level of trust in Him that lead to follow-up questions that build even greater trust in Him.

For example, Abraham had a phenomenal history and advanced relationship with God, so receiving such instructions, and the spirit in which they were given and received, did not come across to him as abominably carnal, sensual and devilish, at least so evil to refuse. Asking oneself how they would respond to receiving such a command, and ascertaining their history and relationship with God, they would realize why they never would have received a command like this, in this way, or abide it.

[Rain]

21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think it is more accurate to ask, would God really and truly command a person to do something [many consider] evil. Given the Genesis 22 account, the answer is "Yes," and this is what He did, and what He did about it. So perhaps an alternative “ultimate” question is, “Since God really and truly commands people to do something many consider evil, how can this (or God) be good?” I believe there are answers to that which establish a level of trust in Him that lead to follow-up questions that build even greater trust in Him.

For example, Abraham had a phenomenal history and advanced relationship with God, so receiving such instructions, and the spirit in which they were given and received, did not come across to him as abominably carnal, sensual and devilish, at least so evil to refuse. Asking oneself how they would respond to receiving such a command, and ascertaining their history and relationship with God, they would realize why they never would have received a command like this, in this way, or abide it.

Given the church’s beliefs about the bible (it is the word of God, but isn't a perfect record) why is it more accurate to ask that question? 

 

[CV75]

35 minutes ago, Rain said:

Given the church’s beliefs about the bible (it is the word of God, but isn't a perfect record) why is it more accurate to ask that question? 

 

Because the original question, and mine, aren't relative to the Church’s beliefs about the Bible, but relative to our beliefs about evil, and this is a purely subjective (and largely semantic) topic. I don't think the answer to the original or my question is explicitly addressed in the Bible, but we have to pull it together from personal experience, which includes, in a very small way, what we glean from scripture. God did not ask Abraham to do an evil thing, He asked him to do something many consider evil.

Edited January 19, 2025 by CV75

[MrShorty]

28 minutes ago, CV75 said:

God did not ask Abraham to do an evil thing, He asked him to do something many consider evil.

Perhaps it is deeper down the Euthyphro dilemma/divine command theory rabbit trail, but this is one of things that is part of my deconstruction reconstruction. Perhaps I will simply ask this question. Are people capable of understanding God's moral calculus? What I see in the italics eventually leads to a place where I am incapable of understanding how God decides what is and is not moral, and therefore I must blindly accept that whatever God says (or, more particular to my experience, whatever scripture or prophets claim that God said) is right and good and true. That idea seems problematic to me.

[CV75]

55 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Perhaps it is deeper down the Euthyphro dilemma/divine command theory rabbit trail, but this is one of things that is part of my deconstruction reconstruction. Perhaps I will simply ask this question. Are people capable of understanding God's moral calculus? What I see in the italics eventually leads to a place where I am incapable of understanding how God decides what is and is not moral, and therefore I must blindly accept that whatever God says (or, more particular to my experience, whatever scripture or prophets claim that God said) is right and good and true. That idea seems problematic to me.

I don’t see the question as pertinent to the Euthyphro dilemma or divine command theory because asking why sacrificing Isaac is good (or evil, depending on how one sees it) has nothing to do with whether God likes it or not. God often commands things He doesn’t like. Likewise, asking if it is good since God commanded it, which He did, or evil since He prohibited it, which He also did by intermissa sacrificium. It misses asking what the lesson is in providing an alternate sacrifice beyond whether animal sacrifice is good or not. 

I think people are capable of understanding God's moral calculus but some are more capable and successful than others, and some tools are better than others. I can see the consternation of only seeing that all God was doing was commanding a man to sacrifice his son.

Edited January 20, 2025 by CV75

[Benjamin McGuire]

6 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Does the fact that 600 years before the birth of Christ the Nephites perfectly understood that Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac was indeed a prophetic foreshadowing of the atoning sacrifice of the Son of God disprove your assertion that there were no believers in the God of Abraham who many years beforehand understood the Messianic prophetic implications of Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac? It pays to check in with the scriptures before making blanket assertions.

No, it doesn't.

[CV75]

11 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

No, it doesn't.

Why/how? Given what we see in the Pearl of Great Price, it seems that every dispensation appropriated from every other, both retrospectively and looking ahead by prophecy. Some of Abraham’s contemporaries and descendants, including some Jews/Hebrews, must have contemplated that the account suggests that a divine Savior of some kind would come, though this seems largely missing from the Old Testament writings. Wikipedia https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/76252-god-would-never-command-human-sacrifice-abraham-and-isaac-as-a-type-of-christ/page/2/ lists some of these Jewish interpretations surrounding the story in Genesis 22 (Pearl of Great Price teachings in parentheses):

• The account teaches that human sacrifice is not acceptable (but an infinite and eternal one is).
• It shows there is an extreme limit of human capability to both love and fear God (which He exceeds to save us).
• It demonstrates Isaac's position over Ishmael, though Ishamel was born first (premortal Jesus and Lucifer).
• Silences Satan's protest that Abraham did not provide an offering to God after Isaac was born (Christ’s victory over the accuser as Abraham’s redeemer and advocate).
• Proves that Abraham is a true God-fearing man who is ready to fulfill any of God's commands, even to sacrifice his own son (the second “binding” of the Abrahamic covenant).
• Isaac was resurrected after his sacrifice (Christ’s victory over death).

Other related Jewish perspectives on the relationship between Abraham and God that shows how they felt covenant relationships and revelations worked:

• The thought of actually killing Isaac never crossed God and Abraham’s minds.
• Prophetic vision has the same truth value as philosophical argument and carries equal certainty.
• The glory and agony of death on the battlefield (a much later Jewish interpretation, but still somewhat Messianic).

[teddyaware]

12 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

 

12 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Edited January 20, 2025 by teddyaware

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

though this seems largely missing from the Old Testament writings.

Yeah, this is the problem. We have this huge issue when reading scriptures that we like to think that they are all about us - and our context. It isn't wrong from an interpretational standpoint to liken scriptures unto ourselves. What is wrong is to then go and project our likening back onto the original authors and to assert that this is what they really meant all along.

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Wikipedia ...

Your link seems to be the wrong one.

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

lists some of these Jewish interpretations surrounding the story in Genesis 22

One of the challenges we have with Jewish interpretations of the binding of Isaac is that we have to look at the dates. Jews felt that Christians had wrongly appropriated their story - and so there are many interpretations that come up after Christians begin using the story that are a polemic against that Christian usage. Some of those that you list are among them.

[teddyaware]

13 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

No, it doesn't.

In light of the plain and unambiguous verses from the Book of Mormon I quoted, it appears the only way one could possibly assert that there weren’t ancient believers in the God of Abraham who well understood, hundreds of years before the birth of the Babe of Bethlehem, that God’s commandment to Abraham to sacrifice his son was divinely intended to be a prophetic foreshadowing of the sacrificial death of the Son of God would require a rejection of the Book of Mormon as the word of God. 

Edited January 20, 2025 by teddyaware

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Yeah, this is the problem. We have this huge issue when reading scriptures that we like to think that they are all about us - and our context. It isn't wrong from an interpretational standpoint to liken scriptures unto ourselves. What is wrong is to then go and project our likening back onto the original authors and to assert that this is what they really meant all along.

Your link seems to be the wrong one.

One of the challenges we have with Jewish interpretations of the binding of Isaac is that we have to look at the dates. Jews felt that Christians had wrongly appropriated their story - and so there are many interpretations that come up after Christians begin using the story that are a polemic against that Christian usage. Some of those that you list are among them.

I can see that a Jewish person (or anyone) reading Genesis 22 without any other reference would not see the foreshadowing of Christ represented, but “no Jew ever” before the Book of Mormon or New Testament Jews? I suppose you used this phrase for emphasis, for there must have been some old wise person among the chosen lineage between Abraham and Malachi that made the connection (yes, I attribute my reasoning to the New Testament and latter-day scripture references).

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_of_Isaac , thank you!

The former Jewish interpretations, are likewise a product of their culture and religion, and as the originators would naturally discredit appropriative interpretations that represented a real threat. The earliest Jewish interpretations (the oral tradition, attributed to Moses but documented around 200 CE) seem to highlight Abraham’s faith and unquestioning obedience under extreme duress; that he was fully prepared to sacrifice his son; that ultimately God intervened by substituting a ram; unwavering trust in God's will. They focus on the psychological and spiritual aspects of Abraham's actions and God’s ultimate power to intervene and redeem rather than the literal act of attempting to kill Isaac (for what that is worth).

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

In light of the plain and unambiguous verses from the Book of Mormon I quoted, it appears the only way one could possibly assert that there weren’t ancient believers in the God of Abraham who well understood, hundreds of years before the birth of the Babe of Bethlehem, that God’s commandment to Abraham to sacrifice his son was divinely intended to be a prophetic foreshadowing of the sacrificial death of the Son of God would require a rejection of the Book of Mormon as the word of God.

Not at all Teddy. Really. But realistically, it is a mistake for me to think that we can bridge the gap between our points of view. So I'll let you have the last say on this point.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

In light of the plain and unambiguous verses from the Book of Mormon I quoted, it appears the only way one could possibly assert that there weren’t ancient believers in the God of Abraham who well understood, hundreds of years before the birth of the Babe of Bethlehem, that God’s commandment to Abraham to sacrifice his son was divinely intended to be a prophetic foreshadowing of the sacrificial death of the Son of God would require a rejection of the Book of Mormon as the word of God. 

Not necessarily, it depends on when the Lord intended or expected the foreshadowing to be so interpreted and activated. Even accepting the Book of Mormon as the word of God, it is reasonable to suppose this general interpretation arose many centuries after Abraham and Moses. This is why I qualified the OP with "[in retrospect, now that we know better]."

There is also enough in the New Testament and Book of Mormon to accept the atonement of Christ without knowing anything about a foreshadowing, which was revealed to us only after it was fulfilled, which I think is a way to show us how the Lord continues to foreshadow His works today. The inspiration and discernment to recognize a current foreshadowing for our future is a wonderful spiritual gift indeed.

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I can see that a Jewish person (or anyone) reading Genesis 22 without any other reference would not see the foreshadowing of Christ represented, but “no Jew ever” before the Book of Mormon or New Testament Jews? I suppose you used this phrase for emphasis, for there must have been some old wise person among the chosen lineage between Abraham and Malachi that made the connection (yes, I attribute my reasoning to the New Testament and latter-day scripture references).

This is all after the fact though. This is the problem. There is this interesting scene in the New Testament in Luke 24:19-21 -

Quote

And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people: And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him. But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.

Even among the followers of Jesus, we have this culturally informed expectation of the Messiah - and Jesus was not it. The redemption of Israel was understood as something quite material - a new Davidic king that would free Israel forever and set up an eternal kingdom on the earth. In such a context, the Akedah doesn't have any connection to a future Messiah or Christological event. When Jesus appears and dies and is resurrected, early Christianity can go back and identify those older narratives and recontextualize them using their new experience. This creates a Christian narrative about Abraham and Christianity and the divinity of Jesus. But, the Jews aren't particularly happy about Christianity appropriating the patriarchal narratives, and so they reinvent the stories to combat the heresies of Christianity. This means that later Jewish interpreters (contemporary with Christianity) are approaching the text already differently than those in a pre-Christian context. The only pre-Christian text in the mix is the Genesis Apocryphon from the Dead Sea Scrolls, and while it alludes to Isaac, the fragment ends a bit before Isaac is born.

There is an interesting section in the wiki page - which discusses the changes to the text (the history of the story):

Quote

More recently it has been suggested that these traces are in fact the first angelic appearance (v. 11–12), in which the Angel of YHWH stops Abraham before he kills Isaac.[31] The style and composition of these verses resemble that of the second angelic speech, and YHWH is used for the deity rather than God. On that reading, in the original E version of the binding Abraham disobeys God's command, sacrificing the ram "instead of his son" (v. 13) on his own responsibility and without being stopped by an angel: "And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son; but Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked and beheld, behind him was a ram, caught in a thicket by his horns; and Abraham went, and took the ram, and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son" (v. 10, 13).

By interpolating the first appearance of the angel, a later redactor shifted responsibility for halting the test from Abraham to the angel (v. 11–12). The second angelic appearance, in which Abraham is rewarded for his obedience (v. 14–18), became necessary due to that shift of responsibility. This analysis of the story sheds light on the connection between the binding and the story of Sodom (Genesis 18), in which Abraham asks God whether he will destroy the city without distinguishing between the righteous and the wicked: "Far be it from you to do such a thing: Shall not the judge of all the earth do what is just?" According to this analysis, Abraham's question and conversation with God was a rebellion against him and culminates in Abraham's disobedience to God, refusing to sacrifice Isaac.[32]

The suggestion here is that the oldest version has Abraham deciding not to sacrifice his son on his own. And we get a complicated textual history as later persons decided that they didn't really like the lack of obedience there. No matter what else we can say about it, this text has a complicated history - and with that complicated history is an even more complicated response to it. My only real opinion on this story over the years has been that with all of this baggage, we should never try to hold this story up as a model of obedience. Our changing the story to be a model of Christ is a much more acceptable sort of application - even if it involves repurposing the narrative.

And finally, getting back to the Book of Mormon, we have a complicated situation there because of the detailed revelations received by Lehi and Nephi and Jacob. They start with a fully developed Christology of sorts - and then look for ways to make this Christology resonate with the Old Testament that they have - and thus we get the same sort of explanation that early Christians produce. But without that revelation - without that Christology - there wouldn't be any sense of foreshadowing of the event. And this is my point. If anything, the real foreshadowing isn't about the sacrifice (or the willingness to make the sacrifice) but about the fact that God provides the sacrifice so that we don't have to (even if we could).

Our own retelling of the story has its own issues. We talk of all sorts of things as if they are Abrahamic sacrifices - but in reality, Abraham (at least according to the text as we have it) didn't have to make the sacrifice. Most of the things we call an Abrahamic test, the sacrifice is actually required.

Edited January 20, 2025 by Benjamin McGuire

[CV75]

43 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

This is all after the fact though. This is the problem. There is this interesting scene in the New Testament in Luke 24:19-21 -

Even among the followers of Jesus, we have this culturally informed expectation of the Messiah - and Jesus was not it. The redemption of Israel was understood as something quite material - a new Davidic king that would free Israel forever and set up an eternal kingdom on the earth. In such a context, the Akedah doesn't have any connection to a future Messiah or Christological event. When Jesus appears and dies and is resurrected, early Christianity can go back and identify those older narratives and recontextualize them using their new experience. This creates a Christian narrative about Abraham and Christianity and the divinity of Jesus. But, the Jews aren't particularly happy about Christianity appropriating the patriarchal narratives, and so they reinvent the stories to combat the heresies of Christianity. This means that later Jewish interpreters (contemporary with Christianity) are approaching the text already differently than those in a pre-Christian context. The only pre-Christian text in the mix is the Genesis Apocryphon from the Dead Sea Scrolls, and while it alludes to Isaac, the fragment ends a bit before Isaac is born.

There is an interesting section in the wiki page - which discusses the changes to the text (the history of the story):

The suggestion here is that the oldest version has Abraham deciding not to sacrifice his son on his own. And we get a complicated textual history as later persons decided that they didn't really like the lack of obedience there. No matter what else we can say about it, this text has a complicated history - and with that complicated history is an even more complicated response to it. My only real opinion on this story over the years has been that with all of this baggage, we should never try to hold this story up as a model of obedience. Our changing the story to be a model of Christ is a much more acceptable sort of application - even if it involves repurposing the narrative.

And finally, getting back to the Book of Mormon, we have a complicated situation there because of the detailed revelations received by Lehi and Nephi and Jacob. They start with a fully developed Christology of sorts - and then look for ways to make this Christology resonate with the Old Testament that they have - and thus we get the same sort of explanation that early Christians produce. But without that revelation - without that Christology - there wouldn't be any sense of foreshadowing of the event. And this is my point. If anything, the real foreshadowing isn't about the sacrifice (or the willingness to make the sacrifice) but about the fact that God provides the sacrifice so that we don't have to (even if we could).

Our own retelling of the story has its own issues. We talk of all sorts of things as if they are Abrahamic sacrifices - but in reality, Abraham (at least according to the text as we have it) didn't have to make the sacrifice. Most of the things we call an Abrahamic test, the sacrifice is actually required.

That is my interpretation (God provides the sacrifice so that we don't have to), though I see the value of the ancillary lessons no matter which monotheistic religions might use them along with the primary one.

I do think the term “Abrahamic test” is convenient shorthand for anticipated, happening and completed sacrifices, whether these are sacrifices of the heart or our possessions.

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Not necessarily, it depends on when the Lord intended or expected the foreshadowing to be so interpreted and activated. Even accepting the Book of Mormon as the word of God, it is reasonable to suppose this general interpretation arose many centuries after Abraham and Moses. This is why I qualified the OP with "[in retrospect, now that we know better]."

There is also enough in the New Testament and Book of Mormon to accept the atonement of Christ without knowing anything about a foreshadowing, which was revealed to us only after it was fulfilled, which I think is a way to show us how the Lord continues to foreshadow His works today. The inspiration and discernment to recognize a current foreshadowing for our future is a wonderful spiritual gift indeed.

Even before Isaac was bound to the the sacrificial altar, Abraham himself knew for certain that the commandment he received from God was focused upon and pointing to the atoning sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus Christ…

17 By faith (most assuredly faith in Christ) Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises (most assuredly the promises God made to him that through Christ he would be exalted in the celestial kingdom and become the father of an endless posterity) offered up his only begotten son,

18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:

19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; (Hebrews 11)

Therefore reason why Abraham was able to offer up Isaac in faith and supreme confidence is because he had a sure knowledge that through the power of the resurrection of Jesus Christ Isaac would be raised from the dead, and this that the most holy promises God made to Abraham concerning the earthly destiny of Isaac would certainly be fulfilled. This indicates that the first individual who understood that the sacrifice of Isaac was in the similitude of the sacrifice of the Son of God was Abraham himself! This being the case, it’s ridiculous to imagine that Abraham wouldn’t have passed on this perspective of the sacrifice to Isaac, to his other posterity, and to his fellow believers. It doesn’t get any earlier in the timeframe of understanding the underlying meaning of the sacrifice than that!

And do you also remember that a ram caught in the thicket was sacrificed in the stead of Isaac? Do you honestly believe that the Christ believing patriarch Abraham didn’t realize that his sacrifice of the ram was in the similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten Son of God? If you believe Abraham was clueless on this last point, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you!

Finally, read the following:

19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him (Isaac) in a figure. (Hebrews 11)

In the above bolded portion of verse 19, the expression “in a figure” is also translated with equal accuracy as, “in a type,” meaning a type of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Meaning that through the sacrifice of the ram caught in the thicket — in the likeness of Christ being arrested, imprisoned and slain by men — Isaac was symbolically raised from the dead through the atonement.

This inability to see and comprehend the obvious reminds me of how people go through the endowment hundreds of times throughout their lives and fail to recognize the spiritual centrality and overriding salvative importance of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 20, 2025 by teddyaware

[OGHoosier]

34 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

17 By faith (most assuredly faith in Christ) Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises (most assuredly the promises God made to him that through Christ he would be exalted in the celestial kingdom and become the father of an endless posterity) offered up his only begotten son,

18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:

19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; (Hebrews 11)

I mean, in fairness, the author of Hebrews could also be saying that Abraham believed God was capable of bringing Isaac back to life if he were sacrificed. Verse 19 doesn't necessarily reference the resurrection, it could mean a return to mortality like that of Lazarus. 

[CV75]

22 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Even before Isaac was bound to the the sacrificial altar, Abraham himself knew for certain that the commandment he received from God was focused upon and pointing to the atoning sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus Christ…

17 By faith (most assuredly faith in Christ) Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises (most assuredly the promises God made to him that through Christ he would be exalted in the celestial kingdom and become the father of an endless posterity) offered up his only begotten son,

18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:

19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; (Hebrews 11)

Therefore reason why Abraham was able to offer up Isaac in faith and supreme confidence is because he had a sure knowledge that through the power of the resurrection of Jesus Christ Isaac would be raised from the dead, and this that the most holy promises God made to Abraham concerning the earthly destiny of Isaac would certainly be fulfilled. This indicates that the first individual who understood that the sacrifice of Isaac was in the similitude of the sacrifice of the Son of God was Abraham himself! This being the case, it’s ridiculous to imagine that Abraham wouldn’t have passed on this perspective of the sacrifice to Isaac, to his other posterity, and to his fellow believers. It doesn’t get any earlier in the timeframe of understanding the underlying meaning of the sacrifice than that!

And do you also remember that a ram caught in the thicket was sacrificed in the stead of Isaac? Do you honestly believe that the Christ believing patriarch Abraham didn’t realize that his sacrifice of the ram was in the similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten Son of God? If you believe Abraham was clueless on this last point, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you!

Finally, read the following:

19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him (Isaac) in a figure. (Hebrews 11)

In the above bolded portion of verse 19, the expression “in a figure” is also translated with equal accuracy as, “in a type,” meaning a type of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Meaning that through the sacrifice of the ram caught in the thicket — in the likeness of Christ being arrested, imprisoned and slain by men — Isaac was symbolically raised from the dead through the atonement.

This inability to see and comprehend the obvious reminds me of how people go through the endowment hundreds of times throughout their lives and fail to recognize the spiritual centrality and overriding salvative importance of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. 

 

 

 

 

This demonstrates the difference between traditional non-Christian interpretations focused on the original The Binding of Isaac texts(s) and those that incorporate Christian tradition, New Testament text and latter-day scripture. They needn't be mutually exclusive views; each can support progress along the covenant path. Some may wish to put a finer point on popular terminology and the Gospel principles connected to it, and perhaps teach them differently to sustain the Restoration. Others may wish to stick to the principles while using popular terminology as a convenience.

[stelf]

I think there is one important aspect of this that I don't think has been mentioned regarding sacrifice. I also hold that learning to sacrifice what you hold dear is an important, necessary even, step in progressing. However, I fundamentally reject the idea that a child is a parent's possession to be sacrificed.

Edited January 21, 2025 by stelf