God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Limnor]

I’d only add that if the story really did affirm child sacrifice, it wouldn’t need to end with God stopping it.

That's what apologists like to focus on, but (what Abraham assumed was) God stopping the child sacrifice is not the point of the story. It's that Abraham was willing to commit child sacrifice, and "God" rewarding him for being willing to do it.

I don’t think the value that we are supposed to learn is that Abraham was willing to do evil if commanded. Why? Because if that’s the case you get a God who can redefine evil as good. If that is the type of God we are talking about, then yes, I agree, that is morally repugnant.

Instead I think the lesson is—well at least for me—that Abraham trusted God for everything that He promised—Abraham’s future, his eternal life through his lineage. Abraham trusts that God can give life, not that killing is righteous.

[bill4long]

I don’t think the value that we are supposed to learn is that Abraham was willing to do evil if commanded. Why? Because if that’s the case you get a God who can redefine evil as good. If that is the type of God we are talking about, then yes, I agree, that is morally repugnant.

But that's exactly what happens in the story: Abraham was willing to do evil because he was commanded by what he assumed was God and gets rewarded for it. God knew what the end of the story would be, but Abraham didn't. Abraham perfectly accepted the Divine Command theory of good and evil.

So again, two important elements of the tale:

1. A man who was willing to commit murder at the command of some entity he assumed was the Creator.
2. A Creator who rewards people like that.

Both are disturbing to me. I don't believe the story is true, but I'm concerned about people who really do. I suspect most people these days who claim to believe such tales don't really, lip service notwithstanding.

[Limnor]

I don’t think the value that we are supposed to learn is that Abraham was willing to do evil if commanded. Why? Because if that’s the case you get a God who can redefine evil as good. If that is the type of God we are talking about, then yes, I agree, that is morally repugnant.

But that's exactly what happens in the story: Abraham was willing to do evil because he was commanded by what he assumed was God and gets rewarded for it. God knew what the end of the story would be, but Abraham didn't. Abraham perfectly accepted the Divine Command theory of good and evil.

So again, two important elements of the tale:

1. A man who was willing to commit murder at the command of some entity he assumed was the Creator.
2. A Creator who rewards people like that.

Both are disturbing to me. I don't believe the story is true, but I'm somewhat concerned about people who really do. I suspect most people these days who claim to believe such tales don't really, lip service notwithstanding.

I’m not settled on real vs allegory, but I definitely don’t believe child sacrifice is the model to be followed, and yes I would be alarmed by those who do. It’s a crime.

So if that’s the moral of the story, then yes, that type of God should be rejected. Because if a God can redefine evil as good, it would be fatal to anyone who wants to believe while maintaining moral purpose.

But there is another way to read it—though admittedly it is a backward projection from the New Testament. Which is that the stopping of the sacrifice proves that obedience unto evil was not the intent of the test.

Don’t get me wrong, I think it is a horrifying situation and not a test that is repeatable or a model for behavior, aside from the “trust God for eternal life” promise.

[bill4long]

I’m not settled on real vs allegory, but I definitely don’t believe child sacrifice is the model to be followed, and yes I would be alarmed by those who do. It’s a crime.

Glad to hear it. Not that I had any doubt about you.

But seriously, child sacrifice being a good thing or a model to follow is not the point of the story.

[Limnor]

I’m not settled on real vs allegory, but I definitely don’t believe child sacrifice is the model to be followed, and yes I would be alarmed by those who do. It’s a crime.

Glad to hear it. Not that I had any doubt about you.

But seriously, child sacrifice being a good thing or a model to follow is not the point of the story.

I get it. But let’s introduce another thought—I think motive matters. If Abraham’s motive is “I will do evil because God commands it,” then the story implies that evil can be sanctified by command—even if we’re told not to repeat it.

If, however, Abraham’s motive is trust that God will remain faithful to His promise of life and not finally require evil, then the stopping of the sacrifice isn’t a side detail—it’s the key to how to understand it.

[bill4long]

Glad to hear it. Not that I had any doubt about you.

But seriously, child sacrifice being a good thing or a model to follow is not the point of the story.

I get it. But let’s introduce another thought—I think motive matters. If Abraham’s motive is “I will do evil because God commands it,” then the story implies that evil can be sanctified by command—even if we’re told not to repeat it.

If, however, Abraham’s motive is trust that God will remain faithful to His promise of life and not finally require evil, then the stopping of the sacrifice isn’t a side detail—it’s the key to how to understand it.

That's one way to look at it. However, if Abraham didn't actually believe that the sacrifice would be required in the end, then the whole thing is a charade. It was no test of loyalty at all, and is thus pointless. It's the actual belief and acceptance of the command to actually kill Isaac that is the point of the ordeal, as the text itself indicates.

"Do not lay your hand on the lad or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me."

I've heard theologians reason that since Isaac was the "miracle child" through whom God's promises would be fulfilled, that Abe believed God would raise Isaac from the dead or somehow remedy the situation. But Abe took out the knife. (Gen 22:10) The willingness to actually commit the killing is what was rewarded.

[Limnor]

Glad to hear it. Not that I had any doubt about you.

But seriously, child sacrifice being a good thing or a model to follow is not the point of the story.

I get it. But let’s introduce another thought—I think motive matters. If Abraham’s motive is “I will do evil because God commands it,” then the story implies that evil can be sanctified by command—even if we’re told not to repeat it.

If, however, Abraham’s motive is trust that God will remain faithful to His promise of life and not finally require evil, then the stopping of the sacrifice isn’t a side detail—it’s the key to how to understand it.

Abraham is praised not because he was willing to do evil if commanded, but because he believed that God’s promise of life could be trusted even when everything he had been given seemed about to be taken away.

[Limnor]

One more thought and then I’ll shush. This story isn’t transactional. God’s promise comes first, which means Abraham isn’t trading obedience for reward—he’s acting out of trust in a God who has already committed Himself. He’s already provided.

It’s not “now I know you were scared enough to kill your son,” but something closer to “now I know you trust me enough to relinquish what you cannot control.”

What Abraham learns is that this kind of God is not manageable or manipulable—He can’t be bargained with through transactional obedience.

I tried to bring this back to the fish but couldn’t land it cleanly.

[Gadianton]

Reading it backwards through the New Testament changes the test from “will you prove loyalty to God through obedience no matter what,” to “do you trust that God is not cruel, and that He actually loves you enough to give you eternal life?” Sacrificing the seed that would provide that eternal life doesn’t make sense unless the seed could be brought back to life.

Well, we've got two things going on with this discussion. The first is what Abraham, presumably a real person, went through. The second is the record as we have it. Contextualized with the New Testament, we might "supplement" it here and there. But Abraham wasn't privy to the New Testament. We seem to agree that there is tension between authority and love. You can't make people love you, no matter how much power you have. This could be problematic for God, who has ultimate authority over everything. But the next step in self-awareness, to me, would be God to realize it's silly to pursue the love of other people. The command to love God first is silly. I might try and salvage it by saying loving God really translates into loving the tribe, but that's psychoanalysis. Laws about sexuality and diet were greatly assisted by disease. So I take the command to love God on its own terms. Reciprocal. God does us favors by preserving us as his chosen people and we sacrifice animals and prostrate ourselves in return, because God, a "Man of War" as the the Old Testament says, is much like an authoritarian leader. But as you say, the New Testament can fix this, after lots of tribal clashes and reflection.

That didn't fully respond, but I'm taking off here in a sec.

[Limnor]

But the next step in self-awareness, to me, would be God to realize it's silly to pursue the love of other people. The command to love God first is silly. I might try and salvage it by saying loving God really translates into loving the tribe, but that's psychoanalysis. Laws about sexuality and diet were greatly assisted by disease. So I take the command to love God on its own terms. Reciprocal. God does us favors by preserving us as his chosen people and we sacrifice animals and prostrate ourselves in return, because God, a "Man of War" as the the Old Testament says, is much like an authoritarian leader. But as you say, the New Testament can fix this, after lots of tribal clashes and reflection.

That didn't fully respond, but I'm taking off here in a sec.

Yeah being a “man of war” and yet a loving being is an interesting lived paradox for me personally—and part of why I enjoy these discussions. To sort through those opposed things on a personal level.

The following reflects how I “bring it all together,” as a clean rendering of how I read Pauline thought.

If God is love in the fullest biblical sense, then the command to love doesn’t assume we can generate that love on our own—rather it exposes that we can’t.

Abraham matters here because the promise comes first—life, blessing, and love originate in God, not human effort.

The command and the test don’t teach obedience for its own sake, but dependence—showing that even love, in its truest form, must be received rather than produced.

That’s why the New Testament moves toward God dwelling in us—love is fulfilled not by our obedience, but through our participation and union with who God is.