How is the story of Abraham and Isaac a moral example?

I’m going to file this under infrequently-asked questions, but good ones. I was recently asked, “How is Abraham’s attempting to sacrifice Isaac praiseworthy? How is it any kind of moral example, and what does the command say about God?”

My short answer: It’s not a moral example. It’s in there to shatter Abraham’s preconceptions.

Remember Abraham was a Semite. Semitic gods (or their priesthoods) tended to demand that you sacrifice your animals, your virginity, and sometimes your children. In the books of Judges, Kings and Chronicles, we learn that the worship of YHWH was just one of the religions practiced in ancient Israel; the Jews on the whole didn’t really grasp the concept of monotheism till their return from exile in Babylon. One of YHWH’s longest-lasting competitor religions worshiped a deity called Moloch, whose priests sacrificed worshipers’ children (see the Jewish Encyclopedia on Moloch).

With dangerous deities like these, the possibility of having to sacrifice your child on demand was always there. When Abraham heard this command from his new God, no doubt he was mortified; but I doubt he was nearly as shocked as we modern readers are. That’s what Abraham’s culture expected gods to demand. Abraham’s only ray of hope was that after he sacrificed his own son, God would raise him from the dead – because He had promised Abraham offspring through this son.

But as the story unfolds, God interrupts the sacrifice and provides a ram to substitute for the child. Lesson for Abraham: This God is different – he does not want the sacrifice of your children; you offer sacrifices in their place.

The lesson later generations of Israel are meant to learn from Abraham and Isaac is not simply “Be as obedient as Abraham.” Rather, it is “God will never demand your children in sacrifice. Instead, the thing you offer stands for you and your family.” The same theme is repeated in Exodus 13: fathers are commended to dedicate every firstborn to God, of man or animal. But for a firstborn child, you redeem them with an animal sacrifice.

Redemption was one of the first foundation stones in the new faith of Abraham’s descendants. The sacramental understanding that you eat a sacrificial meal together in fellowship with the God it’s offered to, couldn’t arise as long as Abraham’s descendants thought their God was a threat to their children, just as a healthy trust in our own father can’t happen when he’s an abuser. So at the very beginning, God rules out that fear forever.

By impressing on Abraham that sacrifices are offered instead of people, He sets the stage for the later ideas of substitution, scapegoats, and personal redemption (cf Lev.25:25 and the whole book of Ruth.) Those are all important concepts that will later foreshadow Christ.

In a way, the lesson to Abraham relates to how the West talks about hell today. In modern evangelicalism, sometimes God is a threat: He’s planning to hurt you forever in hell, unless you get your doctrines and regulations straight, and mean it when you pray. Jesus goes to the cross, so God can hurt him instead of you, and you can go be with God forever. To my mind, that puts us back where Abraham started, trying to please a divine abuser.

The Passion of Christ does fulfill the Old Testament types of the scapegoat that carries away sins and the paschal lamb that turns away wrath; but the universal Christian sacrament of the Eucharist ought to teach us to identify Christ’s suffering and resurrection in our own sacrificial meal, the present life-giving and deified body of Christ. Rather than harking back to demonic beliefs about mythical deities who wanted sons to die, we ought to be fixing our eyes on the Lord who came to personally assume our nature, enter into our death, lead us to life, and sit down with us at the sacramental Wedding Supper of the Lamb.

Author: Father Silouan Thompson

Share This Post On


  1. Brilliant, thank you … this has resolved many issues that atheist chat has caused for myself and put my thinking back on track with the logic of the Old Testament.

    Post a Reply
  2. I like this take on the reason for the demand. There is another take on this from the Seventh-day Adventist theological history books that I also like. The pastors Jones & Waggoner wrote on the topic in 1888 and used this story as one of the Bible’s premier examples of faith. Not blind faith, but intelligent and perfectly complete faith. Their argument ran like this:

    God had already promised Abraham that he would make a great nation of him through Isaac. Abraham had already seen God do many seemingly impossible things, and had paid high prices for failing to take God at his word in the past. Abraham had no need to consider this demand of God’s in a vacuum – God had outstanding promises to Abraham. Faith is taking God at his word; no more, no less. It is, in the words of Jones & Waggoner, to act as if the result had already come about. To act as if it were impossible that the word of God could be controverted. For Abraham, this meant that once God had promised to make a great nation through Isaac nothing could change it. It was as good as done. He had every reason to believe that God could raise Isaac from the dead, or perform any other miracle necessary in order to fulfill his earlier promise, even things beyond Abraham’s imagination or comprehension.

    So for Jones & Waggoner, it was a test of faith, probably brought about by Abraham’s earlier lapse of faith that Sarah could conceive. God was saying “Do you now have perfect faith that I will make a great nation through Isaac? Have you learned to trust my word, and my word only?”

    Theirs is the best definition of faith I have ever found. It ties faith to action naturally and intrinsically, and it does not leave reason out in the cold. It is fairly old writing, but a very powerful set of sermons. This specific account is on page 15 of this PDF:

    Post a Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *