Genesis 22:1-2

"And it came to pass after these things, that God did prove Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham; and he said, Here am I. And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son, whom thou lovest, even Isaac, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of."

"God did prove Abraham ..." This was the only thing that God ever commanded Abraham to do calling it a "test" or "proving" of his faith in connection with it. None of the other things God commanded and Abraham obeyed had the quality of this event as a TEST. For example, Abraham might have desired, from personal reasons, to leave Ur, etc. The offering of Isaac, however, was something that Abraham could not have done except in an act of obedience to God. The versions that render the word "tempt" instead of "prove" are misleading, because God does not TEMPT any man (James 1:13).

The shocking intensity and impact of this divine command are seen in the cumulative effect of the designations for Isaac: "thy son ... thine only son ... whom thou lovest ... even Isaac!" "This is the first mention of love in the O.T."[10] Oddly enough, the first mention of love in the N.T. ("This is my beloved Son ..." Matthew 3:17) refers to Christ, of whom Isaac was a type.

"Land of Moriah ... one of the mountains ..." Where was this? The best answer points inevitably to Jerusalem, and the critical objection that it was less than three days' journey is merely a quibble. The Bible does not say that it was three days' journey, but that on the third day "Abraham saw the place afar off." Since Jerusalem cannot be seen from any great distance, the expression here must be understood relatively, and they might have arrived at noon. Certainly there was time remaining on that third day for the walk up the mountain and the building of the altar, etc. As noted in the previous chapter, Jerusalem was about 50 miles from where Abraham lived. Ewing's objection that Jerusalem cannot be "seen afar off by one approaching from the south or the southwest,"[11] merely proves that the critic misunderstood what was meant by "afar off." The notion that an old man around 125 or 130 years of age would have found that trip any less than a three days' journey borders on the ridiculous. The reasons for denying that Abraham offered Isaac in an area that later became Jerusalem are not logical or scientific, but theological. The critical schools are determined to deny as many facts of this episode as possible.

The Bible refers to Jerusalem as being in "the land of Moriah" (2 Chronicles 3:1), but the Jewish insistence that Solomon built the Temple on that very mountain where Isaac was offered is nowhere declared to be anything that God said. Our conviction is that the hill of Calvary is where Isaac was offered. "We may gather from Genesis 22:14 that the writer intended for Jerusalem to be understood here."[12] Payne referred to the "Identification of Moriah with Jerusalem, as vague (2 Chronicles 3:1),"[13] but a simple glance at the passage will reveal that such a statement is unjustified. Willis thought that, "As yet, no convincing location has been proposed,"[14] but the traditions of 3,000 years on this, as well as Scriptural identification are "convincing" enough for this writer. Kline identified it with Jerusalem.[15] Whitelaw, Leupold, Yates, Adam Clarke and many others received the evidence linking Moriah with Jerusalem as far more than sufficient, and convincing enough.

"One of the mountains which I shall tell thee of ..." We are left without any information whatever on just how God identified the particular place where Isaac was to be offered.