Perspectives on the Akeda

God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice his child has been a subject of debate for centuries. I cannot possibly cover all the perspectives on it, so I’ll sum up the ones I find most intriguing.
The Historical Context: Historically, child sacrifice was a relatively common practice in the ancient Near East. Greek, Roman, and early Christian writers all mention it. Mass graves of children have been found in ancient Carthage and other sites. The Tanakh repeatedly discusses and condemns the practice (Leviticus 18:21, Deuteronomy 12:31, Psalms 106:37-38). The Jewish sources may be biased, but as my AP History teacher once said, the more laws you find forbidding something, the more likely it is that the thing was happening. There's no need to ban something unless people are actually doing it.
In this context, the demand that Abraham sacrifice his son is less shocking. It’s a common godly request. For ancient audiences, the shocking part may have been that Abraham ultimately does not kill his son.
Some anthropologists suggest the story is about the cultural shift from human sacrifice to animal sacrifice. They view it as an instructional tale warning people that, no matter how much they may think God wants human sacrifice, God would actually prefer demonstrations of faith and sacrifices of livestock.
The Testing of Isaac: Within the Torah, it’s unclear how aware Isaac is about what’s going on. His question about the lack of a sheep for the offering (Genesis 22:7) suggest total ignorance about what his father is about to do.
However, Rashi suggests that Isaac did, in some way, willingly submit to the test. He says that Ishmael and Isaac debated whose commitment to God was stronger. Ishmael boasted to Isaac that he had been circumcised when he was thirteen years old without resisting, whereas Isaac had been circumcised as a baby. Ishmael, unlike Isaac, had proven his willingness to physically suffer for God. Isaac replied to him, “You think to intimidate me by mentioning the loss of one part of the body! If the Holy One, blessed be He, were to tell me, ‘Sacrifice your whole body to Me’ I would not refuse”. This prompted God to tell Abraham to perform the sacrifice.
Playing Chicken with God: Some Jewish thinkers have argued that Abraham was essentially playing chicken with God. God has already stated that Abraham will have descendants through Isaac (Genesis 21:12). If Isaac dies, God will be proved a liar and an oath-breaker.
In this interpretation, Abraham goes through the motions of a sacrifice, but is aware the entire time that God cannot possibly allow Isaac’s death. This explains his lack of arguing with God and the absence of apparent distress. Abraham goes into the trial absolutely certain that Isaac will not die, and his certainty proves correct.
Failing the Test: There is a minority opinion that Abraham misunderstood and consequently failed God’s test. The argument goes that Abraham was supposed to argue with God, as he argued for the people of Sodom. God wanted to confirm that Abraham was the sort of man who would always fight for the underdog, always challenge injustice. Instead, Abraham did not challenge God. If the angel had not intervened, he would have killed his son without even asking why.
Part of this argument stems from the fact that, while God talked directly with Abraham before the sacrifice, after the sacrifice, it is only an angel who speaks with him. Abraham may have demonstrated his ability to “fear God” (Genesis 22:12) but not his ability to love humanity.
After this scene, God never speaks directly to Abraham again. The prophetic talent skips a generation. God withdraws from the family, hardly ever speaking to Isaac. Instead, he waits until Isaac’s son Jacob is grown, then speaks with him.
It should also be noted that Abraham’s near-sacrifice of his son seems to permanently damage his relationship with his family. The Torah never records him and Isaac speaking again. Sarah dies in the following chapter, possibly from shock at hearing what her husband nearly did. Even if Abraham did what God wanted, his personal life is never the same afterwards.
Learning Empathy: I have a personal theory that sometimes, when people fail to show sufficient empathy, God places them in situations that force them to confront the wrongs they have inflicted on other people. The most obvious example of this is the killing of the Egyptian firstborn in the Book of Exodus, where the Egyptian people are subjected to the same infanticidal atrocity they inflicted on the Israelites.
The command to sacrifice Isaac comes immediately after Abraham sends away Hagar and her son (Genesis 21:14). Hagar is put in a position where her child seems likely to die, apparently by the will of God. And it is, in large part, Abraham’s fault.
So God flips the tables. God puts Abraham in a position where his child seems likely to die by the will of God. He is forced to see his child frightened and near death, just as Hagar did. At the last moment, just as with Hagar, his child is saved.
I base my argument in part on the line, “Your only son, Isaac, whom you love.” As Rashi points out, Abraham has two sons. If he’s a good father, he should love both of them. But his dismissal of Hagar and Ishmael suggest that whatever his claims to the contrary, he regards only Isaac as his “true” son. He only truly loves Isaac. God ironically parrots Abraham’s unspoken thoughts about his children back at him, forcing him to confront his failings as a father.
Abraham comes out of the situation with a clearer understanding of the injustice he inflicted on Hagar. According to one midrash, the woman that he later marries, Keturah, (Genesis 25:1) is none other than Hagar by a different name. This theory indicates that Abraham repented for his mistreatment of Hagar and made amends by formally marrying her. Additionally, this explains why Ishmael is present at Abraham's funeral (Genesis 25:9).
It took Abraham many years and the near-death of Isaac for him to learn how to fully empathize with other people. But in the end, he did learn. He finally lived up to the meaning of his name: "exalted father."