Why are Christians into Child Sacrifice?

Right? No, that’s probably not how you responded to that title. First off, let me disclose that I am a follower of Christ (hopefully I didn’t just lose any readers, stick with me). So this isn’t a bash-on-Christians piece, but it also kind of is. We have to be critical of the world we live in, right? Anyways, let me explain the title. What I’m referring to is Jesus dying on the cross. No big deal. Well, I guess if you’re not familiar, to Christians this is a really big deal. One of the biggest deals of the faith. What I’m referring to more specifically is the image of Jesus as the son of God who died as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. If you’re not in a church, you could just pose this as a child sacrifice, couldn’t you? There is a father (God) and a son (Jesus). The son is murdered, and Christians believe he was the “Lamb of God”. Like a lamb slaughtered for sacrifice? So God partook in child sacrifice? Now if I pose it this way, I think a lot of Christians would get defensive and say something like, “Well it’s not really like that, see this is a very special case…”. I mean, I’m sure I’ve said some defense like that before. But my big question is: is this how God sees the crucifixion? In this piece, I’m going to be asking a lot of questions without many answers. But I hear that’s how the ancient Sages did it, so I’ll roll with it.

This grievance came about when I was studying a story at the beginning of the Bible traditionally called “The Binding of Isaac”. It takes place in the book of Genesis, in chapter 22 starting in the first verse through verse 19. I’ll summarize it here, but I really encourage you to go look it up and read it to shed light on this and develop your own perspective. In the context of the story, there is an old man named Abraham who has just had his first son with his (also old) wife Sarah. They waited a very long time to have a child, they finally have one, and they name him Isaac. One day, God calls upon Abraham to test him by asking him to offer Isaac as a “burnt offering”, which basically means a sacrifice to God. Abraham obeys this call, and he takes his son on a three-day journey to a mountain to make the sacrifice. On the way up, Isaac asks, “where is the lamb?” and Abraham responds, “God will provide the lamb” (obviously lying because he knows what he’s going to do). They get to the mountain, Abraham builds an altar for sacrifice, binds his son, puts him on the altar and gets out a knife to kill Isaac. At the last moment, a voice calls from heaven telling Abraham to stop, to not lay a hand on Isaac. God reveals this was only a test, and a ram appears that replaces Isaac as the sacrifice. Happy ending, Isaac survives.

So here we have a story that involves child sacrifice. One that ends in the way any reader would hope, that the child doesn’t have to die. Having grown up going to church, I have heard this story many times and have gathered a variety of lessons from it. I think the most commonly highlighted aspect is the faith of Abraham. That Abraham would obey the voice of God no matter what, even if it meant giving up his only son whom he has waited so long for and loves dearly. But in recent years I have found that there are so many more profound implications of this story, and some of those implications bring me to the crucifixion of Jesus.

Let’s dissect some context around this story. One of the big realities surrounding the whole book of Genesis, is the portrayal of this God that Abraham comes to know, and how this God is different from the gods all around him. Many of the gods of the land of Canaan (where all this takes place) are angry gods that demand, they take what they want, and they are unpredictable. But through the narrative that’s built in Genesis, this God who comes to Abraham was a god who was merciful, slow to anger, giving of grace, and who cared about people. Here in this story is the contrast of sacrifices. One practice that existed in the land of Canaan was child sacrifice. If you want details, look up the Canaanite god Molech, it was some brutal stuff that even continued into the Greco-Roman age. As Abraham began to learn who this God was, he was beginning to see that he was different from the gods he knew of. So when this God asks Abraham to partake in child sacrifice, can you imagine what he felt? I can imagine him thinking, “but I thought this God was different. Sacrifice my only child? Maybe I was wrong about this God”. It had to have been devastating! Not only that he was to kill his son, but also the shattered perspective of his God. But at the same time, Abraham probably wasn’t terribly surprised. He probably kind of expected this. Knowing the gods of the land, he probably thought demands like these were bound to come. So Abraham obeys, but not without reluctance. Based on the locations shared, a lot of biblical scholars believe the journey should not have lasted three days. So Abraham might have been stalling. And the whole way he has to deal with his kid, knowing that at the end of the road Isaac would die, and by his hand. Probably constantly thinking, “I thought this God was different. What have I gotten myself into?”. But how does the story end? God calls the whole thing off. Why? Because Abraham was right, this God is different. Once again, God reveals himself saying, “I am not like these other gods you’ve known. Keep your son, and I will bless you greatly through him”. Pretty epic.

This God of the bible is different from the pagan gods who demand children to be murdered. Except when he changed his mind to have his own holy son be brutally murdered and offered up as a sin offering. Wait, what? No, that can’t be right. Is that the Christian narrative? God so beautifully revealed that he didn’t ask for child sacrifice, but when He’s the main character all bets are off and he partakes in a child sacrifice of the grandest of scales. Well, that is kind of the Christian narrative I grew up hearing. Why would the principles change just because God is the main character? Why would he display a different character between these two stories? Was Jesus really offered up as a sacrifice by the Father? Do we have an improper view of the crucifixion? I think I stand by what I said earlier. No, that can’t be right. I don’t believe the story changed. So what does this mean? Where does this leave us? I encourage you to search for an answer to that question.