We looked at what I've always called "the sacrifice of Isaac," 'though it's more properly called "the binding of Isaac," since that's as far as the ritual went before a substitution was made.

The questions were deep and involved. The discussion reminded me of the trend among some to disbelieve the physical dimension of eschatological resurrection. I had Luke Timothy Johnson's book with me (excerpted here at beliefnet), and while for the most part, Johnson's more traditional than I, in an instance like the old-fashioned belief in the resurrection of the body, he comes in handy.

We were referred to Hebrews for some insight into Abraham's motivation. And, as we read verse 19, He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back (Hebrews 11:19), someone objected that this was conjecture.

I surprised even myself when I countered, "Yes, it's a person's opinion but it's inspired!" I wasn't challenged, but if I had been to explain "inspired," I would have answered, "trustworthy, reliable." You can believe it. And why not?

But the thing to keep in mind, when the Bible seems to make an inexplicable jump of light years without any discernible paper trail, one must look outside the Bible, in the rabbinic tradition, for the full story. This is my suspicion based on the NT hints, but I don't know enough, not specifically about Abraham and Isaac, certainly.

Cf. Fr. Komonchak's post at Commonweal blog.