Was Jesus offered up in the same place as Abraham offered his son Isaac?

[Pergamum]

In many sermons or commentaries touching on Genesis 22 the commentator speaks of the same hill where Abraham offered up his son as being the place where Jesus was sacrificed.

What are the evidences for this? Was the spot where Isaac was about to be sacrificed the same spot where Jesus later was sacrificed?

Mount Moriah and Golgotha appear different, but does the reading of Genesis 22 make it necessary that it was Mount Moriah itself (where the temple of Solomon was later built) or one of the mountains in Moriah (maybe the hill that later became Golgotha).

Does anyone have a link to any maps or pictures?


Also, how much time elapsed between Genesis 21 and 22? About 20 years? This would mean that Isaac was about 30, right..about the same age as Christ? Why do most folks seem to picture him as a young boy then?

 

[JoannaV]

I don't really have much to say, except the modern idea of Isaac being a very young boy may have originated some time between the Renaissance and now, perhaps driven by various artistic renditions that gradually drove his age younger and younger??

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Gen.22:2 He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you."

2Chr.3:1 Then Solomon began to build the house of the LORD in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, where the LORD had appeared to David his father, at the place that David had appointed, on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite.

I would guess that the connection was largely proximate, that is to say, the place Abraham set up his altar alone couldn't possibly be more than in the general region or vicinity of where the Temple would one day sit, which was not too far off from where Jesus was crucified, outside the city wall.

Making a huge deal out of the notion that the cross was erected on the site of the altar seems greatly overwrought. It isn't stated as such anywhere in the Bible, and the one explicit connection between Abraham's altar is to the altar of the Temple. Jesus is the Lamb of God, and the great Substitute; he is the Son who is given up. What more is to be gained, trying to shoehorn a physical connection that is most exact?

My guess is, that the comments connecting the locations uber-closely have either been 1) more general than they're credited as being (i.e. misread); or 2) they were simply mistaken/misremembered by the author or speaker; or else 3) they were a pious exaggeration and a bit too superstitious, trying to force a harmony where none was demanded.




As for the time lapse, it might not be impossible for Isaac to be so old (30yrs), but I think that's much too high. Gen.22:5 uses the term translated "lad" or "boy," indicating a young child up through adolescence (teens most likely). So, my thinking is that Isaac probably isn't even 20yrs at most, and more likely younger than that.

Again, it seems like some interpreters feel the need to make Isaac a physical match for the 30ish Lord Jesus. But why? Because he's not a good type or symbol unless he's the same age as Christ at his crucifixion? That is an absurd demand. It doesn't accomplish what the proposers seem to think it will.

 

[JoannaV]

Teens feels likely but the same term is used both to refer to a pre-weaned Samuel and Benjamin in Egypt (who seems to be in 20s or even early 30s if you figure out his age). Given a longer lifespan we would expect youth to last longer?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Joanna,
Your points are cogent. And I generally agree with them.

In the case of Samuel, word use is confirmatory of what I wrote ("young child up through adolescence").

In the case of Benjamin, he was probably an infant when Joseph was sold away at 17yrs, making Ben roughly 21yrs old (and roughly the end of adolescence) when Joseph meets him again. Add in the fact that Ben is forever "the baby" of the clan, and that Jacob "sheltered" him all that time, the reference to him as "lad" or "boy" is apt. And you are right to think that "youth" has to be mapped to the relative longevity of the patriarchs.