Br'eshit / Genesis 22:8 has to do with the binding of Isaac (not a sacrifice).
"And it came to pass after these things, that G-d tested Avraham, and said to him, Avraham; and he said, 'Here I am. And he said, Take now your son, your only son Yitzchak (Isaac), whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah; and bring him up there for an עֹלָ֖ה / olah offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell you. " (B'reishit 22:1-2).
An עֹלָ֖ה / olah -- was not a טָּאת / sin sacrifice or a אָשָׁם / guilt sacrifice. An עֹלָ֖ה / olah, translated as "burnt sacrifice," was a voluntary sacrifice generally brought to G-d as a donation to G-d or to seal a vow. . . but sometimes brought for impure thoughts, not deeds). Ergo if Jesus was supposedly an עֹלָ֖ה / olah then his death would not have been for sins -- that would have been a טָּאת / a sin sacrifice.
How do we know that the עֹלָ֖ה / olah was primarily to thank G-d, or for donations and for vows?
“And Hashem said to Moses, saying, Speak to Aharon (Moses' brother and the first Jewish priest) and to his sons and to all Bnai Yisrael (the Jews, the children of Israel) and say to them: Any man whatsoever from the house of Yisrael, or from the converts among Yisrael, who offers up his sacrifice for any of their vows (or for any of their donations that they may offer up to Hashem as an עֹלָ֖ה / olah offering) to be favorable for you, [it shall be] an unblemished male – from cattle, from sheep, or from goats. Any [animal] that has a blemish, you shall not offer up, for it will not be favorable for you. And if a man offers up a Shelamim (peace) offering to Hashem for declaring a vow or as a donation from cattle or from the flock to be accepted, it shall be unblemished. It shall not have any blemish in it.” (VaYikra / Leviticus 22:17-21)
Any mention of sin?
An olah is not brought for atonement of sin. (Zevachim 12b). On top of that without repentance it is not accepted and if you do repent you do not need to bring a sacrifice at all. (Zevachim 7b).
Notice also that the offering had to be an unblemished male animal from cattle, sheep or goats (all kosher). Humans are not kosher. This should give you a "hint" that G-d would not allow a sacrifice of a human (Isaac or Jesus) as neither is a fit sacrifice. Actually, when you read the text of the Akeida (the binding of Isaac) you will never actually read that G-d tells Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.
G-d NEVER says it.
He simply says "bring Isaac up the mountain for an olah offering."
Is it possible that Abraham knew all along that G-d would provide a kosher animal for the olah -- just as he told Isaac? "'G-d will see to a lamb for an offering, my son,' replied Abraham." Br'eshit / Genesis 22:8.
Missionaries try to use the Akeida (the near sacrifice of Isaac) as proof that G-d wants human sacrifices. Yet Isaac is NOT sacrificed. Isn't it obvious that the entire moral of the story is that human sacrifice is FORBIDDEN)?
In fact, the whole “lamb of G-d” concept of pagan – just do a review of Mithraism or other pagan religions to see that they called their gods the “lamb of god.” The Jewish bible (T’nach) makes it clear time and again that lambs were considered holy by the pagans – including the Egyptians – and this is where John 1:29 takes the concept of “lamb of god” – most certainly NOT from Judaism. Read the story of Joseph in Genesis 46:34 – he says that being a shepherd is “taboo” in Egypt – because they were HOLY to the Egyptians (gods).
Go forward a few chapters to Sh'mot / Exodus and read the discussion between Moses and Pharaoh. Moses asked Pharaoh to allow the Jews to go into the desert and sacrifice the שֶׂה seh -- the reason was that we did not want to kill the שֶׂה seh in front of the Egyptians:
"We can’t possibly do that,” said Mosheh, “because we’re going to sacrifice the Egyptians’ G-d to HaShem our G-d! If we were to sacrifice their G-d right in front of them, wouldn’t they pelt us with rocks?” (Sh'mot / Exodus 8:22).
The Egyptians would pelt us with rocks because we were INSULTING them by bringing a celebratory sacrifice of the שֶׂה seh -- because the Egyptians worshiped the שֶׂה seh as a god! A שֶׂה seh is a young male goat or lamb. Jews did not worship lambs as gods, the thought of a "lamb of G-d" in Judaism is non-existant. The idea is totally pagan, as Moses discussed with Pharaoh. . .
So what is B'reshit / Genesis 22:8 about if it isn't about G-d being blood thirsty and wanting a human sacrifice to satiate His need for human blood (disgusting idea)?
It is a TEST for Abraham.
It is actually the 10th and final test of Abraham to see if he is worthy of the covenant.
Was the test that Abraham was willing to kill his beloved son as a human sacrifice? That is certainly one interpretation -- even though G-d makes it clear that He will forbid it.
Or is the true test that G-d trusted G-d would not allow a human sacrifice? Was Abraham willing to go to the very point where he nearly killed his son because his trust in G-d's righteousness was so great Abraham knew that, in the end, G-d would provide an alternative and not allow the sacrifice of a human?
Let me explain the Akeida (the Binding of Isaac) in a bit of detail. This was the tenth and final test by G-d of Abraham's loyalty. One can look at this test in one of two ways:
1. G-d is testing Abraham's willingness to trust G-d in all things -- even if it means sacrificing his beloved son;
2. Abraham's test was his belief that G-d would not allow him to kill Isaac even though it seemed that was what G-d wanted.
So let's look at this closely. Nowhere does G-d command that Abraham sacrifice Isaac.
Abraham TRUSTED that G-d would keep His word and not take Isaac.
It was definitely a test of Abraham's faith in G-d. It was not a test to see if Abraham would kill his son, but if he trusted G-d enough to know that in the end G-d wouldn't require it.
Abraham knows that G-d abhors human sacrifice, and further Abraham knows that G-d won't kill the innocent. The whole point of Genesis 22 is the REVERSE of what missionaries claim.. The whole point of the Akeida is that G-d wil not allow human sacrifice. One more time: G-d didn't tell Abraham to offer his son as a burnt-offering. What He said was,: וְלֶךְ לְךָ אֶל אֶרֶץ הַמֹּרִיָּה וְהַעֲלֵהוּ שָׁם לְעֹלָה "and go forth to the land of Moriah; bring him up there for an elevation-offering (olah) . . ."
v'ha-aleyhu (bring him up) is the same root as l'olah (for an elevation-offering) -- usually translated as a "burnt" offering because the smoke rises -- but it literally means "elevation offer."
So the Torah doesn't actually say Abraham is to take Isaac, slaughter him and burn him. The actual command was for Abraham to bring Isaac up for an offering, not to offer Isaac himself. Vague one might call it.
The binding of Isaac was the 10th test of Abraham's faith in G-d. Abraham knows that G-d abhors human sacrifice, and further Abraham knows that G-d won't kill the innocent. The whole point of Genesis 22 is the REVERSE of what you just said. The whole point is that G-d wil not allow human sacrifice.
How do we know this? Well, for one, Abraham doesn't argue for the life of his son. Yet just a few lines before he argued to save the innocent of Sodom:
Abraham asks G-d in Br'eshit / Genesis 18:23 "He came forward and said, 'Will You actually wipe out the innocent together with the guilty?"
So Abraham would fight for the lives of strangers, but not for that of his son?
This is after Abraham has also pleaded with G-d not to foget Ishmael (his son by Hagar) -- but on killing Isaac missionaries think he would remain silent???
Then Abraham says (B'reshit / Genesis 18:25) "It would be sacrilege even to ascribe such an act to You - to kill the innocent with the guilty, letting the righteous and the wicked fare alike. It would be sacrilege to ascribe this to You! Shall the whole world's Judge not act justly?"
Isn't Isaac innocent? Isn't G-d just? Yet missionaries think Abraham wouldn't even QUESTION the request to kill his innocent son, the very son whom G-d promised would inherit Abraham's covenant and bear many offspring -- the future Jewish nation?
Did G-d lie to Abraham?
Did Abraham forget the promise and assume G-d was going to take his son?
B'reshit / Genesis 17:19 "G-d said, 'Still, your wife Sarah will give birth to a son. You must name him Isaac. I will keep My covenant with him as an eternal treaty, for his descendants after him."
So G-d forgot His promise?
Or Abraham did?
Obviously neither forgot.
There is a reason Jews call this story the Akeda the "Binding of Isaac" -- not the sacrifice.
Abraham told Isaac: B'reshit / Genesis 22:8 'G-d will see to a lamb for an offering, my son,' replied Abraham."
And G-d did just that.
But G-d did NOT provide a lamb (sorry John 1:29). G-d provided an אַיִל / ayil. This is a 13 - 24 month fully grown male ram with horns, not a lamb.
But even if the missionaries were right and Abraham was going to kill his son -- G-d stopped ithe human sacrifice, thus proving that human sacrifices are FORBIDDEN.
You can't get around it. No matter how you view the story, Isaac was not sacrificed. G-d didn't allow it to happen.