Claim. God’s command that abraham sacrifice isaac as a burnt offering (Gen 22) was a greater-indemnity condition — restoring through Isaac what Abraham had lost by failing to cut the doves — and constitutes the first concrete case of the greater-indemnity type that Ch 2-1’s dp-three-types-of-indemnity-equal-lesser-greater atomic defined abstractly.
Elaboration. Per DP §3.1.2 (Abraham’s offering of Isaac), the predestination principle normally bars re-using a failed central figure. DP names three converging reasons God re-engaged Abraham: (1) the number three signifies completion — Abraham’s was the third dispensation after Adam’s and Noah’s, and the principle-of-creation requires completing it; (2) Satan attacked Adam and his son cain across two generations, so God could reclaim Abraham and Isaac across two generations; (3) Abraham stood on the accumulated merit of Abel (formation-stage symbolic offering) and Noah (growth-stage), and this double foundation supported re-engagement.
Mechanics: Abraham’s resolute zeal in raising the knife “lifted him up to the position of already having killed Isaac,” completely separating Satan from him. After the angel stayed the knife, Abraham himself was “resurrected” loose from satanic ties his earlier failure had incurred. Abraham and Isaac thereafter became “as one person in the sight of God” — Isaac’s victory counts as Abraham’s, so the dispensation is reckoned as not prolonged.
The substitute ram caught in the thicket became Isaac’s own symbolic offering, since Isaac (united with Abraham) was given providential credit. The three-day journey to Moriah also established the three-day separation-of-Satan precedent used by Jacob leaving Haran, Moses leaving Egypt, and Jesus’ three days in the tomb.
See also. Engagement-relevant against mainstream readings of Gen 22 (test of faith, typological prefiguration of Christ, ethical conundrum).