My Meditations

– A Reflection on Genesis 22:1-19

Abstract –

In Christian traditions, the offering of Isaac by Abraham as recorded in Genesis 22 has been seen as exemplar of sublimed faith. This notion is no less assured by subsequent Biblical writers such as James and the anonymous author of the epistle to the Hebrews. Be that as it may, it is still mildly perplexing that God’s “test” (נָסָה) of Abraham’s faith, allegedly, comes after the most commemorative recognition of his faith as righteousness in Genesis 15:6. While it is granted that when it comes to faith one never reaches its apex in one’s lifetime, could there be more in the “test” than the virtue of faith? Was there subtly much more that Yahweh want to show and share with one whom he regarded as friend? The following paragraphs purport to probe the Biblical text in this respect, and suggest what God and Abraham share in common as fathers and friends.

A Sorrowful Way –

It took three days – days laden with doubt, dread, and unimaginable agony.   The road from Beersheba to the land of Moriah, normally an uneventful journey, this time was fraught with disillusion, despair, and unknown.  An air of poignancy was palpable.

Crises and Promise –

We turn back for a moment to look at the events that precipitated this incident on the mountain of Moriah.  The story of Abram was preceded by Terah, Abram’s father, taking his family from the city of Ur, with the aim to go into the land of Canaan.  For whatever reason they fell well short of their goal and settled in Haran in the region of Paddam-Aram.  We are not told upon whose initiative did Terah embark on the westward journey, but Gen. 15:7^[2] makes clear that it was the LORD who brought Abram out from Ur of the Chaldeans, and Abram was the recipient of the promise (12:1-3).  At age 75, Abram resumed a journey undertaken haltingly hitherto, yet was unsure of the ultimate destination only to be told that it would be shown to him.  Thus, it marked a new beginning in Abraham’s life, one that was typified with sojourning and uncertainties, but was also characterized by obedient responses to Yahweh’s imperatival combination of “go forth” (12:1b) and “be” a blessing (12:2c). 

¹Now the LORD said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land I will show you.  ²And I will make you a nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing.  ³I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

– Gen. 12:1-3

A closer look at 12:1-3 shows:

• The impetus to Abraham’s obedience was predicated on the promise, expressed in actions on the LORD’s part –translated appropriately in a fivefold modal imperfective “I will”.  The promise was capped by a causative statement “in you …” with an emphatic perfect passive verb “shall be blessed”, programmatically laying out Yahweh’s ultimate objective of His call to Abraham^[3].

• Put more succinctly, the promise includes the land, a nation, a great name, social esteem and protection, with a divine telic designation to be the vessel (“in you”) of blessings to nations.  Although glimpses of fulfillments could be caught in his lifetime^[4], concrete realizations to this promise were largely illusive to Abram.  No sooner had Yahweh appeared to Abram and identified the promised land (“this land” 12:7) than he had to leave it because of famine.   In Egypt, he experienced God’s protection but was branded persona non grata and evicted. 

In the so-called Abraham Cycle of the Genesis narratives, eight separate episodes of encounters between Yahweh and Abram/Abraham are recorded. Four of these are monologues from God, the other four involve dialogues with Abraham. We find Abraham in these encounters either already in crises, or would plunge into one as a result.

• The initial command (12:1-3) led to his uprooting from his original homeland.  When Abram’s entourage came to the land of Canaan, their supposed destination, he found that “the Canaanites were in the land” (12:7).  Later, feud between herdsmen and kinsmen forced a reluctant separation with his nephew Lot, dashing a glimmer of hope for a possible heir within the kinship (12:8-9).

• Abram’s defeat of the coalition force led by Chedorlaomer might mark one of the greatest military surprises in human warfare, but that battlefield victory also made this nomadic alien tribe of a few hundreds (14:14) the enemy of formidable potentates of the then known world.  Yahweh here appeared to a frightened Abram and promised to be his shield.  In a theophany (15:12) Yahweh solemnized His promise to Abram and “cut” a covenant (Heb.  b^erît) with him.  The LORD bound Himself with the obligation to fulfil His promise, and in an awesome act (15:17) marked this event as a significant high point in Abram’s life.  Hamilton comments thus: “Three elements in Yahweh’s covenant with Abram – unconditionality, an oath taken by [the] deity, and gift^[5].”  It is also significant that the Biblical assessment: “And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness” is referred to at this point.

• The next episode (17:1-21) reads like the flipside of covenant making that began in Ch. 15, for in this case Yahweh laid out Abram’s obligation in another imperatival combination that mirrored the first – “walk before me, and be blameless”.  Except that a decade, or close to two, had elapsed since the previous encounter; now that Abram was at 99.  Indeed, it was a renewal of the covenant.  Here, Yahweh’s promise was concretized with new names (to Abraham and Sarah) and a name (Isaac) for the promised offspring.  The institution of circumcision was given to Abraham and his household as a seal of relationship for being Yahweh’s covenant partners.

• Ch. 18 records the reciprocal hospitality Abraham offered to God, who appeared to him in an entourage of three, together with a definite revelation to Sarah about the coming of her son.  More significant is that through a skillful soliloquy of self-disclosure: “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do …”, Yahweh distinguished Abraham as someone whom he had chosen/known (Heb. yāḏa‛).  By such intimate description of covenantal relationship, the LORD once again declared His redemptive intent, and cemented Abraham in his historical position.  In turn, Abraham took on the role as intercessor for nations (Sodom and Gomorrah).  In so doing he gained new insight about God. As Hamilton aptly opined: “…. a major theme – God’s daring to adopt Abraham as his confidant – which throws into bold relief a second theme – Abraham’s daring to be Sodom’s intercessor before Yahweh.^[6]”  The thrust of the incident is to express the fact that the LORD has “known” Abraham, and in turn for Abraham to know Him.  For at the end of his intercession for Sodom, Abraham was satisfied that the Judge of all the earth indeed “do what is just”. (18:25)

• The next time (21:8-21) God talked to Abraham was a sad episode that paved the way for the main plot of our focus.  Here God asked Abraham to follow Sarah’s request to send away Hagar and Ishmael^[7].  This was not the first time Abraham had to separate from a close relative, only this time the one he had to send away was a son.

Irrespective of the situations in which Abraham found himself, one thread was consistent – Yahweh in every instance either established or reaffirmed progressively his promise.  Recalling the initial promise had its specifics in the land, a nation, a great name, social esteem and protection, we find reaffirmations in the LORD’s speeches:

• Second monologue (12:7) – offspring, land
• Third monologue (13:14-17) – land (more specific), offspring (numerous)
• First dialogue (15:1-20) – to be his shield (protection), great reward, own son, offspring in great number, land (even more specific), God’s judgment on those who afflicted his offspring, blessing of long life
• Second dialogue (17:1-21) – progenies, new names (father of a multitude of nations), land (an everlasting possession), a deeper relationship (to be God to you and to your offspring after you), a son (Isaac)
• Third dialogue (or rather, a meeting) (18:3-32) – a son, a great and mighty nation, vessel of blessings to nations, a new understanding of God,
• Fourth monologue (21:12-13) – offspring (Isaac)

 

Table 1: References to promise specifics in encounters between Yahweh and Abram/Abraham

Specifics of the Promise	The land	A Nation, ref. to Nations	A Great Name	Esteem and Protection	Offspring, a Son
Initial Monologue (12:1-3)	12:1	12:2	12:2	12:3
2nd Monologue (12:7)	12:7				12:7
3rd Monologue (13:14-17)	13:14-15, 17				13:15
1st Dialogue (15:1-20)	15:7, 13-20			15:1, 14	15:4-5, 13-14, 16, 18
2nd Dialogue (17:1-21)	17:8	17:4-6, 16	17:5-6, 15-16	17:6-8	17:2-10, 16-19, 21
3rd Dialogue (18:3-32)		18:18	18:19	18:13-15 (cf. 21:6-7), 19, 23-32	18:10-15
4th Monologue (21:12-13)		(cf. 21:19)	21:12		21:12
4th Dialogue (22:1-18)				22:17	22:17-18

God’s “Test” –

What came before were by no means trivial for an uprooted person aspiring for a better home.  There were trials and stumbles along the way even as God’s grace and promise attended.  We now arrive at the momentous event in Abraham’s life.  At a mature age of probably between 115 and 120, a “test” (Heb. nsh) was first recorded coming to him, and it was a test from God.  He sent away a son not long ago; now he not only had to send away another, he was commanded to kill him.

Why a test?  And why now?  Has Abraham not demonstrated thus far an admirable disposal of compliance?  Now that a family strive has been settled (21:9-14), peace is attained with a nearby patron-king (21:25-32), the promised offspring is largely fulfilled in Isaac, shouldn’t life be smooth sailing from this point on?  What is the purpose of the test?  What is it designed to achieve in Abraham? In Isaac? Or with God? 

Clues may be found in the commendations of Abraham’s “fear” (22:12) of God and his having “obeyed His voice” (22:18).  And conceivably more intricate meanings can be discovered in the subtleties of the text, to which we now turn for a more in-depth study.  After that we will proceed with some reflections.

Reading the text –

V.22:2-3

• There are definite and indefinite elements in God’s command.  Three direct objects follow the imperative “Take”^[10], all refer to the same person – Isaac.  The indefinite aspect is the precise site – the general direction was given as the land of Moriah^[11]; the exact identification of the mountain was to be shown. 

• There can be no confusion nor compromise.  “Your son, your only beloved” – not any substitute.  “Isaac” – to Abraham he was the embodiment of the future, hope, promise, devotion and bliss.

• V. 3 begins with a series of Abraham’s actions in response to the command.  “… Abraham rose early in the morning, saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him, and his son Isaac.”  The sequence from donkey, servants, to his son Isaac has baffled commentators; some detect certain reticence on Abraham’s part that the narrator tries to convey^[12].  But the phrase “rose early in the morning” usually denotes promptness and compliance (cf. 21:14).  It is more likely that a literary device is employed in the two verses (vv. 2-3) to highlight the parallel between God’s command and Abraham’s response.  The symmetrical force would be more apparent in environments where oral transmission was most prevalent:

• The above is only a quasi-chiasmus arrangement as the corresponding pairs in each section do not produce exact parallelisms or inversions.  But taken together the similar structure of both sections is obvious, with the emphases (Isaac) posited in the centres.

V. 22:4-5

• There was no dialogue.  Indeed, the journey to the would-be worship place went by as though it happened in complete silence.  Shouldn’t the trail to worship a joyful path, like the throngs on the ascent to Jerusalem (cf. Psm. 84:5-7; 122)?  Not until they had arrived at the vicinity and Abraham saw the designated mountain from afar did he talk to the servants.

• We first noticed the two servants (young men) in v. 3, but their presence was almost pedestrian.  We are not told that they helped in saddling the donkey or cutting the wood.  But they were there to be the interlocutors with Abraham, to them he expressed the startling confidence that “I and the boy will go over … worship and come again to you” – all in plural verbs.  He told them to stay where they were with the donkey.  No doubt he didn’t need helping hands in the impending horrible act, he also wanted no hand in extending a possible rescue.  Abraham was determined in carrying out God’s command, he was equally confident that Isaac would somehow return.

V. 22:6-8

• Over a decade ago on Hagar’s shoulder Abraham put provisions to be consumed, affectingly sending her away with his son Ishmael.  On this occasion, on another’s shoulder he laid wood that consumed, and he had to rid of his beloved son Isaac with his own hand.

• The only conversation between father and son is artfully bracketed by identical descriptions that “they went both of them together”.  This might be a walk rarely taken by both, rarer still was the serious implication of the matter being discussed, on this possible last walk together.  The question and answer are made staccato by narrative flourishes almost to an excess, as seen below:

• Conceivably, Abraham did not disclose to anyone God’s command to offer Isaac as burnt offering, not even to Sarah, whose absence was oddly conspicuous in the episode.  Isaac’s question was posed matter-of-factly – that everything seemed to be at hand except the sacrifice.  He might have withheld the question for the last three days, but as the father-son team trekked upward on a mount, the chance of acquiring an animal would become slim.  He mentioned fire and wood, but the lethality of the knife was reserved for a later climax.

• Abraham’s answer was equally succinct but somewhat enigmatic.  He referred to God for provision of the sacrifice.  On account of familiarity readers may be excused for overlooking the absurdity of such proposition.   For cultures the world over that espouse similar religious rites throughout history, it is only sensible that worshippers prepare sacrifices to be offered to deities as part of worship; scarcely the other way around.    Was Abraham too distraught that his reasoning had become incoherent?  Did he just burp out platitudes about providence of God, like people reflexively do when life gets uncertain? 

What Abraham unwittingly expressed is an incomparable truth unique to Christianity, that the price to redeem is so dear it takes none other than the perfect man in the Son of God – a salvation only God can provide.  

• The Hebrew word ראח (r’h) in “God will provide” (v. 8, ESV) is a common word in OT with a wide semantic range.  Its primary meaning in verbal form (qal) is “see, have visions, see!, look at, see appear, make oneself visible^[13]”.  In Gen. 22:14, the word is also given a nuance of “to provide”^[14] and therefore in most translations.  Contextually, the primary meaning “to see” is to be preferred, since at this juncture there was no indication Abraham knew how God would act.  The word appears twice in v. 14 in slightly different formats (see comments and reflection below).

• Another point to note is the repetitive vocatives and relative pronouns in these two verses (vv. 7-8).  Including the narrator’s identification of “his father” in v. 7a, there are two references to “father”, and two “my son” voiced by Abraham.  None of these is strictly necessary syntactically.  The addressing of each other between son and father aptly adds an affectionate tone to an otherwise staid exchange.  But the last call of “my son” (v. 8b) from Abraham has aroused copious interpretative intrigues.  As Hamilton has noted, it may be taken as a simple vocative in Abraham’s answer as in: “God will see to it for himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.”  Or it can be construed as apposition to the object “burnt offering” in an explicative sense, as in “God will see to it for himself the lamb for the burnt offering, i.e., my son^[15].”  The six words (Hebrew) in Abraham’s answer can be taken either way and clearly the true meaning would have been hidden verbally.

• The faith that formed the basis of Abraham’s reckoned righteousness (15:6) was not simply a cognitive process nor mere acknowledgment^[16].  Biblical faith entails devotion, dependence, an allegiance, fidelity to a relationship, a direction of life, an inexplicable love.  But how do we reconcile the stolidity of faith herein described, with the internal turmoil that often comes with life’s critical events?  Are faith and fear mutually exclusive?  Is Jesus’s reassurance: “Do not fear, only believe.” (Mark 5:36b, Luke 8:50b) applicable at all times?  Does Christian faith necessarily imply cold, emotionless amenability when facing trials, pain, loss and death?  The absence of sentiments in the narrator’s language by no means depicts an impassive event.  We the readers are invited to the eye of the storm, amidst the swirling flurry.  In the vortex of struggle, we see Abraham succumb not to the paralyzing tuck of emotions, but triumph in the empowerment of faith.    

V. 22:9-10

• Whether Isaac comprehended his father’s answer, or was in complete bafflement, was not a matter of the narrator’s concern.  In fact, Isaac’s subsequent involvement in the event would turn entirely passive.  Isaac’s identity was subsumed under Abraham’s, became a part of him.  They continued treading on, together.   The narrative then picked up dramatic pace – they came to the designated place, the altar was built, wood was laid, Isaac was bound, then laid on the altar, on top of wood.  A literal translation of the Hebrew text is like:

• The angel’s urgent double vocatives: “Abraham, Abraham!” were followed by dual prohibitive: “Do not stretch your hand out to the boy” and “do not do to him anything”.  V. 12 is Yahweh’s explanation of the test and His evaluation on Abraham.  For the first time, the LORD commended Abraham for his action in not sparing “his own beloved son but gave him up”^[18] for God.  Yahweh connected that as Abraham’s “fear” in Him.

• The Hebrew word ירא (fear) looks and sounds similar to the word for “see” (see above), and also has a wide semantic range.  Its aspects “include terror, respect, and worship”^[19], and particular meaning can only be determined upon context.  The comment by Yahweh (or His messenger) in v. 12 clearly skews towards a meaning of respect and worship.  Or as J. Goldingay translates: “…I acknowledge that you live in awe of God”.^[20]  It is noteworthy that “fear” is the first of five infinitives in the renowned sermon by Moses in Deu. 10:12-13 (an expansion of the Shema in Deu. 6:4-5):
  • To fear the LORD your God,
  • To walk in all his ways,
  • To love him,
  • To serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and
  • To keep the commandments and statutes of the LORD

which encapsulates the dutiful conducts of Israelites before their God.  As the 12^th-century Rabbi D. Kimchi commented on 22:12: this ‘“fear” … is none other than … love’^[21].

Abraham loved Yahweh, and as a result of his action, Yahweh acknowledged it.

V. 22:13-14

• Last time the narrator used the phrase “lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold” on Abraham, he saw three divine visitors (18:2); this time he saw a ram – a substitutionary sacrifice.  In vv. 7-8, Isaac and Abraham expected a lamb (שׂה, a youngster from the sheep) for a burnt offering, here Yahweh provided a ram (איל, mature male of the sheep).  The difference may not be significant, except that only rams^[22] have horns large enough to be caught in a thicket.  The picture of another^[23] ram caught in a thicket connotes the sense that its appearance was not incidental, it had been prepared beforehand (cf. 1 Pet. 1:20; 1 Cor. 2:9).

• In yet another obedient act, Abraham took the ram that had been provided, and offered it up as a burnt offering.  He called that place, יהוה יראה “YHWH Yir’eh”, Yahweh will see/provide.  At the end of the verse, a comment is added in the narrator’s timeframe about a contemporaneous aphorism that “On the mountain Yahweh he/it shall be seen/provided”.  The last verb is pointed as passive or reflexive.  Although the translation “provide / be provided” would not be too far off the mark, the preference, as in comments on v. 8 above, tilts towards the primary meaning of the word: see / be seen, as that derives richer meaning (or as in LXX “The LORD has seen”).

• The gist of the story is not just on God’s provision of a substitutionary sacrifice, though that, too, is critical.  God saw much more in Abraham than the need for a lamb as a way out of his predicament.  The LORD had seen his inner anguish, excruciating pain, emotional turmoil, and trepidation throughout the three-day journey.  Abraham’s vulnerability was completely exposed.  The text (v. 12) also says that God sees Abraham’s heart – his awe and love for God.

• The switch to a passive/reflexive voice later in the verse is probably not trivial.  In what sense does “God being seen”?   Comment on this is deferred to further reflections below.

V. 22:15-18

• These verses are the conclusion of this encounter between Yahweh and Abraham.  As in previous encounters, we see references to Yahweh’s promise.  There is, however, no new element appended to the promise except added emphases.  Note the double “I will surely” in v. 17 (ESV), translating the use of infinite absolute plus finite form of verbs, literally: “to bless I will bless you and to multiply I will multiply you”.  This is embedded in a solemn oath by Yahweh: “By myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, …”, a rare form representing Yahweh swearing by Himself^[24] plus a declaration, the only such occurrence in Genesis.  Yahweh also cited the reason for His reaffirmation of promise with two conjunctions that bracketed His oath:

• Since this is a reaffirmation of promise (or covenant renewal), the oath does not predicate on the conjunctive statements.  So long as previous promise from Yahweh is unconditional, i.e., not dependent on human behaviour, no conditionality should be read in this reaffirmation / renewal.^[25]  Abraham’s conduct in this event further reinforced Yahweh’s commitment to his earlier promise.  This renewal should probably be read in the light of covenant renewal between dear friends, as between Jonathan and David (1 Sam 18:3-4; 20:16-17, 42). (See further reflection below.)

V. 22:19

• In v. 5, Abraham assured his servants that both he and Isaac would return after worshipping on the mount.  Now (v. 19) Abraham returned (singular verb) to the young servants.  Whether Isaac returned or not the narrative does not disclose^[26]; as mentioned before Isaac’s identity had somehow amalgamated with Abraham.   Perhaps the return of Isaac was no longer important, since, as far as the LORD and Abraham were concerned, the burnt offering, albeit by a substitute, was complete.  Like any redeemed person, Isaac remained a living sacrifice (Rom 12:1), rightly belonging to God.

---

Reflections – Pathos and Empathy

Much has been said and written about this passage in Genesis, not the least are those of NT writers expounding on various themes.   James cites Abraham in his offering up Isaac as exemplary faith substantiated by works, thus completing the Scripture’s reckoning of righteousness to him (Jam. 2:21).  The author of the letter to the Hebrews squarely situates the story in the realm of faith (Heb. 11:17-19).  Jewish sages through the centuries have attached great significance to Akedah (binding of Isaac), and have memorialized it as emblematic of national tragedies.  The Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard wrote a book-length treatise Fear and Trembling (1843)^[27], dissecting faith in this story of Abraham in its human struggle between the pious and the ethical.

Among the prodigious studies spawned by it, probably the motifs of faith, obedience, love, and God’s providence dominate, especially within Christian circles.  These are, indubitably, virtues and assurance invaluable for inspiration and edification.  We would do well to emulate the examples of Abraham in lifelong pursuit.  The focus of the following paragraphs, however, is directed towards a less explored theme – an aspect of love. 

Paul makes a clear allusion^[28] to the Genesis passage (22:12b, 16b) in Rom. 8:32: “He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all,” where he connects God’s historical redemptive action to Abraham’s offering of Isaac.  In that rhetorical argument, Paul grounds the elect’s eternal security and glorification on God’s ultimate giving up of His own Son.  And in that “God shows his love for us” (Rom. 5:8) and manifests His great mercy.  Many therefore see typologies in the Abraham story – Abraham in not sparing his beloved son as a type to the archetype of God the father^[29].

Abraham remembered the event by naming that place “God sees”.  He was not only relieved by a son redeemed; he was comforted immensely by a God who understood.  We at this side of the cross, like Paul, have no difficulty perceiving that God the Father, in eternal present, suffers what Abraham, in a humanly finite way, had suffered.  In this case, the manner that God knows (v. 12) is not in a transcendent omniscience of the wholly other, but as One who feels, even experiences deeply.  With a severe hospitality^[30] of welcoming sinners to His embrace, He exposes His Godself to wounds^[31] and hurts – a divine vulnerability.  The LORD, in His condescension^[32], is eminently able to weep with those who weep, and console those who mourn.

In an indelible scene from Mel Gibson’s 2004 film “The Passion of The Christ”, after Christ’s last gasp the camera pulls away as if it is viewed from high above, a drop of tear slowly forms and falls back into a splash at the foot of the cross.  This, in lieu of thousand words, captures the pathos of the Father.  With knife in an outstretched hand ready to smite, there shed floods of tears of a loving father. 

Naming the mount also left a legacy in a common saying: “On the mount of the LORD he is seen.”  Could it be that God was seen henceforth by Abraham in a new way?  In a few places in the Bible, Abraham is referred to as God’s friend.  Of particular interest is the oracle of the LORD in Isa. 41:8: “… the offspring of Abraham, my friend^[33]” (cf. 2 Chr. 20:7, Isa. 51:2 (LXX), James 2:23).  In what sense was Abraham a friend of God?  We have seen above actions of both the LORD and Abraham resulted in Yahweh reaffirming the covenant he had with Abraham, even sealed it with an oath.  The mutual allegiance and commitment were encapsulated in the expressed declarations of a covenant, a notion quite foreign to our 21^st-century individualistic sensibility.  But we are reminded of the multiple references to covenant forming and reaffirming between Jonathon and David, whose love between them “surpassed that of women” (2 Sam. 1:26).

The test he passed on Mount Moriah created in Abraham an extra capacity for empathy; it let him feel how God feels.  As a friend he was invited into God’s vulnerability, and in the process that friendship turned sublime.  He “arose and went to the place” (v. 3), knowing full well there could be no love without sacrifice.  In faith, he knew somehow Isaac would return after the ordeal, maybe another Isaac.  It is said that all burnt offerings should be costly (cf. 2 Sam. 24:24).  In the bizarre suggestion that God would provide “for himself” the sacrifice, Abraham instinctively implied that what would be provided would only outstrip what would have cost him.  Yahweh, who had lavished him with promise of blessings, would not demand something that He Himself would not give.  He did provide another Son, even one from Abraham’s own loin^[34].  He might not have known the specifics of Yahweh’s redemptive plan – that He too would give His only beloved Son, but he was certain that his God would reciprocate, and then some.  In this, the spirits of two friends converged.  Abraham was in κοινωνἰα (fellowship, Col. 3:10) with God as fathers in the manifold pathos of giving up a beloved son, for the sake of love.  Loving the benevolent Creator over a beloved son, or even for a faithful Friend^[35], inconceivable though that be, may still pass theological logic.   Who could fathom the piercing pain of the heavenly Father, when He severed the eternal communion with His only beloved Son, and gave Him up in love for transgressing worms?

One could only exclaim with Charles Wesley, as in his famous hymn: “Amazing love!  How can it be …”  Until we love and give as Abraham did, our recitations of John 3:16 would remain merely creedal acknowledgments. 

The three-day journey from Beersheba to Mount Moriah foreshadowed another three days – that darkest stretch from Gethsemane to the first Easter.  No more word between Yahweh and Abraham is recorded after his return from Mount Moriah.  Perhaps, for those who know the hearts, word is no longer necessary.

---

 

1. The marble sarcophagus of Junius Bassus, a Roman prefect who died in 359 C.E.  Picture credit: Biblical Archaeology Society, https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-interpretation/binding-sacrifice-isaac/ (accessed Feb. 5, 2022).
   ↩︎
2. Hereinafter Bible references to the book of Genesis are given in chapter and verse as in (12:7), or simply in verse number only when a text in chapter 22:1-19 is referred.  Quotations are from ESV unless otherwise stated.
   ↩︎
3. See W.J. Dumbrell, Creation and Creation, (Nashville, TN, Thomas Nelson, Inc. 1984), pp. 64-65.
   ↩︎
4. V.P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis – Chapters 1-17, (Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1990), pp. 375-376.
   ↩︎
5. Hamilton, Genesis – Chapters 1-17, p. 438.
   ↩︎
6. V.P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis – Chapters 18-50, (Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1995), p. 17.
   ↩︎
7. Note that the name “Ishmael” is not used even once in the entire account in Gen. 21:8-21, possibly to accentuate Isaac as the “offspring be named” (v. 12d).
   ↩︎
8. Midrash Bereshit (Gen.) Rabbah, an early Jewish commentary on Genesis composed around 500 C.E.  Translation by H. Freedman, (London, The Soncino Press, 1939), p. 497.
   ↩︎
9. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis (NIDOTTE), 5 vols., ed. Willem A. VanGemeren. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 3:112.
   ↩︎
10. Refer to Hamilton, Genesis – Chapters 1-17, p. 394, idem., Genesis – Chapters 18-50, p. 101, for discussion of the particle -nāʼ, which English equivalence is “please”.
    ↩︎
11. The only other Biblical reference where the name Moriah is used is in 2 Chr. 3:1, where Solomon built the temple.  But see J. Goldingay, Genesis, BCOT, series ed. B.T. Arnold, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2020), p. 345, n. 6.
    ↩︎
12. Hamilton, Genesis – Chapters 18-50, p. 107.
    ↩︎
13. J.A. Naudé, NIDOTTE, 5 vols., ed. Willem A. VanGemeren. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 3:1007-1015.  Cf. Hagar used the same root of the word for naming (16:13-14).
    ↩︎
14. The choice of “to provide” in v. 8 is largely based on what transpires in the following verses and involves over-interpretation on translator’s part.  It may also stem from the difficulty of syntax in v. 14.  See in many translations, e.g., CSB, ESV, NASB, NET, RSV, (and respective attached notes); also, CEB, but in the other direction.
    ↩︎
15. Hamilton, Genesis – Chapters 18-50, p. 110; See also R.E. Friedman, Commentary on the Torah, (New York, NY, HarperCollins, 2001), p. 74.
    ↩︎
16. As the English translation “believe” often connotes.
    ↩︎
17. Strictly, the sequence of actions did not correspond with the proper procedures in offering sacrifice.  An animal is slaughtered, drained of blood, then being placed on the altar.  Here, the narrator delays the act of killing to the last for maximum literary effect.
    ↩︎
18. Cf. Rom 8:32
    ↩︎
19. M.V. Van Pelt & W.C. Kaiser, Jr., NIDOTTE, 5 vols., ed. Willem A. VanGemeren. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 2:527-533, see esp. no. 3.
    ↩︎
20. Goldingay, Genesis, pp. 345-346.
    ↩︎
21. D. Kimchi, ‘The word יראה, “fear” mentioned here is none other than a form of אהבה, love, seeing that the fear was not something physical, concern for his body, but concern that he [sic] soul should not suffer irretrievable damage’, Radak on Genesis 22:12, https://www.sefaria.org/Radak_on_Genesis.22.12.3?lang=bi&with=About&lang2=en (assessed on Feb. 1, 2022)
    ↩︎
22. See S. Walters, “Wood, Sand and Stars: Structure and Theology,” Toronto Journal of Theology, (1987) 3, pp. 301-330, where the connection of “burnt offering”, “ram”, “appear/be seen” is explored in the consecration of priests and on stipulations for the Day of Atonement (Lev 9:2-4, 16:1-3).
    ↩︎
23. The word אחר can mean “behind”, as in most translations, or “another”, dependent on pointing.  See Hamilton, 1995, p. 113, for an argument for reading “another” here.
    ↩︎
24. See Isa 45:23; Jer. 22:5; 49.13
    ↩︎
25. Contra Hamilton, Genesis – Chapters 18-50, p.116, who see emphasis on conditionality as a novel element here.
    ↩︎
26. This omission creates a lot of speculative interpretations.  See, e.g., Friedman, Commentary on the Torah, p. 78.  But note in Heb. 11:19, it states that “from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back”.  In that case, Abraham received Isaac from the dead at least twice, once at his birth (Rom. 4:19), the second time as a burnt offering.
    ↩︎
27. Søren Kierkegaard (pseud. Johannes de silentio), Fear and Trembling (original Danish title: Frygt og Bæven), first published in 1843, tr. A. Hannay, (Penguin Classics, 1985); other English translations are available.  Though ethical issues abound as this Biblical account is examined, such as the age-old practice of child sacrifice or modern concept on child abuse, these are beyond the scope of this essay.  Besides, the fact the Yahweh stopped the killing of Isaac and provided a substitute conveys a much more powerful theological truth than other ethical concerns.
    ↩︎
28. See R.N. Longenecker, The Epistle to the Romans, NIGTC, series ed. I.H. Marshall & D.A. Hagner (Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2016), p. 753.
    ↩︎
29. Some see more prominent the notion of Isaac as a type of Christ, propagated since 1st century C.E. (e.g., Barn. 7:3), at times inadvertently abetted by Jewish polemic against Christian soteriology (see Midrash Rabbah LVI 3).  Typifying Isaac as an obedient son, or as one carrying the wood/cross to his own death may be reasonable.  Comparing Isaac to Christ’s vicarious sacrifice is overstretched.  If at all, the ram caught in the thicket may well be a more appropriate typology.
    ↩︎
30. See H. Boersma, Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross (Grand Rapids, MI, Baker Academic, 2004).
    ↩︎
31. For a panoptic treatment of these topics, see J.B. Pool, God’s Wounds – Hermeneutic of the Christian Symbol of Divine Suffering, 2 of 3 projected vols. published. (Eugene, OR, Pickwick Publications, 2009, 2010).
    ↩︎
32. “Thou hast also given me Thy shield of salvation; And Thy condescension hath made me great.” (2 Sam. 22:36, JPS Tanakh 1917).  In classical dogmatics, the term “immanence” is used, but such language is sorely inadequate.
    ↩︎
33. Hebrew אהבי (lit. one loving of me).  Moses is also referred to as a friend of God (Exo. 33:11), but a less affectionate word רעהו (lit. friend of him) is used.
    ↩︎
34. See “in your offspring” (22:18), also “… shall be blessed in him” (18:18); cf. Gal. 3:16.
    ↩︎
35. Though see Rom. 5:6-8.  And see Jesus’s characterization of loving one’s enemies as fitting emulation of the heavenly Father’s “perfect” attribute for His disciples.  (Mat. 5:44-48)
    ↩︎