Grace Theological Journal
1.1 (1980) 19-35
Copyright © 1980 by Grace
Theological Seminary. Cited with permission.
THE TEST OF
ABRAHAM
GENESIS
22:1-19
JOHN I.
LAWLOR
THE
incredible story of the ordeal of Abraham and Isaac begins,
presumably,
with Abraham sojourning in the land of the Philis-
tines (Gen
this drama,
returning to Beer-sheba with the two young men and
Isaac.1
The pathos of this account is unequaled by
any other portion of
the
Abraham sequence and perhaps the entire Pentateuchal
tradition.
The reader
emotes with Abraham, for the entire story radiates great
tensions,
strong reactions, and human emotions.
Skinner felt this,
for he
remarks that parts of it ". . . can hardly be read without
tears."2
The manner in which the narrative has been
put together evi-
dences great literary artistry. Two factors unite to make the case.
First, the
use of repetitious statements seems intentional. The use of
one such
repetitious statement in v 1 ("'Abraham!' And he said
'Here I
am."') and v 11 ("'Abraham, Abraham!' And he
said, 'Here
I
am."') naturally divides the story into two
general movements. The
use of
another ". . . your son, your only son. . ." used three times
(vv 2, 12, 16) tends to increase the gravity of the
situation. Such redun-
dancy creates great tension; it seems as if God
almost strains to
remind
Abraham that the stakes are high. Such
obvious repetition, it
seems, is
premeditated, perhaps for the purpose of raising the anxiety
level of
the reader. Still another, "So the
two of them walked on
together"
(vv 6 and 8), puts the reader off; it also heightens the
tension that
builds toward the climax.
Second, there is a
certain symmetry to the story which is, in part,
achieved
through the use of both triplets and tensions/resolutions.
With respect
to the former, the imperatives "take," "go," and
"offer"
(v 2) are a case in point.
Vv 3, 6, and 10 are further examples.
1The text is actually silent on
the matter of Isaac's return to Beer-sheba with
Abraham and
the two young men; however, later episodes in the Abraham cycle have
Abraham and Isaac together, a point which at least suggests his
return with the rest.
2J. Skinner, Genesis
(ICC; Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1910) 330.
20 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
Furthermore,
the blessing formula of vv 17 and 18 appears as a
triplet. With respect to the tensions/resolutions,
several examples are
apparent. The "only son" at the beginning is
contrasted by the
"greatly multiplied" seed at the conclusion. The initial command of
God
underscores the fact that the son whom Abraham was being
called upon
to offer was his only son. In one sense
that was not true,
for
Ishmael was also his son. But he was the only son through whom
the
promises already given to Abraham could be realized. As the
story
closes, Abraham receives an emphatic enunciation of blessing
(hB,r;xa hBAr;hav;) which would result in his "only
son" being multiplied
into
descendants that would number ''as the stars of the heavens and
the sand
which is on the seashore" (v 17).
The text supplies the key
element to
the transition; v 16 says: ". . . because you have done this
thing, and
have not withheld your son. . . ."
The nature of the
experience is
initially described as a "test"; at the end it is turned into
a
"blessing." The crisis point
of the story (v 10) divides the two
motifs. The first half (vv 1-9) lays an emphasis upon
the "testing"
motif; the
use of the term hsA.ni in v 1 clearly signals this point. The
j~k;r,bAxE j`rebA of v
17 confirms the blessing motif of the second half.
There is a sense in which the story begins with a child sacrifice
motif,
but in
the second half of the narrative that fades and the concept of
animal
sacrifice surfaces. For this reason, it
has been suggested that
the
purpose of the entire account is to present an etiology on animal
sacrifice, and
to set up a prohibition of child sacrifice.3
The employment of these various techniques
not only improves
the
readability and interest level of the narrative, but also helps to
generate
meaning in one's understanding of the text.
This point will
be
further discussed following a closer look at the text itself.
TEXT
An acquaintance with the text of the story
seems to be the basis
for an
attempt to understand some of the concepts it is intending to
communicate. The episode of Gen 22:1-19 reads like a
two-act play,
with both
a prologue and an epilogue. The literary
structure of the
passage
suggests the following arrangement of the material:
Prologue,
22: 1
Act I: Ordeal/Crisis, 22:2-10
Scene 1, 22:2-5
Scene 2, 22:6-10
3C. A. Simpson and W. R. Bowie,
"Genesis," The Interpreter's Bible (
Abingdon-Cokesbury, n.d.), 1. 645.
LAWLOR: GENESIS 22:1-19 21
Act II: Resolution,
Scene I, 22:11-14
Scene 2, 22:15-18
Epilogue,
Prologue, 22:1
That there is a conscious effort on the
part of the writer to
establish
relationship between the Abraham cycle up to this point and
the
particular passage in focus seems evident from his opening
statement:
"Now it came about after these things. . . ."4 Its place in
the saga
of Abraham5 will be discussed later, so further detail is not
necessary at
this point. Suffice it to say that this
opening line supplies
an
internal, textual connection to the preceding context, in addition
to the
more literary relationship presented in the later discussion.
An important observation is made by the
writer at the outset of
the
narrative; it is an observation primarily for the benefit of the
reader. The
narrator is careful to explain that what he is about
to
describe represents a "test" (hsA.ni) of Abraham. This not only
informs the
reader of an important point, but also seems to give some
direction to
the significance of the story. It is an
account of a test of
Abraham by his God. Testing in regard to
what? For what
purpose?
The answers
to these questions are to a certain extent inherent within
the
text, and will be considered later.
While Abraham's response to God's address,
seen in v 1, is
undoubtedly a
normal one, its appearance both here and again in
v 11
seems too obvious to be viewed merely as "accidental." As
previously
suggested, it functions as a "formulaic expression" which
helps to
shape the narrative.
4This is a debated point. Von Rad says that
"this narrative . . . has only a very loose
connection with
the preceding" (G. von Rad, Genesis;
trans. J. H. Marks [OTL;
revised
edition;
Genesis).
However, Coats remarks: "A
patriarchal itinerary scheme provides context
for this
story. . . . Unity with the context
derives, however, not simply from structural
context
provided by an itinerary pattern, but of more importance, from unity in theo-
logical
perspective with other Abrahamic tradition" (G.
W. Coats, "Abraham's Sacri-
fice of Faith: A Form-Critical Study of
Genesis 22," Int 27 [1973] 392; hereafter
cited
as
Coats, "Abraham's Sacrifice").
5The term "saga" is
used here in the sense of an extended series of stories revolving
around a
central figure; cf. R. B. Bjornard, "An
Unfortunate Blunder: A Traditio-
Historical
Study of Some Form-Critics' Use of the Word 'Saga'" (unpublished paper
read at
the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting,
22 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
Act I: Ordeal/Crisis. 22:2-10
The main body of the narrative reads like
a two-act drama, vv 2-
10 forming
the first act which has two scenes, vv 2-5 and vv 6-10.
Act I, Scene
1 (vv 2-5) conveys the basic instructions given to
Abraham along with his initial response. In
"rapid-fire" succession
the
three imperatives ("take," Hqa; "go," j`l,v;;
"offer," UhlefEhav;) of v 2
inform
Abraham what it is that God expects of him.
This is the test.
Both the
"hard-hitting" style of the divine instructions as well as the
content of
the instructions surface an issue that is perhaps one that
the
story is intended to explore. What is
the nature of Abraham's
God? Twice (cf. Genesis 12) he has instructed
Abraham to take
certain
actions which would result in close family ties being broken.
What is of
almost equal amazement is the relative passivity, the
"cool detachment" with which Abraham is seen to
respond. By two
sets of
triads the writer methodically records the calculated actions of
the
patriarch: he "rose early" (MKew;y.ava), "saddled his donkey"
(wboHEy.ava), "took lads" (Hq.ay.iva), and "split wood" (fq.abay;va), "arose"
(MqAyA.va), and "went" (j`l,y.eva).
Upon arriving at a place that was within
eyesight of the destina-
tion (v 4), Abraham utters a statement that is
most intriguing: "Stay
here. . .
I and the lad will go yonder; and we will worship and return
to
you." The first person plural verbs
"worship" and "return to you"
(hbAUwnAv;
hv,HETaw;niv;) raise an important question: Was this a hollow,
evasive
comment on Abraham's part, or was it an expression of an
honest
faith which he genuinely possessed, based upon the promises
which led
up to and culminated in the birth of the son whose life was
now
seemingly in jeopardy? Perhaps the
reader is to see some
correlation
between the manner in which Abraham responded to the
divine
directive and the statement in question.
Scene 2 (vv 6-10) of this portion of the
narrative brings about an
intense
heightening of the tension; this is accomplished both through
the
development of the sequence of events as well as the various
literary
techniques employed by the writer to describe the sequence of
events. As now seems characteristic of the writer,
another triplet is
employed in v
6: Abraham "took the wood" (Hq.ay.iva), "laid it on Isaac"
(MW,yA>va),
and "took. . . the fire and the knife" (Hq.ay.iva).
The reader is
then put
off by the interlude: "So the two of them walked on
together." It is a statement which seems designed to
continue the
account, but
more so to allow the anxiety level of the reader an
opportunity to
level off momentarily before introducing the next
build-up of
tension.
There are two possible approaches to the
dialogue between
father and
son of vv 7 and 8 -- the only recorded conversation between
Abraham and Isaac in the entire story.
The more traditional view
LAWLOR: GENESIS 22:1-19 23
takes
this, together with the "prediction" of v 5, as an evidence of
Abraham's
growing faith in his God and that he was expressing his
firm
belief that Isaac would either be spared or miraculously raised
up, a
la Heb 11:17-19. As one reviews the
complete saga of Abraham,
it is
to be recognized that several indications of an "evolving faith"
on the
part of Abraham do appear; this may be cited in support of
the
understanding just referred to. On the
other hand, however, many
regard this
as an "unconscious prophecy" by Abraham, a statement
which in
actuality was intended either to evade the question or to
deceive the
son.6 Again, it is true that
deception was a part of
Abraham's
way of dealing with crisis situations (cf. Gen
Gen
20:1-18). However, that this was a
situation in which the truth
could not
be long withheld from Isaac must be kept in mind. This
fact
raises a question as to whether or not deception was even a viable
option for
the patriarch. Perhaps it is true that
Abraham was trying
to
side-step the question and in so doing gave an answer which gave
Isaac no
cause for alarm yet in the end became reality.
The second use of the formulaic
expression, "So the two of them
walked on
together," gives the reader an opportunity to prepare for
the
climax.
Father and son arrive at the appointed
place. The slow, deliber-
ate,
calculated, blow-by-blow description of events at this point is
most
impressive, "The details are noted with frightful accuracy," says
von Rad.7 However, not only is the reader impressed by
the manner
of
description, he is also impressed by what is not said or what is only
implied. The writer alludes to the passivity of
Abraham in binding
Isaac; that
is accomplished by the lack of any particular emphasis
being
placed on that part of the description.
Yet nothing is said about
Isaac's conduct. The implied non-resistance
of the son along with the
willingness of
the father suggest the idea that there was a commitment
to the
belief that God had the absolute right to make this demand
upon
both.
The narrative of v 10 is a continuation
of the previous verse; this
is seen
in the fact that the long string of waw consecutives
continues.
Another
triad is employed at the peak of the description of the crisis,
Individual
details at this point characterize the description: ". . . he
stretched out
his hand and took the knife. . . ."
At the very peak of
the
story a noticeable change in the descriptive method takes place, a
change
which seems to serve as a mediating factor between some of
the
binary elements which are found on either side of the crisis point.
6Von Rad, Genesis, 241; Coats, "Abraham's
Sacrifice," 394.
7Von Rad,
Genesis, 241.
24 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
A
"string" of imperfects, apparently based upon the perfect of v 1
(hsA.ni) characterizes the account up to this point. While the change at
this
point to the infinitive, FHow;li, is necessitated by the fact that he
did not,
in fact, slay his son, it also seems to denote inner disposi-
tion.8 He fully intended to carry through with the
action initially
required. For all intents and purposes, Isaac had been
slain.
Act II:
Resolution,
The intervention by the angel of YHWH,
which is seen in Scene 1
(vv 11-14), is a welcome turn of events. In spite of the opening
statement of
the story, the reader tends to wonder by the time he
reaches v
10, whether God was actually going to let Abraham carry
out his
intention. Though great relief is
experienced by the reader and
presumably
Abraham, the patriarch, nevertheless, continues to act in
the same
"restrained" manner as before.
Crenshaw remarks: "Most
astonishingly, we do not hear a word of rejoicing when the ordeal is
ended by
an urgent command. . . . "9 For the first time he notices the
ram, he
retrieves it, and offers it in place of his son. There is no hint
that this
sacrifice was rendered in response to divine directive.
A good example of paronomasia is evident
at this point in the
narrative. In response to Isaac's question, Abraham had
responded,
"'elohim yir'eh."
According to v 14, Abraham called the name of the
A place "yhwh yir'eh." To
add to this, the comment of the angel is
noteworthy: ". . . I know that you fear God. .
." (yere' 'elohim)
(v 12). This latter
comment by the angel signals an important link to
the
statement of purpose for the testing.
Scene 2, vv 15-18, records the divine
response to the now proven
patriarch. That the blessing pronounced in vv 17-18 is
directly related
to
Abraham's willingness to offer Isaac is clearly established by the
redundant
expression of v 16: ". . . because
you have done this thing,
and have
not withheld your son. . . ." The
announcement of the
blessing is
presented in the now characteristic style of the writer,
another
triad. The blessing formula which
appears in the narrative is
not
entirely new to the Abraham cycle (cf. Genesis 12, 15, 17).
However, the
form in which it is seen here is somewhat intensified
over
previous similar formulas. As an
example, the "I will bless
you"
(j~k;r,bAxEva) of Gen 12:2 now becomes "I will greatly bless you"
8"A noteworthy shift from
finite verb to infinitive takes place in the description of
Abraham's intention. Thus one cannot miss the
purpose of these actions described with
such
minute detail and in technical language of the sacrificial cult" (J. L.
Crenshaw,
"Journey
into Oblivion: A Structural Analysis of Genesis 22:1-19," Sounding 58
[1975]
248; hereafter
cited as Crenshaw, "Journey").
9Crenshaw,
"Journey," 252.
LAWLOR: GENESIS 22:1-19 25
(j~k;r,bAxE j`rebA), Gen
Abraham's
descendants would ". . . possess the gate of their enemies
. . ."
(v 17) ". . . refers to
capture of the opponent's administrative
and
military centers."10 A similar blessing was invoked upon
Rebekah
by her
brothers prior to her departure for
of
Isaac (cf. Gen 24:60).
Epilogue,
The notice that "Abraham returned to
his young men" and that
together they
returned to Beer-sheba is of special interest because
of
what it does
not say. Rather obvious is the
complete lack of any
reference to
Isaac in this epilogue. There is no
clear indication that he
returned with
his father; neither is there any clear indication that he
remained at Moriah. The text is
silent. For this reason Crenshaw
refers to
this as the "Journey into Oblivion."11 This fact seems to
point the
reader's attention toward Abraham rather than Isaac, and
justifiably so,
for this is not a story of the sacrifice of Isaac, it is the
story of
the testing and obedience of Abraham.
PURPOSE/INTENT
It is doubtful that anyone would deny the
moving nature of this
account, but
what contribution does it make to the Abraham cycle in
particular and
to Hebrew thought in general? How does
it make that
contribution? It is not only important
to discover the meaning, but
also to
discover how it has meaning. The
narrative of Genesis 22
conveys
meaning as it is read both diachronically and synchronically:
diachronically, it seems to take on meaning as it is seen as the climax
to the
Abraham cycle; synchronically, it generates meaning as it is
viewed as a
paradigm on certain sociological issues.
The
relationship of this incident to the entire Abraham cycle
One's appreciation of this moving account
is increased when
it is
viewed diachronically in the light of the entire Abraham cycle:
Gen
11:27-25:11. It appears as the climax to
the saga of Abraham. All
that
precedes this event leads up to it; what follows almost seems
anticlimactic. The introduction to the
Abraham cycle (Gen
emphasizes the
point that Sarai, Abram's wife, is barren. After long
years of
barrenness, anxiety and struggling, a son is born to Abraham
and
Sarah (Gen 21:1-7). Almost as though
with a vengeance, the saga
leaps over
several years and hastens to the story which portrays the
10E. A. Speiser, Genesis (AB; New York: Doubleday, Inc.,
1964) 164.
11Crenshaw,
"Journey," 245.
26 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
fruit of
the once barren womb as being in grave danger.12 However, it
is not
just a son who is in danger; it is an entire future, a potential
nation. All that Abraham had lived for is suddenly at
stake. If his
God's word
is to be believed, all the nations of the earth would
somehow be
affected by this demanding order. Either
way Abraham
might
respond, it appeared as though the covenant was in danger. If
he were
to disobey, the covenant may be in jeopardy; on the other
hand, if
he were to obey God and slay Isaac, the covenant likewise
stood in
jeopardy. Abraham, indeed, was on the
horns of a dilemma;
and the
demands that were placed upon him placed him in a situation
in
which it appeared that he could not win.
When viewed as a whole the Abraham cycle
is a study in
progression,
development, maturing. Perhaps as a
regular reminder
that the
patriarch is very human, there appear stories, strategically
located,
which clearly portray his vulnerability.
While these accounts
are in
no way to be minimized, the overall trend of the saga is
upward;
each segment seems to build upon and add to the previous
ones. A call and promise are issued, to which there
is response (Gen
12:1-9);
Abram demonstrates graciousness to
which
Jehovah appears to him and reiterates the promise (Gen
18). In turn, Abram
spares
formalized as a
binding covenant (Gen 15:1-21). The
covenant is
expanded (Gen
17:1-21) and sealed by circumcision (Gen
The seed
aspect of the covenant is particularized (Gen 18:1-15);
Abraham
intercedes for
is born
(Gen 21:1-7).
The sequence of these events suggests that
both Abraham and
the
reader are being prepared for something.
The cycle is going
somewhere; it
is not static. At almost any point along
the way, the
reader can
stop, look behind him, and see that the plot has advanced;
Abraham has
progressed. Difficult circumstances have
consistently
presented
themselves, and at times the patriarch has reacted in a very
immature and
deceitful manner. Yet overall, the
relationship of these
individual
stories one to another makes the point that Abraham was
"growing up."
Then comes the
ordeal. One is inclined to believe that
had such a
sore test
come earlier in his experience, Abraham would not have
been able
to cope with it. Hence, the climax of
the cycle comes and
with it
the most formidable test of the patriarch's life: God orders
12The amount of time between
the birth of Isaac and the Genesis 22 incident is
unknown;
estimates seem to range from 7-25 years.
The term employed here, rfana is no
real help
in that it is used in reference to an unborn son (Judg
13:5, 7, 8, 12) as well as the
sons of
Samuel who were ministering in the Tabernacle (I Sam
"And
Abraham sojourned in the land of the Philistines for many days."
LAWLOR: GENESIS 22:1-19 27
him to
slay his long-awaited son. The nature of
the test and the
manner in
which Abraham faced it are issues which are taken up in
the
following portions of the study. Suffice
it to say here that there
seems to
be some evidence that this event marked a change in the
patriarch's
life.
What the
term hsA.ni contributes to the narrative
That the narrator is so careful to
introduce his account as a
"test" is both obvious and important. It is obvious because it is the
first
statement employed by the writer in this narrative sequence. The
importance of
this point is seen in several different ways.
First, it is
important for
the reader's benefit. So it was viewed
by the writer, for
he
informs the reader from the very outset that this is "only a test."
Abraham, of
course, was not privy to that information.
The reason
for that
appears obvious. It would not have been
a genuine test if he
had been
informed that it was "only a test."
Nothing would have
been
proven through it, had he known.
Second, it is important because it
contributes to one's under-
standing of
the God-man relationship; specifically, it gives insight
into an
apparently new dynamic in the Elohim/Yahweh-Abraham
cycle. This is the first, and the only, time in the
Abraham saga where
the
nature of a particular event is so labeled.
Nevertheless, its use here
suggests that
from Yahweh's perspective, Abraham needed to be
tested.13 There is no clear indication why He deemed such
a test
necessary;
only that He did. No unusually
troublesome flaws in
Abraham's
character have been brought to the surface up to this
point. On the contrary, Yahweh appears to have
looked with favor
upon the
patriarch.14
With no clear explanation of this question
coming from the text
itself, one
is left to offer several possibilities for consideration.15 One
possibility is
that the test is a clear indication of the somewhat
tyrannical
nature of Abraham's God. Yahweh, a
young, ambitious
deity, was
perhaps attempting to demonstrate his rather cynical
13Crenshaw makes the following
thought-provoking remarks: "In a sense the story
bears the
character of a qualifying test. The
fulfillment of the promise articulated in
Genesis 12
and reaffirmed at crucial stages during Abraham's journey through alien
territory
actualizes the divine intention to bless all nations by means of one man.
Abraham's
excessive love for the son of promise comes dangerously close to idolatry and
frustrates the
larger mission. Thus is set the stage
for the qualifying test." Crenshaw,
"Journey," 249.
14That this is true is
evidenced by the initial promises of Gen 12:1-3, the formalizing
of the
promises into a covenant in Genesis 15, the statement that "Abraham
believed
God and it
was counted to him for righteousness" (Gen 15:6), the fulfillment of the
promise of a
son, the manifold blessings of Yahweh on Abraham, et al.
28 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
attitude
toward one of his subjects/devotees. In
this writer's opinion,
to
establish such a suggestion as legitimate would require much more
evidence than
this one passage can be construed to present.
Another
suggestion is
that the key to understanding the reason behind the test
is to
be found in a study of the term hsA.ni, which the writer employs.
This
suggestion brings our attention back to the original point
regarding the
importance of the identification of this as a "testing"
experience by
the writer.
A third reason why the writer's opening
statement is important,
therefore, is
that it may hold the key to understanding the reason why
God tested
Abraham as he did. The term hsA.ni is employed, in
addition to
the usage in Genesis 22, eight other times in a context
where Elohim/Yahweh is said to be the "tester." In six (Exod
26; 16:4;
of
test
him. In five of the six cases where
Yahweh/Elohim speaks of
"testing"
between the
motif of "testing" and his concern over the nation's
obedience to
his commandments/statutes/law/ways.16 In Exod 20:18-
obedience
concept is implied though not specifically stated,
and
interestingly enough, the subject of the nation's fear of God is a
central
issue, as it is in Gen 22:1, 12. Again
in the Ps 26:2 occurrence
of the
term, the obedience concept is implied when David says:
"Prove
me, a Lord, and try (hsA.ni) me; test my heart and my mind."
Of Hezekiah,
the Chronicler observes:
And so in the matter of the envoys of the
princes of
been sent to him
to inquire about the sign that had been done in the
land, God left
him to himself, in order to try him and to know all that
was in his heart
(2 Chron 32:31).
If the pattern seen in the use of the term
hsA.ni, when Yahweh/
Elohim is
said to be the "tester," can serve as a legitimate key for
understanding its use in Gen 22:1, then one may conclude that the
reason
Yahweh deemed it necessary to test Abraham was to know
what was
in his heart, to test his obedience to and fear of Yahweh
when his
promised and beloved son was at stake.
15In addition to the two
suggestions which appear in the following discussion, see
Plaut's
discussion in W. G. Plaut, The
Torah: A Modern Commentary. Vol. I: Genesis
(New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1974) 210-11.
16Exod
LAWLOR: GENESIS 22:1-19 29
Exploring
relationships
One of the functions of this particular
story seems to be that of
exploring
relationships: relationships between man
and his God as
well as
relationships between a father and his sons.
Both of these
areas of
investigation are in themselves fairly complex.
An attempt
will be
made here to probe both realms in an effort to understand the
dynamics
involved in these two areas of relationships.
The latter one
seems to
be the result of or the outgrowth of the former; therefore,
they will
be analyzed in the same order as they have initially been
mentioned.
The God/man relationship is explored at
different levels in this
narrative. The images of both God and man are studied to
some
degree; the
demands of God are seen in contrast to the response of
man. Fundamental to the account is an obvious
question: "What
kind of a
God would subject a man to such an ordeal?" This, of
course,
immediately raises the whole issue of the image of God as
seen in
Genesis 22. Responses to the question
vary. In large measure
one's response
depends upon which aspect of the narrative is empha-
sized. If the emphasis is upon the initial command
to sacrifice Isaac
and the
concept of the divine deception involved, the view of the
image of
God obviously will be somewhat negative.
On the other
hand, if
the emphasis is placed upon the fact that Yahweh stayed the
hand of
Abraham and subsequently increased his blessing upon the
patriarch,
one's conclusions concerning the image of God would
agree with
de Vaux, who commented: "Any Israelite who heard this
story
would take it to mean that his race owed its existence to the
mercy of
God, and its prosperity to the obedience of their great
ancestor."17
More, however, is to be gained by viewing
the image of God as
portrayed in
Gen 22:1-10 in a broader context. When
seen in the
perspective of
both that which precedes and follows these verses, a
noticeable
"role reversal" occurs in this problematic section. In
Genesis
12-21 Yahweh is depicted as the deity who desires to bless
greatly the
patriarch; the promises abound in these chapters. Not only
is he
seen as one who promises blessing; he is unmistakably set forth
as the
one who fulfills the promised blessings.
Genesis 21 records the
birth of
the son of promise, Isaac. Suddenly, a
reversal of roles
occurs. The God of promise and blessing appears to
become the
antagonist, the
tyrant, the adversary, the God of contradiction. In the
minds of
some, the problem is not so much in the initial demand
17R. de Vaux. Ancient
Hill, 1965) 443.
30 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
which
Yahweh/Elohim made on Abraham as with the fact that
he
allowed
Abraham to think right up to the very last moment that he
was
actually serious when in fact he was only testing Abraham.
Just as the careful student of the saga
of Abraham must see the
role
reversal just described, he is also obliged to see another drastic
reversal in
Gen 22: 11-18 -- a reversal in the portrayal of the image of
God back to that which prevails in Genesis 12-21.
This second
reversal
sheds a different light on the first reversal.
Certainly there
should be
no attempt to minimize the image of Yahweh in Gen 22:1-
10. There is no question that a "different
side" of Yahweh is to be
seen there. At the same time, however, one must reckon
with the
double
role-reversal which is evident in the story.
But, as demon-
strated elsewhere in this study, Yahweh/Elohim is to be understood
as a
God who sorely tests his subjects.
According to Exodus 15,
needed
water; in Exodus 16 and Deuteronomy 8, the nation needed
bread;
Judges 2 and 3 suggest that the nation needed military
assistance. While the exact circumstances differ in the
Genesis 22
incident, the
basic point is the same. Yahweh/Elohim is set forth by
the
biblical writers as a God who takes his servants through perilous
situations for
the purpose of testing them. In almost
every one of
these
examples, including Genesis 22, there is evidence of divine
provision as a
means of survival through the experience.
This is not at
all
unusual in the realm of religion. The
religions of the ancient Near
East were
characterized by deities who demanded devotion; in some
cases
demonstration of one's devotion was evidenced through child
sacrifice. The unique feature in Abraham's experience was
that his
God stopped
him from completing the act. Thus the
double role-
reversal
shows itself to be significant in the story.
A second fundamental question must be
asked concerning the
story: "What kind of a man would respond to
such a command in
the
manner in which Abraham did?"
Almost as important as the
image-of-God motif is the image of man in relationship to his God as
it is
explored in this fascinating account.
Once again, there is differ-
ence of opinion on this question. In fact, the same individual some-
times
experiences mixed emotions in this regard, as Kierkegaard
demonstrates:
Why then did Abraham do it? For God's
sake and (in complete
identity with
this) for his own sake. He did it for
God's sake because
God required this proof of his faith; for
his own sake he did it in order
that he might
furnish the proof. The unity of these
two points of view
is perfectly
expressed by the word which has always been used to
characterize
this situation: It is a trial, a
temptation. A temptation -
but what does
that mean? What ordinarily tempts a man
is that which
would keep him
from doing his duty, but in this case the temptation is
itself the
ethical. . . which would keep him from doing God's will.
LAWLOR: GENESIS 22:1-19 31
Therefore, though Abraham arouses my
admiration, he at the same
time appalls me.
. . . He who has explained this riddle
has explained
my life.18
An interesting and perhaps significant
ingredient is to be gleaned
by
tracing the role-reversal pattern in the case of Abraham. With one
major
exception, it is opposite that of Yahweh/Elohim's. It is not at
all
unusual to find Abraham arguing with Elohim
throughout Gene-
sis
12-21. Whereas in that segment of the
cycle God is the "blesser,"
Abraham is
somewhat the "antagonist."
However in Genesis 22,
where he
is called upon to do something of a far more severe nature
than
anything else up to this point, a clear reversal is seen. He does
not
argue with God, in spite of the fact that to obey would mean the
death of
his long-awaited and dearly loved and favored son. There is
no hint
even of any hesitancy on Abraham's part, though to actually
follow
through would place the covenant in jeopardy in addition to
suffering the
loss of his son. How is this phenomenon
to be explained?
Does his
response represent a "blind obedience," which in present
times
seems to have been operative to some degree in Jonestown,
maturity and
obedience which enabled him to carry out God's
instructions and at the same time leave the consequences to God? In
answer to
this perplexing problem, it may be significant to note that
there is
no evidence in Genesis 22, or in the remainder of the
Abraham
cycle, of a reversal back to the image which characterized
Abraham prior to the Genesis 22 incident. It
is true that there is no
strong or
positive evidence in the rest of the Abraham saga that he
was a
"different Abraham" from this point on. However, the failure
of the
text of the cycle to allude to a second role reversal may be
significant in
this respect.
Further evidence that the tale seems to be
exploring relationships
between God
and man is the heavy emphasis which is placed upon
testing/obedience
and fear of God/love of son. It seems
quite appar-
ent that there is a direct relationship
between the discussion concern-
ing the image of God/image of man and
testing/obedience as well as
fear of
God/love of son. Both of these latter
issues seem to be
engaged at a
level different from the former matter.
Allusion has
already been
made to the fact that the writers of the OT portray
Yahweh as a God who tested his subjects.
That is not so unusual
or
surprising. Abraham's unflinching
obedience is somewhat more
puzzling. He appears as a man who believed that the God
whom he
18S. Kierkegaard, Fear and
Trembling (Princeton: Princeton University, 1945)
89-90.
32 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
worshipped had
the right to make such a demand of him and that the
sacrifice of
Isaac was the right thing for him.
It seems significant that both comparisons
and contrasts can be
drawn
between this experience and Abraham's initial encounter with
Yahweh, as
told in Gen 12:1ff. Both experiences
began with a divine
emphatic
imperative, "go."19 Both situations involved going to an
"undesignated place": ". . . to the land that I
will show you" (Gen
12:1);
". . . upon one of the mountains of which I shall tell you" (Gen
22:2). In both cases a
"sacrifice of family" was required:
in the former
experience, it
was to leave family behind; in the latter, it was an
actual
sacrifice of his son. This final
confrontation by Yahweh was, in
a
sense, not a completely new experience for the patriarch, although
obviously the
most trying. Abraham's entire experience
with Yahweh,
beginning with
the initial call and promise, may be viewed as pre-
paring him
for this final, supreme test. While the
general direction of
Abraham's
response in both cases was toward obedience, in the first
situation
there was only partial obedience, while in the last situation
there was
total obedience. This fact "puts a
little distance" between
the two
experiences. The major contrast, of
course, between the two
is the
fact that the first imperative was accompanied by a promise of
blessing;
there was no such promise which came with the imperative
of Gen
22:2. In fact, this latter imperative
seemed to place all the
foregoing
promises in jeopardy. This set of facts
greatly increases the
distance
between the two situations. But that
distance is then reduced
by the
fact that both responses are followed by blessing from Yahweh.
Sarna,
commenting on a comparative study of these two passages,
draws some
conclusions which deserve consideration because they
relate the
study to the matter of exploring the relationship between
Yahweh and
the patriarch:
The great difference between the two
events is what constitutes the
measure of
Abraham's progress in his relationship to God. The first
divine
communication carried with it the promise of reward: The final
one held no such
expectation. On the contrary, by its
very nature it
could mean
nothing less than the complete nullification of the covenant
19The form is j~l;-j`l,. Cassuto
remarks that this form ". . . is not without specific
signification." He further
observes: "In both cases Abram
undergoes an ordeal: here he
has to
leave behind his aged father and his environment and go to a country that is
unknown to
him; there he has to take leave of his family circle for a little while, and of
his cherished son
forever; his son, it is true, will accompany him for the first part of the
way but only
so that he might bid him farewell forever.
Thereafter he must go on his
way alone,
the way of absolute discipline and devotion. In both instances the test is made
harder by
the fact that the destination of the journey is not stated beforehand."
Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Part
II: From Noah to Abraham; trans.
I. Abrahams
(Jerusalem: Magnes, 1964) 309-10.
LAWLOR: GENESIS 22:1-19 33
and the
frustration forever of all hope of posterity.
Ishmael had already
departed. Now Isaac would be gone, too. Tradition has rightly seen in
Abraham the exemplar of steadfast,
disinterested loyalty to God.20
A third level of interest in regard to the
Yahweh/man relation-
ship is
the set of binary elements: fear of God/love of son. There
appears to
be something of a relationship between this and the
testing/obedience
motif, yet the fear of God/love of son struggle goes
beyond or
becomes more particularized than the former.
Gen 22:2
sets up
the frustration by the way in which Yahweh referred to Isaac,
". . . your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love." At the point
where the
angel stops Abraham, the clear pronouncement is made,
" . . .
now I know that you fear God . . ." (Gen
cation seems to be that the fear of God on
Abraham's part was
in
question because of his love for his son.
Two factors in the text
unite to
mediate between these two elements. The
description of the
raised
knife in the hand of the patriarch together with the writer's
employment of
the infinitive FHow;li clearly indicates Abraham's
intention of
slaying his son. An inner disposition
reduces the distance
between
Abraham's fear of God and love of Isaac.
A second major realm of relationships is
explored through this
narrative: a horizontal realm. The relationship of a father to his sons
is a
theme that is investigated. At this
point it is instructive to
place two
incidents side-by-side. The expulsion of
Ishmael, as recorded
in
Genesis 21, and the binding of Isaac, described in Genesis 22,
lead to
an interesting study in comparisons and contrasts when
analyzed
together. Generally speaking, these two
segments of the
Abraham
cycle illustrate the pattern, seen often in the OT, of
the
younger son becoming the favored son over the firstborn.21
As a matter
of fact, this case sets the pace for those which follow
in the
patriarchal sequence. Ishmael, the
result of Abraham's attempt
to
"help God fulfill His promise," was rejected by Yahweh and
eventually
expelled by Abraham. Isaac, the younger
of the two
sons, is
described as having been sovereignly chosen by Yahweh
and
favored by
Abraham. This, in itself, is not foreign
to the biblical
record; but
the paradox is seen in the fact that Abraham became
quite
distressed over Sarah's instructions to cast Hagar and Ishmael
out, yet
when God instructed him to slay Isaac, the favored son, there
was no
evidence of any reluctance whatsoever on the father's part.
20N. M. Sarna,
Understanding Genesis: The Heritage of Biblical
Schocken, 1974) 163.
21See Genesis
27 (Jacob) and Genesis 37 (Joseph).
34 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
A number of interesting comparisons and
contrasts can be
observed
between the two events. The following
chart summarizes the
main
details:
Ishmael in danger Isaac
in danger
Genesis 21 Genesis 22
CONTRASTS.
Crisis
created as a result of a Crisis
created as a result of a
human
directive: Sarah tells divine
directive: God tells
Abraham to
cast out Hagar Abraham
to offer Isaac as
and
Ishmael (v 10) a
burnt offering (v 2)
Abraham
shows real reluctance Abraham
shows no real reluc-
to
fol1ow through (v 11) tance to fol1ow through (vv 3ff.)
God refers
to Ishmael as God
refers to Isaac as
"Abraham's
seed," fraz, (v
13) "Abraham's
son," NB, (v 2)
Sarah aware
of the circum- Sarah
apparently not aware
stances; she
was the of
the circumstances
"perpetrator" (vv 9-10)
Hagar, the
mother of Ishmael, Abraham,
the father of Isaac,
could not
stand to watch did
not shrink from observing
her son
die (vv 15-16) (in
fact, participating in)
the death of his son
Action takes
place in the Action
takes place in the
wilderness of
Beer-sheba (v 14)
COMPARISONS
Firstborn
cast out, becomes Firstborn
cast out, becomes
a
nation a
great nation
God promised
to make a God
promised to make a great
nation of
Ishmael because he nation
of Isaac because
was
Abraham's seed (v 13) Abraham
had not withheld him
(vv 16-18)
Abraham
"rose up early in Abraham
"rose up early in
the
morning" to fol1ow the
morning" to fol1ow
through (v
14) through
(v 3)
Divine
intervention occurs; Divine
intervention occurs;
angel of
God cal1s out to angel
of Yahweh calls out
Hagar;
reversal of danger to
Abraham; reversal of danger
(v 17) (vv 11 ff.)
LAWLOR: GENESIS 22:1-19 35
Water
(life-preserving) Ram
(life-preserving)
was
providentially provided was
providentially provided
(v 19) (v 13)
Hagar saw
the heretofore Abraham
saw the heretofore
unseen well
(v 19) unseen
ram (v 13)
Hagar
appropriates the water Abraham
appropriates the ram
without a
specific divine without
a specific divine
directive (v
19) directive
(v 13)
Hagar, an
Egyptian, Abraham,
a Mesopotamian,
takes a
wife from takes
a wife from
(v 21) (Genesis
24)
CONCLUSION
It seems apparent that one of the themes
that the story presents as
it is
read diachronically is the testing and obedience of Abraham. That
concept
keeps reappearing in several different ways.
That is not meant
to
imply that this diachronic motif exhausts the contribution of this
celebrated
story. One is inclined to ask the
question: Is it really
possible, on
the basis of the details of the story as they are given, to
know what
was going on in the heart and mind of the patriarch? What
do his
unusual reactions mean?
In the synchronic direction, the account
contributes to the
exploration of
certain religious and sociological relationships: God/
man and
father/son. But is there more? After some fairly extensive
study,
looking at the passage in many different ways and from several
perspectives, it is obvious that the passage warrants further attention.
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
Grace
Theological Seminary
Please report any errors to Ted
Hildebrandt at: