CHAPTER THREE GOD’S COMMAND: GENESIS 22: 1-2 He said, “Take your son, your only son whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains that I will point out to you.” Gen. 22: 2 When constructing my utterance, I try actively to determine this response [of the addressee]. Moreover, I try to act in accordance with the response I anticipate, so this anticipated response, in turn, exerts an active influence on my utterance (I parry objections that I foresee, I make all kinds of provisos, and so forth). When speaking I always take into account the apperceptive background of the addressee’s perception of my speech: the extent to which he is familiar with the situation, whether he has special knowledge of the given cultural area of communication, his views and convictions, his prejudices (from my viewpoint), his sympathies and antipathies—because all this will determine his active responsive understanding of my utterance. Mikhail Bakhtin, Speech Genres We have seen in Genesis 12-21 that God’s words have contributed to the construction of his character zone as that of a generally benevolent and reliable deity. In addition, the narrator reports that Abraham acts on God’s words; we have observed, and the narrator maintains, that Abraham does as God says, while at the same time challenging God to act in accordance with his own words. The visible proof that God keeps his promises is Isaac, the miraculous God-given heir who makes the fulfillment of the promises possible. Having characterized the interactions between God and Abraham in their nine previous engagements (Genesis 12-21), and having derived some sense of their character zones, we now turn to their tenth engagement (Genesis 22).1 This is their final engagement in the Abraham narratives; after this point the narrator 1 A chart that summarizes the ten engagements is found at the end of the chapter. 67 reports no further communication between them. It is also the climactic interaction, for in it God verbally undermines all that he has previously promised Abraham, placing the promises (and especially Isaac) at risk. In this chapter we will discuss God’s utterance to Abraham (Gen. 22:1-2); in the following chapter we will examine Abraham’s wordless response. My procedure will be to employ Bakhtinian strategies to examine the utterances of the characters and narrator in Gen. 22:1-2. I begin with the narrator’s utterance in Gen. 22:1a, in which he positions the reader to view the engagement between God and Abraham as a test in which it is expected that any outcome will be visually demonstrated. Next, I discuss the brief exchange between God and Abraham, in which the pattern of utterance and response anticipates the pattern of their interaction (a pattern repeated from other engagements) throughout Genesis 22: God speaks and Abraham responds with wordless action. I then turn to God’s utterance, where I aim to demonstrate how God’s use and reuse of language renders his command (Gen. 22:2) complex and ambiguous, dramatically affects his character zone, obscures God’s intentions concerning the promises, and complicates this last engagement with Abraham. 68 The Narrator’s Introduction: Gen. 22:1 The Narrator’s Utterance: Gen. 22:1a The narrator’s voice and point of view dominate the tenth engagement between God and Abraham. The narrator’s voice is heard in seventeen out of nineteen verses.2 He sets the theme for the reader, introduces their direct discourse, and describes the characters’ actions. The narrator not only reports the utterances and responses of God and Abraham but also situates us to listen and to watch them. The narrator’s introductory statement, “After these things, God tested Abraham” positions us in two ways: first, to approach the interaction in light of the characters’ previous engagements; and second, to view it as a situation of testing. I will first discuss how the narrator evokes key moments from the past. The narrator evokes the previous conversations between God and Abraham with his transitional phrase, “after these things.” The phrase resonates with the past in a number of ways. First, we note that the initial preposition of the phrase “after” (rh)) has its own resonances. The narrator uses the word “after” to frame and introduce God’s important utterances in the third and fourth engagements. These are engagements where God employs visual displays and encourages Abraham to look and learn from what he sees (Gen. 13:14-17; Gen. 15:5).3 2 Second, by reusing the phrase In Genesis 22 (in the MT) the narrator’s total words number 193 and Abraham’s equal 25. The sum of divine words is 95. We note that the narrator distinguishes between God’s (Elohim) voice and that of the angel of YHWH, and under those labels God’s words number 25 and the angel’s number 70. However, labels do not always clearly identify all the voices in an utterance and there are a number of things, e.g., the use of the first person, that allow us to hear God’s voice as well when the angel speaks (vv. 12, 16-18). 3 In the first instance, the narrator reports that YHWH promises Abraham all the land he can see after Abraham and Lot have themselves divided up the land—Lot claiming the prime land by means of 69 “after these things,” which was the opening narratorial phrase in the fourth engagement, the narrator’s language has the effect of bringing to mind the interaction in which the foremost issue is who is to be Abraham’s heir. This dialogue is the first in a series of conversations that show God designating Isaac the rightful heir. In addition, the fourth engagement calls to mind for the reader one of the few occasions where Abraham questions God’s credibility, but also, where the narrator informs us that Abraham believes God based on what he hears, but more importantly, on what he sees (v. 6). Third, the phrase “after these things” also encompasses all that has transpired between God and Abraham. The word translated as “things” (Myrbd) has a range of meaning including “things,” “matters,” “events,” and “words.”4 We have heard the words and witnessed the events that have passed between them; the word Myrbd (words/events) aptly encompasses the content and context of their interactions.5 By means of the phrase, the narrator gathers together all that has happened in the past between God and Abraham—everything said, done and seen—and makes it a reference point or context for what is to happen next. The second way the narrator positions the reader is to view this climactic interaction between God and Abraham through the lens of testing: We are to read the whole engagement as a test or trial to which God subjects Abraham. There are several sight (Gen. 13:10-12, 14). In the second instance, the narrator introduces the fourth engagement by means of the phrase “after these things” (Gen. 15:1). The “things” immediately preceding God’s arrival are Abraham’s defeat of the coalition of kings, his rescue of Lot (Gen. 14:14-17) and the blessing he receives from King Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18-20). However, in this case, the phrase can also refer to all that has happened from the beginning (i.e., from Gen. 12:1). We note that in both instances, the narrator’s use of the word “after” highlights the fact that the deity engages Abraham after certain decisions have been made or interactions have taken place between Abraham and other human beings. And in both instances sight is crucial in the communication between Abraham and the deity. 4 See BDB, 183. 5 Phyllis Trible, “Sacrifice of Sarah,” 271, remarks, “the little phrase, ‘after these events,’ collects a tortuous saga of multiple dimensions.” 70 observations to make here. First, in this initial verse the narrator situates us to read the interaction through the lens of testing in much the same way that he positioned us at the very beginning of Abraham’s journey (Gen. 12:4), i.e., to see all Abraham’s silent actions as unquestioning obedience. Second, the narrator’s word for testing, hsn, meaning “test,” “try,” “prove,” and “tempt,”6 also has a visual sense: one tests in order to “see/ascertain.” Helfmeyer remarks on this visual aspect of hsn, contrasting it as a “demonstration of a truth that can be ‘seen,’ with a truth that is ‘believed.’”7 He offers as an example 1 Kings 10:7, where the queen of Sheba, after testing (hsn) Solomon, declares she believes the reports of his prodigious wisdom (and wealth) because she has seen it with her own eyes. In other words, hsn connotes that proof will be displayed and seen. In Genesis 22 the narrator will describe Abraham’s actions in some detail, moving him from one scene to the next on the journey to the place of sacrifice. Given that the narrator has portrayed God as closely watching over Abraham, we can assume that the deity now watches to see how Abraham responds. By using the verb hsn, the narrator also prepares us to “watch” to see what will be demonstrated in this “test.” A further observation to make about the word hsn is that actual readers interpret it variously. That is, the narrator’s statement that God is testing Abraham is often understood to imply that God is merely testing Abraham, i.e., that God does not intend to allow Abraham actually to kill Isaac.8 Levenson argues, however, that there is 6 BDB, 650. F. Helfmeyer, “Nissah” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (TDOT), vol. 9, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1998), 445. 8 On this view the narrator imparts information to the reader that Abraham does not have. For a sampling of this very common interpretation of the narrator’s utterance see the commentaries on Genesis 22 by von Rad, Speiser and Sarna. Gerhard von Rad, succinctly expresses this interpretation of the narrator’s view, remarking, “the reader is told in advance, however, that the story concerns a temptation 7 71 nothing in the word hsn to connote that the test is not to be completed.9 Therefore the narrator’s words about this being a test do not reassure us that the sacrifice will be stopped—that his is only a test, a drill, a dry run, not the thing itself—and thus that the deity who issues the terrifying command will not permit it to be carried out. Third, the news that God will test Abraham alerts us to a shift in their relationship. In the past, God stipulated rituals for Abraham to follow, but the word hsn with its attendant meanings of a “trial” or “temptation” signals a more serious and ominous course ahead. However—a fourth point—the narrator’s utterance that what follows is a test is the narrator’s own assessment of God’s intentions. It is the narrator who casts God in the role of one who tests or tries Abraham.10 As we will see, at no point in the interaction does God ever claim to be testing Abraham. Nor will Abraham express the view that the sacrificial ordeal is a test. In fact, the narrator’s utterance about God’s intention is addressed to the reader, and as in the seventh engagement (Gen. 18:1-8), where the narrator leaves it unclear whether Abraham is aware that YHWH is one of the visitors to whom he extends his hospitality, here in Gen. 22:1 there is no corroboration that Abraham knows that God is testing him. The lack of divine given by God, a demand which God did not intend to take seriously” in his work, Genesis: A Commentary, rev. ed., (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 239. Speiser, Genesis, 164, and Sarna, Genesis, note 1, 151, express a similar view. 9 Levenson, Death and Resurrection, 126, points this out as he argues against Von Rad’s interpretation of the narrator’s utterance. 10 Jewish midrash puts forth the view that Genesis 22 is Abraham’s tenth and most severe trial, though we note that Gen. 22:1 is the only place in the Abraham narratives where the narrator explicitly says that God tests Abraham. Jo Milgrom in her book, The Binding of Isaac: The Akedah –A Primary Symbol in Jewish Thought and Art (Berkeley, Calif.: Bibal Press, 1988), 31-62, reads Genesis 22 through the lens of the ten trials mentioned in the midrashim. 72 affirmation that the interaction is a test leaves open the possibility of reading their interaction as more than, or even other than, a test.11 The Exchange Between God and Abraham: Gen. 22:1b The narrator tells us that God, as he often has in the past, initiates the conversation with Abraham. This time, however, he addresses him by the name he has conferred on him: Abraham (Gen. 17:5).12 On that occasion God told him he was giving him a name that reflected the many descendants that God would provide: “Abraham,” meaning “a father of many peoples” (v. 5). However, the gulf between the given name and Abraham’s present situation is immense: Abraham has only two sons, and God has already eliminated Ishmael as a potential heir; he has also removed Eliezer from contention.13 So here, as God addresses Abraham by a name that signifies many descendants, we are very much aware that Abraham has only one, namely, Isaac. Abraham’s response to God’s utterance is verbal: “Here I am (ynnh).” There are a number of things to note about the phrase ynnh. It variously connotes a mere acknowledgement between two people, as in a casual “hello,” or indicates one’s location, such as “I am right here before your eyes,” or expresses an attitude of personal readiness. Any or all of these is possible here; however, unlike the other occasions 11 Even though the narrator characterizes the engagement as a situation of testing, for much of the narrative the topic of narrator and character discourse is the sacrifice of Isaac. So while the narrator encourages us to read it as a test, the discourse encourages us to respond to the issue of sacrificing Isaac. This is a key place in the text where it makes a vast difference when we do not call the narrator “omniscient.” 12 Genesis 22 is the only engagement of the ten interactions in which God calls to Abraham by name. He addresses him by name on two occasions in v. 2 and v. 11 (where he speaks his name twice.) 13 Eliezer is eliminated as a contender in Gen. 15:4 and Ishmael in Gen. 17:19-21 and 21:12-13. The contrast between Abraham’s situation is made sharper when we compare him to Jacob whose wives and concubines produce a myriad of sons, all of whom (in some way) are seen as inheritors (i.e., they are the progenitors of the twelve tribes of Israel; see Genesis 49). 73 when Abraham verbally responded to God, there is no further information to provide hints of Abraham’s attitude in this instance. Nor are there any clues to his intonation in this exchange. Although many scholars intone Abraham’s words in v. 1 with a sense of readiness or obedience, neither the narrator nor any of the characters sheds light on Abraham’s perspective here.14 It does, however, mark a change from Abraham’s previous verbal responses, all of which were characterized by some sort of questioning of God’s word (even in Gen. 17:17, where Abraham’s words verbalized to the deity evince respect, his self-talk and non-verbal response (falling down in laughter) reveal his disbelief in God’s proclamation (that the aged Sarah will give birth, v. 16). Here in Abraham’s reply there is no hint of contention; whether Abraham’s concerns have been addressed by the birth of Isaac, or whether Abraham has become more circumspect in his conversations with the deity after witnessing God’s phenomenal destruction of Sodom, we can only speculate. What we do know from their former dialogues is that, most of the time, when God addresses Abraham God’s words are encouraging and hopeful, conveying good, often astounding, news (the birth of Isaac). In light of their past interactions, Abraham could reasonably anticipate further good news. We note that the phrase ynnh will become an important refrain in Genesis 22, for it is the only response that Abraham will utilize as he replies (twice) to God in the course of this tenth engagement (i.e., in v. 1 before the command to sacrifice Isaac and again in v. 11, when he is on the verge of killing Isaac). He will reuse ynnh when answering his son (v. 7) and in each of these situations the phrase will resonate 14 For example, Levenson, Death and Resurrection, 126, argues that this phrase characterizes Abraham’s stance of obedience towards God throughout Genesis 22; he prefers Speiser’s translation “Ready” as a fitting description of Abraham’s attitude. 74 differently. In addition, the word (hnh), as a demonstrative particle, has a visual aspect. It literally means, “behold me”15 and directs our gaze upon Abraham, where it will remain for most of Genesis 22. Thus what sounds like a terse and ordinary exchange actually anticipates the pattern their interaction will follow (and mirrors that of their earlier ones): God speaks and Abraham responds by means of silent, wordless actions designed to be watched by both God and the reader. We will “behold” Abraham as he responds to God’s command. God’s Command to Sacrifice Isaac: Gen. 22:2 In examining God’s utterance I will first discuss how God’s language constructs Isaac’s character zone as a beloved son designated for sacrifice. In addition, I show that in the juxtaposition of language systems of sacrifice and parental love he makes salient the choice/dilemma before Abraham.16 His speech highlights the fact that Abraham has not expressed his attitude toward Isaac, and also there are hints in God’s language of his own conflictedness about having Isaac sacrificed. Second, I will demonstrate 15 BDB, 243-244. In Gen. 22:2 God asks Abraham to perform what must be considered the most difficult religious duty: donating his son to the deity. In addition, we note that this order or “test” (as the narrator names it) is strikingly more severe than any of God’s earlier stipulations or covenants. That is, previously we have seen God require Abraham to engage in two religious rituals, the first the one-time covenant ceremony (cutting up the animals in Gen. 15:9-10); the second, also a covenantal act, is circumcision (Gen. 17:9-14). In Genesis 22 everything (i.e., Isaac’s life, Abraham’s posterity, God’s plans) depends on Abraham’s response, unlike those two previous instances where God covenants with Abraham and does not indicate that the promises are dependent on Abraham’s behavior. Furthermore, sacrifice has not been prominent in their interactions. For example, in the covenant ceremony (Gen. 15:15:9-10) God instructs Abraham to cut up the animals as apparently one would for a sacrifice; however the focus seems to be on the cut animals themselves, as a visual symbol of the covenant, rather than on the ritual of sacrifice (e.g., there is no mention here of the necessary equipment, i.e., a knife or altar, etc.). We also note that even though Abraham has demonstrated his devotion to God by building altars and invoking YHWH’s name (Gen. 12:7,8; 13:18), his actions have been entirely gratuitous—YHWH never requests these expressions of obedience. Here, however, God demands what might be deemed the ultimate expression of worship, namely, that Abraham sacrifice his son. 16 75 how God’s use and reuse of language makes his command ambiguous, his intentions obscure, and his interaction with Abraham in Genesis 22 complicated. Third, I examine how the shift in God’s character zone not only complicates their interaction, but also renders the deity opaque. The Beloved Y η9îδ In Genesis 12-21 God primarily employed the language of inheritance and descendants in reference to Isaac; now he turns to two new languages systems— sacrifice and parental love—that will contend with each other as they are placed sideby-side and render God’s utterance ambiguous and multi-layered. But first, there are a number of observations to make about God’s language about Isaac. First, we hear God use the possessive pronoun (as did the narrator and Sarah) to define the relationship of Isaac to Abraham in terms of father and son: God names Isaac as Abraham’s son (i.e., “your son”).17 God’s designation of Isaac as Abraham’s son highlights the fact that as God and Abraham engage each other for the final time, Abraham has not yet claimed Isaac as son. Abraham’s silence about Isaac was first brought to light in the ninth engagement (Gen. 21: 9-11) where we observed that when Sarah demands that Abraham protect Isaac, Abraham’s thoughts immediately turn to Ishmael, not Isaac. 17 For the narrator’s use of the phase, “his son” see Gen. 21: 3, 4, 5; for Sarah’s expression “my son” see 21:10. 76 Second, God describes Isaac as an “only son.” The word “only” in Hebrew is “y η9îδ” (dyxy). Its dictionary definition is “only one.”18 However, in God’s mouth it acquires an additional meaning of “unique,” “chosen,” or “favorite.”19 Given that God’s speech has marked Isaac as an “only” child, by verbally discounting Ishmael as a contender,20 and by speaking of Isaac as the selected heir (e.g., the chosen descendant (Gen. 21: 12), and covenant partner (Gen. 17: 19)), the word “y η9îδ” signifies the exceptional position God has given Isaac. Additionally, the word in God’s mouth takes on the meaning of a “first-born son.” That is, by choosing Isaac over Ishmael who, by virtue of birth-order, would normally be the rightful “first-born,” God, in essence, disregards Ishmael’s standing and elevates Isaac to the status of “first-born son.”21 However there is another resonance in the word “y η9îδ” that can be brought to bear here. Levenson notes that “y η9îδ,” occurring only twelve times in the biblical narrative, is “suggestively prominent in stories of child sacrifice;” he argues that it refers to children who are chosen to be “donated/sacrificed” to YHWH.22 One of the most tragic and compelling instances is Jephthah’s daughter, who is described as a “yeη9îδâ” (Judges 11:34) and presumed sacrificed to YHWH because of her father’s rash vow. We can exploit Levenson’s point, employing Bakhtin’s insight that words 18 BDB (402) defines the word as “only,” “only one,” and “solitary.” Judah Slotki translates “y η9îδ” as “favorite,” arguing that Abraham has two sons, Isaac and Ishmael; see “Judges: Introduction and Commentary,” in Joshua and Judges, ed. A. Cohen, trans. of Hebrew Text of JPS (New York: Soncino Press, 1980), 257. 20 God has designated Isaac as the legitimate heir, verbally eliminating Ishmael (Gen. 17:19-21; 21:13). Isaac’s replacement of Ishmael is accomplished in Genesis 21 when God verbally approves Ishmael’s expulsion from the household (see vv. 10-14). We can ask if Ishmael ever was a contender, and note that the speech in Genesis 12-21 is about him; he is never afforded the opportunity to speak on his own behalf. 21 We note that a distinguishing and crucial difference between Ishmael and Isaac is not who their father is (Abraham is the father of both), but who their mother is. 22 See Levenson, Death and Resurrection, especially pages 27-31 where he discusses the places in biblical narrative where he sees references to “donated” children. 19 77 bear multiple layers of meaning carried from other contexts, to hear God’s naming Isaac as a “first-born-son elected to be donated to the deity” in the reference to him as a “y η9îδ.”23 There is another meaning of the word “y η9îδ ” that Levenson puts forth, based on his reading of biblical narrative and certain extra-biblical texts. Levenson argues that in the context of first-born sons, “y η9îδ” also connotes a “beloved child.” So, third, we see that God juxtaposes this sacrificial language with another vocabulary, that of parental love. Not only does the word “y η9îδ” bear the resonance of a “beloved son,” but God also explicitly introduces the theme by employing the verb, bh), (“love”).24 In regard to interpersonal relationships bh) means “love,” either human or divine, and its scope includes the notion of love between friends or between parent and child.25 Thus when God speaks of Isaac as a “son” Abraham “loves,” he takes up the language of familial affection. In describing Isaac as a loved “son,” the deity picks up Sarah’s reintonation and consequent reaccentuation of the word “son” from the ninth 23 Levenson in his book Death and Resurrection shows that in the Hebrew Bible, the word “ “y η9îδ,” meaning a “donated child,” and the word “y dîd,” meaning “beloved,” both come to refer to beloved children who are in some way donated/sacrificed to the deity. In a nuanced argument Levenson demonstrates how two words in the Hebrew Bible, “y η9îδ” (only)—and the closely associated word “y dîd” (beloved)—bear the traces of the extrabiblical story of El, a Phonecian king (later deified) who, to avert a crisis, sacrifices “his only begotten son” called Iedoud/Ieoud. (Levenson assumes Ieoud is a cognate of “y η9îδ” and Iedoud, of “y dîd”.) Narratives such as Gen 22:2 where Isaac is referred to as a “y η9îδ” three times (v. 2,12, 16), and Judges 11:34 where Jephthah’s daughter, a “yeη9îδâ,” is sacrificed (presumably) in fulfillment of her father’s vow to YHWH, are obvious examples. However, he mentions more subtle traces, such as 2 Sam 12:24-25, where he finds resonances of El’s sacrificed son, Iedoud in the name YHWH gives Solomon in 2 Sam 12:24-25 (Yedîdy h (beloved of Yah(weh)). He views Solomon as the replacement son, who takes the position of the first-born son who died and so averts the crisis caused by David’s indiscretion with Bathsheba (27-29). He also notes that in certain verses in the Septuagint, the word “y η9îδ” means “beloved” and is translated as such in Greek versions of Gen 22:2 and Judges 11:34 (where “y η9îδ” is rendered as a)gaphto/j). In the Synoptic gospels he hears a reference to Isaac in the heavenly pronouncement of Jesus as the son who is “beloved” (a)gaphto/j) and destined for death (30-31). 24 Jo Milgrom points out that Gen. 22:2 marks the first occurrence of the word “love” in the Bible in “Quest for Meaning: An Exercise in Visual Theology,” Christianity and the Arts (Winter): 29. 25 BDB, 12-13. 78 engagement (in which she shifted the discussion from one about sons as heirs to that of sons as loved (Gen. 21:10). However, God’s words remind the reader that, as yet, not only has Abraham not claimed Isaac as son, neither has he verbalized any kind of feeling about Isaac. Further, God’s phrase “whom you love” is ambiguous: It can be read as either descriptive (i.e., God states that Abraham, indeed, does love Isaac) or prescriptive (Abraham should love Isaac, rather than, say, Ishmael.) Given that these words originate not from Abraham but from God, we cannot know what Abraham really feels about this son because he has not as yet evidenced any feeling. Scholars differ in how they interpret what God is saying to Abraham by telling him to sacrifice the son whom he loves. Some interpret God’s point to be that Abraham is to relinquish what is most precious to him, namely, Isaac. For Trible the issue God names is that of attachment: Abraham loves Isaac and must relinquish him.26 However, we note that attention to character and narrator discourse indicates (and as Trible’s own feminist argument convincingly points out) Abraham’s problem has not been attachment, but a lack of attachment, to Isaac.27 A variation of this theme of attachment is that Isaac must choose between his son and obeying God, which is ultimately a choice between loves or commitments or loyalties.28 26 See Trible, “Sacrifice of Sarah,” especially the argument she sets forth on pages 271-280. Fewell and Gunn, “Keeping the Promise,” 53, go beyond Trible’s observation that Abraham is not attached to Isaac to point out that Abraham demonstrates a selfishness that demonstrates a lack of concern/attachment/loyalty to any of his family. They suggest that God tests him in order to see “just how far Abraham will go.” 28 For example, see Levenson, Death and Resurrection, 128, who interprets God’s words as telling Abraham to place obedience to God over the love of his son. Landy, “Narrative Techniques,” in Signs and Wonders, ed. J. Cheryl Exum (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1989), 6, offers an original interpretation, revealing the conflicting loves apparent in the deity’s words (and Abraham’s) as he views this portion of the narrative through the lens of psychoanalytical theory, remarking: “Rivalry, envy and possessive love conspire to murder the child. Yet because the child is loved, as himself, he must be preserved.” 27 79 I suggest that we can also read God’s words not so much as indicating that Abraham must choose between him and Isaac, but as verbalizing the problematic nature of the choice before Abraham. That is, we can read God’s words as stating a dilemma: Give me your y η9îδ/donated son, even though you love him. In this case, God’s point is not that Isaac is the most precious thing to be relinquished but that there are conflicting desires inherent in Abraham’s decision: The desire to obey the deity at odds with the desire to protect the son. In addition, in God’s phrasing I discern hints of God’s own conflictedness over sacrificing Isaac, especially if his words here are read in light of his earlier words to distressed parents. God begins by pointing out that Isaac is—or ought to be—loved, and reinforces this in four ways: first, evoking parental affection (your son); next, evoking the sense of this son as a special son (an only son); then explicitedly naming the son as loved; and finally by speaking his name, Isaac. It is after this fourfold emphasis on the belovedness of Isaac that God gives the command. Unless we view God through an entirely cynical eye, i.e., seeing God as cruel, which I do not choose to do here, it is possible to detect in God’s elaboration of the ways Isaac is the beloved, not only the love that a father has—or should have—for a son, but perhaps also the love that the deity has for this child that he so steadfastly gave to Sarah and Abraham (Gen. 21:1-2). For as we have seen in Genesis 12-21, the narrator represents God as recognizing, moved to pity by, and more importantly, responding to, parental distress over the feared loss of a child: reassuring an anxious Abraham that God will provide for Ishmael when he is sent away (Gen. 21:12-13), and providing for (opening the eyes of) a despairing Hagar, weeping at the thought of Ishmael’s possible death in the wilderness (Gen. 80 21:17-19). Further, we could argue that in sending Ishmael away God also answers the anxieties of Sarah, who anticipates a scenario in which Ishmael will supplant her son Isaac (Gen. 21:9,10, 12). While we may be in the dark about Abraham’s feelings for Isaac, we might pick up on something of God’s affection for the boy in this description so laden with words of love. We note that the verb God employs for love (bh)) can refer to the feelings of a deity as well as those of human beings.29 Ambiguity and Complications: God’s Reuse of Language Several features of God’s utterance make its tone ambiguous and the command itself less straightforward, complicating his interaction with Abraham. In the first place, God qualifies the first imperative with a particle of entreaty, “na’” ()n), which can either soften or reinforce the demand.30 Abraham himself employs this particle to persuade Sarah to convince the Egyptians that she is his sister and thus save his life (Gen. 12:13). God’s use of the na’ means that, from the start, we cannot be sure whether God is requiring or requesting that Abraham sacrifice Isaac. Further, since na’ is rarely used with commands in biblical narrative, its use here draws our attention to its presence, and also to the fact that it renders the tone of God’s command more 29 Francis Landy notes that God’s love for Isaac is analogous to Abraham’s love for his son. Landy, “Narrative Techniques,” 4. 30 BDB states that when na’ is attached to the imperative it expresses entreaty or admonition. Trible and Sarna, arguing for opposing understandings of its use here, make salient the range of tone of God’s request. Sarna, Genesis, note 2, 151, writes, “The Hebrew adds the participle na’ to the imperative, which usually softens the command to an entreaty, as noted in Sanhedrin 89b, Genesis Rabba 55:7, and Rashi’s commentary. Abraham has absolute freedom of choice. Should he refuse, he would not incur any guilt” (emphasis in original). Trible, “Sacrifice of Sarah,” 272, takes the opposite view, arguing that the na’ strengthens the command. She writes that God’s utterance “is carefully constructed, with the particle na’ joining the imperative ‘take’ (lqh[) to suggest consequence: ‘Take, so I require of you.’” (emphasis in original). 81 ambiguous.31 Thus it is unclear exactly what decision Abraham is faced with: (1) to obey or not to obey God’s command; or (2) not a choice between obeying and disobeying God, but whether or not to sacrifice Isaac. That is, God places the responsibility for Isaac’s fate on Abraham, so that Abraham, not God, makes the final decision whether to sacrifice Isaac.32 In addition, God reuses crucial words and phrases, (Kl-Kl and Cr)) from the original call to Abraham in Gen. 12:1. Also there is a parallel meaning between the verb “to say” (rm)) in Gen. 22:2 and the verb “to see/show” (h)r) in Gen. 12:1, since rm) may originally have meant “to show” as well as to declare (certain cognates preserve this meaning).33 That is, the notion is retained that God will show Abraham where he is to sacrifice Isaac, as he showed him the land.34 By reusing the original phrase Kl-Kl from Gen. 12:1 in Gen. 22:235 God sets Abraham on two starkly different journeys that send him toward opposite destinations, for the word “land” (Cr)) now has two conflicting referents: Canaan, a land of prosperity and blessing, and 31 examples. BDB (608) notes that na’ is rarely used in a command, and cites Gen. 22:2 and Is. 7:3 as 32 The )n provides God with what Bakhtin would call a “loophole.” Bakhtin, Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics, 233-234, defines a loophole as “A retention for oneself of the possibility for altering the ultimate, final meanings of one’s own word” (p. 233). A loophole allows us to resist the surplus another brings to bear in their evaluative response. By qualifying his command with the ambiguous na’ God avoids the label of an arbitrary and/or cruel deity, as we are uncertain whether he is commanding Abraham to sacrifice Isaac or simply requesting that he do so. On the “unfinalizability” of characters Bakhtin offers this additional insight: “The loophole makes all the heroes’ self-definitions unstable, the word in them has no hard and fast meaning, and at any moment, like a chameleon, it is ready to change its tone and its ultimate meaning” (p. 234). 33 BDB (55) defines rm) as “utter or say” but notes that it may have originally had a visual connotation, i.e., meaning “see or show” (F. Delitzsch). BDB lists its Ethiopic and Akkadian cognates as meaning “shew or declare.” For the Akkadian “amarum” (to see, look at, observe) see also John Huehnergard, A Grammar of Akkadian (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1997), 487. 34 We note that the verb rm) is translated as “show” in the NRSV, but as “tell” in the RSV. In the NJPS it is rendered as “point out.” I translated the word as “point out” because this retains both the verbal and visual aspects of its meaning (i.e., “to show,” and “to say”). 35 This phrase Kl-Kl is found in the Hebrew Bible only in Gen. 12:1 and Gen. 22:2. Sarna, Genesis, 150, points out, “in both instances, the precise ultimate destination of the trek is withheld.” 82 Moriah, a land where Isaac, the promises, and the future will be extinguished. By issuing two sets of directions God sets before Abraham an impossible task: Abraham cannot follow God’s initial words to go and be blessed, and at the same time sacrifice Isaac, without bringing an end to the blessing and promises. Moreover, God reuses the framework of the original call (Gen. 12:1) and thereby makes the command less straightforward. The parallels between God’s two utterances are obvious when the verses are placed side-by-side: Gen. 12:1: YHWH said to Abram, “Go from your land and your kindred and your father’s house to a land that I will show you” (emphasis added). Kyb) tybmw Ktdlwmmw Kcr)m Kl-Kl Mrb)-l) hwhy rm)yw K)r) r#$) Cr)h-l) Gen. 22:2b: And he said, “Go to the land of Moriah and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains that I will tell/point out to you” (emphasis added). Kyl) rm) r#$) Myrhh dx) l( hl(l M#$ whl(hw hyrmh Cr)-l) KlKlw By issuing the command in Gen. 22:2, God doubles the original call (Gen. 12:1). The words of the initial call intersect and contend with the words of the command, so that an unambiguous order to sacrifice Isaac becomes less so, perhaps introducing an element of irony into the dialogue.36 36 The irony can be read in different ways and we can variously wonder: In this blatant reuse of language does God hope to evoke that same passion for the innocent Isaac in the Abraham who defended the innocent of Sodom? Is God trying to engender parental love for Isaac in light of Abraham’s silence and apparent ambivalence? Or does God evoke the initial call out of cruelty? That is, does he take particular delight in stringing Abraham along on a journey, knowing all along that the final destination is Moriah and then, in a particularly malicious twist, tell him to kill his long-awaited son? We simply do not know what God intends to relay to Abraham nor what response he anticipates as he crafts his command in the language of the original call. 83 Bakhtin maintains that in shaping an utterance a speaker actively tries to both determine and influence the response of the addressee by taking into account a number of factors, including the context they share and the situatedness of both (for example, their points of view and perception of each other’s speech). Bakhtin also argues that the response the speaker anticipates concomitantly shapes the speaker’s original utterance.37 As God frames his command in the words of the original call, he not only makes the command more ambiguous but also causes us to ponder what kind of a response he anticipates from Abraham. If, as we have seen, the promises (spoken and shown) are the shared context between the two, that is, they are at the heart of their engagements, then what is God’s purpose in evoking his initial words of blessing as he simultaneously revokes them with the command? And what response does he anticipate or hope to elicit from the Abraham who has silently obeyed God, but also verbally questioned him and challenged him to keep his word and passionately pleaded that the innocent of Sodom be spared? How is Abraham to respond to God’s ambiguous and many-layered command? A Crisis of Character: Reconfiguring God’s Character Zone As we have seen, God’s startling command is a dramatic departure from the content and tone of his former words to Abraham, especially the initial call in Gen. 12:1-3. Because God’s speech in Gen. 22:2 contradicts all he has said previously, as we hear God go back on his word—on practically all his words to Abraham!—God’s own speech reconfigures his character zone. Even if we factor in the narrator’s utterance, 37 Mikhail Bakhtin, Speech Genres, 95-96. 84 assuming the connotation that this is simply a test and that God never intends to allow Isaac’s death, the horrific nature of the test—what Sarna termed “God’s cruel request”38—raises the question of what kind of deity this god is.39 In the first place, God’s credibility becomes an issue, as he appears to renege on his own words. The doubts Abraham raised on this issue in the fourth engagement (the long delay in an heir of his own seed), which were seemingly answered with Isaac’s birth, now resurface because of the command. Related to the question of credibility is the issue of God’s reliability. In the past God’s words were unwaveringly consistent, however, with the unexpected command God’s actions and words are in danger of appearing arbitrary. Furthermore, God’s reputation as a compassionate and generous deity is now seriously compromised. All the extravagant words and gestures, promising Abraham land in perpetuity and descendants beyond counting, sound hollow in face of the command. In fact, after the long delay and the grand pronouncements and fanfare attending Isaac’s remarkable birth, and on top of that, the removal of all the other heirs so that Abraham’s has only this one son, the order to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac borders on cruelty. It leaves us to ponder whether this deity finds sadistic pleasure in dramatically giving such a precious gift and then taking it back. With the command to sacrifice Isaac the god noted for his benevolence now appears at least capricious, and perhaps menacing and malevolent. 38 Sarna, Genesis, 151. Contrary to the assertion in Humphreys’ Character of God, 143, that the narrator structures the episode to deflect the reader’s questions about God, setting the reader to wonder about the test instead, I contend that the very opposite is the case. With God’s command the question of God’s integrity and character becomes a central question to be worked out in the narrative. That is, while we may watch how Abraham responds, we also pay attention to how God responds at the moment the sacrifice is about to occur. 39 85 Moreover, God’s command calls for an action that is violent and bloody, and for many a modern reader of this text, thrusts into view the question of what kind of god demands the slaughter of children as the highest form of devotion; what kind of deity asks a father to kill his only child?40 The violence inherent in the utterance recalls another violent scenario, namely the brutal destruction of Sodom, where the devastation of the cities and their inhabitants was so complete that the very ground itself was scorched. (Gen. 19:24-25). With God’s order to sacrifice the question about the innocent of Sodom, never fully laid to rest, again becomes relevant as God now calls for the immolation of Isaac, a presumed innocent. Thus the command brings to the forefront the question of God’s nature and character: Is he benign or is he, as Humphreys characterizes him, a savage god? 41 And how are we to reconcile these two images of God: the god who twice rescues Hagar (Gen. 16:7-13; Gen. 21:15-20), and beneficially intervenes when he hears the cries of Ishmael (Gen. 21:19-20), and the god who calls for the slaughter of Isaac? 40 The horrific nature of the test (in the view of most modern readers) is the starting point from which a number of scholars assess the character of God. See R.W. L. Moberly, The Bible, Theology, and Faith: A Study of Abraham and Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 77, who provides a sampling of quotes from scholars who take this stance. However, Levenson , Death and Resurrection, 1-17, 112, insists that the ancient reader who accepted this sacrificial ideology would view God’s command very differently than does the modern reader, that is, the ancient person would view sacrificing a child to the deity as a privilege, perhaps even the highest form of religious devotion. Levenson contends that the modern abhorrence of child sacrifice places us in danger of misreading Genesis 22. Whether we agree with his assessment or not, Levenson’s statement highlights an issue for modern readers of ancient texts—how do we approach a text that embodies sensibilities different from, even offensive to, our own. Bakhtin’s concept of outsidedness is helpful here in that it provides a way of reading ancient texts remaining cognizant of the fact that our own reactions are not necessarily those of the audience to whom the text is addressed. 41 Humphreys, Character of God, 138-153, who variously characterizes God throughout the book of Genesis, entitles his chapter on Genesis 22: “A Savage God: Genesis 22.” In his chart on page 153 he lists the primary characterization of God in Genesis 22 as “savage,” and the secondary characterization of God as “sustainer-destroyer.” However, this kind of reading fails to exploit the complexity that renders God a more enigmatic character due to his utterance in Gen. 22:2 that conflicts with all that he has promised Abraham in the first nine engagements. 86 God’s two opposing utterances render his character zone fraught because we now have before us conflicting images of God: God as reliable, consistent, compassionate and magnanimous and God as an untrustworthy, erratic, cruel, bloodthirsty and violent deity. With no explanation offered by God or any other speaker, we are left uncertain what the God who once watched over Abraham, and repeatedly promised to bless him, now intends. Conclusion The narrator’s opening utterance prepares us to keep in view the content and context of the past nine interactions as we approach the climatic one. Furthermore, his language highlights these interactions in which sight has been salient in God’s communication of the promises, namely, those where God encourages Abraham to visually participate—to look, see and trust him. Finally, the narrator encourages us to filter the characters’ discourse and actions through the lens of testing. The brief exchange also sets the stage; their greeting is the first overture in the engagement. In uttering Abraham’s name, God’s language brings the lone son, Isaac, into view. We are thus positioned to watch to see what happens to Isaac. In addition, Abraham’s utterance “behold me” focuses our attention on Abraham. So we are also situated to watch and see what Abraham will do in response to God’s command. Our eyes, however, are also trained on God. God’s terrifying demand, so at odds with all his previous speech about blessings, draws attention to the deity. So during the intense engagement we will watch to see if God offers an explanation for why he has placed Isaac in jeopardy, threatened Abraham’s posterity, as well as seemingly revoked his 87 own grand plan. Therefore we are also situated to watch and listen as God interacts with Abraham to see if we can makes sense of the two conflicting images the deity’s own words have created. In the next chapter, though, our eyes turn to Abraham to observe how he responds to God’s impossible command. 88 Engagement Verses (Genesis) First 12:1-5 Second 12:7-8 Third 13:14-18 Fourth 15:1-6 Fifth 15:7-21 Sixth 17:1-22, 23-27 Seventh 18:1-8, 9-15 Eighth 18:22-32; 19:2428 Ninth 21:11-14 Tenth 22:1-19 Synopsis God issues the call to Abraham to “Go,” promising him blessings (of land and descendants.) Abraham silently goes. God points out land; in response Abraham builds an altar, moves his tent, invokes the deity’s name. In a grand display God promises Abraham all the land Abraham can see; in response, Abraham settles at Mamre and builds an altar. God reassures Abraham his reward will be great; Abraham questions the long delay in an heir. God promises an heir of Abraham’s seed and points to the stars as visual confirmation. The narrator tells us Abraham trusted God. God reminds Abraham he will give him the land; Abraham asks how he will know that he will possess it. God responds with a covenant ceremony, in which the covenant is visually displayed in cut animals, a smoking pot and a flaming torch. God changes Abraham’s name, details the promises, and institutes the rite of circumcision. God declares Sarah will give birth; in response Abraham laughs and inwardly expresses disbelief but also obeys God’s decree on circumcision. YHWH appears (disguised) as a traveler to whom Abraham shows hospitality. After this YHWH reiterates the promise that Sarah will bear Abraham a son. (Sarah’s response is disbelief and laughter.) God comes down to see what is transpiring in Sodom. Abraham passionately argues that the innocent be spared. God promises to spare a requisite number of innocent (10). However, God then destroys the city. We see Abraham silently surveying the ruins. God tells Abraham to listen to Sarah and expel Hagar and Ishmael. God promises to bless Ishmael. Abraham obeys and sends them off. God issues the command to sacrifice Isaac. Abraham responds with a series of silent actions. God rescinds the command. Abraham sees and slaughters the sheep. God reissues the promises and redefines religious piety. 89 90 67
© Copyright 2026 Paperzz