CHAPTER FIVE
INSIGHT AND VISION:
GENESIS 22: 11-19
In the preceding chapter we saw that, in the course of obeying God’s command,
Abraham puts forth a near-wordless visual argument to persuade the deity to spare
Isaac. We also saw how the narrator’s discourse can be read as portraying Abraham as
obedient in what the narrator characterizes as a situation of “testing,” but also, by means
of poignant conversations and emotive images, as positioning the reader to view the
interaction between God and Abraham as a story of a father on the way to give his
“only” son to the deity.
In this chapter I focus on Genesis 22:11-19, aiming to demonstrate how sight
and insight figure prominently in the characters’ interaction. I will draw God as moved
to rescind the sacrifice by what Abraham shows him, thereby redefining religious
obedience. I will sketch a once myopic Abraham deriving insight from sight as he
finally “sees” that God will fulfill the promises. Finally, I will explore the narrator’s
disturbing ending in which Isaac is no longer in view (v. 19).
My procedure, as in the earlier chapters, is to use Bakhtinian strategies to
examine character and narratorial discourse, by examining verbal and visual utterances
and the dialogical interaction between God and Abraham. I have divided this chapter
into four sections: The First Divine Response, (vv. 1-12); Sight and Insight (vv. 13-14);
The Second Divine Response (vv. 15-18) and Where is Isaac?; Genesis 22 Dialogized
(v. 19).
120
The First Divine Response: Gen. 22: 11-12
This section’s aim is to look at the divine response in Gen. 22:11-12. I will
examine the divine response in two sections: first, the verbal exchange between God
and Abraham (v. 11), and second, the divine response to Abraham’s utterance,
consisting of two prohibitions and the reason for rescinding the sacrifice (v. 12).
a. “Beholding” the father and son (v. 11)
There are a number of points to make about this brief interaction between God
and Abraham at this climactic point in the narrative. First, it was the deity who
addressed Abraham in v. 1 and now it is his messenger who speaks—although, as we
will see, the voice of the deity and of the angel often co-author the same utterance
(vv. 11, 15-16).1 The substitution of the messenger as the bearer of the divine word
evokes past situations in which the deity responds to and provides for Hagar in distress
(in Gen. 16: 7 and again in 21:17.)
Second, in v. 1 Abraham’s name was uttered once, but here the angel says it
twice, setting the pace and tone for the exchange in v.11. Even though tone is difficult
to discern in biblical narrative, I suggest that we can hear a tone of urgency and concern
in the messenger’s repeated words, “Abraham, Abraham;” one reflected in the divine
repetition of Abraham’s name in v. 12.2
1
Strictly speaking it is the messenger/angel of YHWH, not Elohim who speaks in Gen. 22:11.
The narrator uses different names for the divine voice in Genesis 22 (“Elohim” in vv, 1, 8, 9; “messenger
of YHWH” in vv. 11, 15; “YHWH” in v. 14, 16 (twice)) but since in v. 12 the messenger of YHWH
claims credit for the command issued by Elohim in v. 2, for my purposes I am reading all three as
representing the same divine voice. (The same sort of slippage between the deity and the deity’s
representative occurs in Gen. 16:7-13 and in Gen. 21:17-19).
2
The name repeated twice is not the only indication of urgency in the divine speech as we will
see below.
121
Third, we note that the exchange between the divine voice and Abraham in v. 11
is almost identical to the one in v. 1: “Here I am/Behold me” (ynnh), but the situation
has changed drastically, and thus we can read a different meaning in Abraham’s
response.3 When Abraham first responded to the deity’s address with the reply, “Here
I am/Behold me” (v. 1) it was before God’s command; now (v. 11) he utters these
words after the order to sacrifice Isaac. As Bakhtin remarks, an utterance’s meaning is
inherently grounded in the unrepeatable situation in which it is uttered. On the first
occasion, Abraham’s interaction with the deity (and their relationship) was based on the
constant promise of blessings uttered by God in their first nine interactions. But God’s
unexplained command in Gen. 22:2, contradicting his earlier words, and seemingly
countering his stated intentions to bless Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3), makes the deity’s word
less clear, and undermines the interaction in Genesis 22.4 So even though the words
Abraham utters are exactly the same, they are rendered ironic and doubled by the
starkly different situations and the uncertainty about the intentions of the deity to whom
he replies.
In addition (fourth), I am drawing the figure of Abraham as exploiting the visual
aspects of the reused reply. In this instance words are ancillary to the visual as his reply
directs the deity’s attention to his larger point that is wordlessly displayed in the scene
3
Levenson’s contention, Death and Resurrection, 126, that Abraham’s only and repeated
response to the deity in Genesis 22 (ynnh) should be read consistently as a declaration of Abraham’s
radical obedience is impossible in a Bakhtinian view, because every time the phrase is uttered, even if it
is the exact same phrase to the same person as in v. 1 and v. 11 the circumstances are different.
4
White, Narration and Discourse, 189, sums up the shift in relationship between the two
characters due to the divine command. He writes, “the divine Voice, which has elicited trust from
Abraham, steps back outside of that trusting relation to manipulate Abraham for his own concealed ends.
. . . When words contradict the expectations for the future generated by his own previous dialogues with
the protagonist, as is the case here, then the meaning of the previous words are placed into question, and
the possibility arises that the previous words were also not to be taken at face value. The future which
before seemed so clear under the light of the divine promise is now suddenly eclipsed by the arbitrary
darkness of the impenetrable divine will.”
122
at hand. “Here I am” or, better, “Behold me,” invites God to look at—“behold”—
Abraham and Isaac. The picture is memorable and disturbing: Abraham, knife in hand,
poised to kill and Isaac-as-sacrificial-victim, bound, upon the altar. Abraham creates a
live display of the imminent donation of a “y η9îδ” to the deity. He obediently fleshes
out the words uttered by the deity in v. 2, to “offer [Isaac] as a burnt offering.” There is
no explicit violence in this scene, yet it is present just below the surface; if Abraham
plunges the knife into Isaac, the next scene will make visible the blood and the death
throes attending ritual slaughter. The image of the impending child sacrifice is
generically distressing, but in Abraham’s display it is exacerbated: The victim is Isaac,
the beloved son, both divinely given (Gen. 17:16) and gifted to the deity. As we will
see in the next chapter, this is the striking image three artists reintone as they put forth
their own views on the sacrifice of Isaac.
b. Rescuing Isaac (v. 12a)
What the deity “sees” is Abraham, knife raised, and Isaac bound; what he
contemplates as he views what Trible describes as this “terrible” obedience5—the loss
of the beloved Isaac, a father and son locked in this difficult religious ritual, the death of
the descendant and Abraham’s hope of progeny, the end of the divine plan for the
nations—we are not told. The deity’s language, which in the first nine engagements
tended to be detailed, repetitious and even almost verbose, becomes enigmatic and terse
in the tenth; any reason offered for the command and its withdrawal in v. 12 is
ambiguous. Yet I suggest that we can detect in the divine voice concern for Isaac an
urgency that Abraham stop the sacrifice immediately. Urgency is expressed in the
5
Trible, “Sacrifice of Sarah,” 274. Trible uses this adjective earlier in reference to v. 3, but it fits
here as well.
123
name spoken twice in haste, the use of the negative of prohibition (l)), the clipped
speech of these prohibitions, and in their content: “Do not stretch out your hand against
the boy, or do anything to him!”
These last two utterances warrant a further look. In the first, the angel picks up
the narrator’s phrase describing Abraham’s compliance with the command in v. 10:
“Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife”; it reintones it so the action, if
continued, will become an act of disobedience. The angel’s second utterance, “Do not
do anything to him!” relays a sense comparable to “Don’t move!” or “Freeze!” in
modern parlance. This pair of sentences forms a rather puzzling set of initial responses
if the point of the sacrifice is to demonstrate Abraham’s obedience (as many readers of
Genesis 22 assume). It might seem that God would laud his obedience to this difficult
command. We note, however, that the paramount issue voiced is Isaac’s safety, not
Abraham’s obedience. In fact, Abraham’s actions are proscribed by the angel—they are
actions that must be stopped. Additionally, the shift in voices creates the impression of
pressing concern: what begins as the angel’s speech quickly shifts to first person
pronouns (“I” and “from me,” v. 12) as the deity interrupts and finishes the declaration
himself.
The urgency of these words sets the tone for the divine response in vv. 11 and
12. And although the deity does not explicitly say that he acts upon what he sees, the
implication is there as he frames his explanation, “For now I know,” in words that recall
the only other situation in the nine previous interactions where the deity desires to
“know” something. In that case, he comments in Gen. 18:21 that he must go down and
“see” (h)r) in order to “know” ((dy) what is happening in Sodom. God also depends
124
on sight to carry his point when he responds to Abraham’s question (Gen. 15:8) in the
fifth engagement about how he will “know” ((dy) that he will possess the land.
The reason God provides, like much of the discourse of Genesis 22, is
ambiguous. The deity declares, “For now I know that you fear God since you did not
withhold your son, your only son, from me” (v. 12). The reply can be understood in
various ways; the participle (fear) is in construct state in the asseverative clause and can
be read either nominally as “you, indeed, are a God-fearer” or verbally as “surely you
fear God.” A “God-fearer” is someone devout, dedicated to God. If we read God’s
statement this way, then the next clause6 “since you did not withhold your y η9îδ son
from me,” God’s reason for halting the sacrifice is that Abraham, by offering Isaac, has
demonstrated that he is a God-fearer, and this is the knowledge God acquires.
There are several things to note in this utterance pertaining to the issue of child
sacrifice if we read the participle with the meaning of “God-fearer.” First, in v. 12 God
describes God-fearing as an act of donating the y η9îδ to the deity. This is noteworthy
in that it is the only action that Abraham has performed that God has identified as that
of a “God-fearer” even though we have seen Abraham build altars and invoke the
deity’s name (Gen. 12:7, 8), participate in a covenant ceremony (Gen. 15:7-21),
circumcise his whole household (Gen. 17:23-27), as well as generally obeying God’s
words. This brings us to the related point (second) that “listening to God’s voice,” or
general obedience, is not mentioned here (as it will be later in vv. 16-18). In this
reading of God’s utterance, the deity explicitly praises Abraham for his intended act of
6
There are three clauses in v. 12: “For now I know that you fear God since you did not withhold
your son, your only son, from me.” The first yk clause is causal (Joüon, Grammar, sec. 170d, p. 638); the
second yk clause is asseverative (Joüon, Grammar, sec. 164b, p. 617, and the third is a causal clause
which begins with a waw, (Joüon, Grammar, sec. 170c, p. 638).
125
child sacrifice, and only implicitly, for his obedience. So (third) if we view the deity’s
comment through the lens the narrator provides in v. 1, the divine words may be
construed as implying that Abraham has in some way “passed the test” and earned the
deity’s approval through this commanded act of child sacrifice.7
If, however, we read the participle as a verb, “you certainly fear God,” then
other possibilities come into play, due to the fact that the word “fear” ()ry) connotes
“terror” as well as “awe.”8 If we read God’s words with the connotation of “standing in
awe of” or “reverence” the sense relayed is the same as “God-fearer. But if the
alternative connotation is pursued, that is, that Abraham fears the deity, then the import
of the divine utterance changes, meaning something like, “now I know that you are
certainly afraid of me because you did not hesitate to kill your beloved/donated son
when I asked you to do so.”9 In this case, what the deity learns about Abraham is that
he is afraid of him, so terrified that he is willing to kill his son without protest. And if
7
Levenson, Death and Resurrection, 13, points to the fact that not only is child sacrifice not
verbally condemned in Genesis 22, but Abraham is “richly rewarded for his willingness to carry out that
very practice.”
8
In a Bakhtinian conception of language wordplay is a form of hybridity. In Hebrew the word
“fear” ()ry) means to “to be afraid” or “dread,” or to “stand in awe of” “reverence,” and “honor,” BDB,
431. Here we can point to some of the wordplay on the two verbs, )ry and h)r. But first I will mention
the wordplay (which takes various forms) on the verb “to see” h)r. In v. 8 God “sees to” the lamb, both
in the sense of designating Isaac as a sacrifice and in providing a substitute. In v. 14, the word h)r
means both sight and provision: God sees and provides; God sees and is seen. Because the root )ry “to
fear” shares similar grammatical forms with the verb “to see,” it also participates in this wordplay in a
variety of ways. The word “Moriah” hyrmh can be read by means of the root h)r and understood as
a place of seeing or by means of )ry and understood as a place of dread. The verb “to see” which is in
the Qal imperfect third masculine singular in v. 4 and v. 13 is the same form (without pointing) as the Qal
active participle of the verb “to fear” in v. 12; the form is )ry . This particular wordplay further
reinforces the interplay between the idea of “seeing” and of the sense of dread (and perhaps awe) that
runs through the narrative. Jan P. Fokkelmann discusses some of the wordplay in Genesis 22 in “‘On the
Mount of the Lord There is Vision’: A Response to Francis Landy Concerning the Akedah” in Signs and
Wonders: Biblical Texts in Literary Focus, ed. J. Cheryl Exum, (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature,
1989), 52.
9
Fewell and Gunn, “Keeping the Promise,” 54, read God’s words in this sense. Humphreys,
Character of God, 142-43, assumes fear factors into Abraham’s response. His summary assessment of the
interaction between God and Abraham in Genesis 22 is that God has finally bent Abraham to his will so
that Abraham will even murder his son on God’s word to do so (even though, as it turns out, God does
not desire Isaac’s death.)
126
we again view God’s declaration through the narrator’s lens of testing, it becomes
unclear whether Abraham has passed the test or not. After Abraham’s ardent entreaty
for the innocent in Sodom, did God expect Abraham to refuse or at least protest the
sacrifice of Isaac when the command was issued? Do we see God surprised how far
Abraham actually takes the sacrifice—do we sense a hope he would refuse at the last
minute? Does God’s strong prohibitive warning against harming Isaac in any way
indicate that God is not quite sure what Abraham is capable of, just as I suggested that
after viewing the devastated Sodom (Gen. 19:28), Abraham abandons verbal argument
in his dealings with the deity?10 The ambiguity in the “reason” God proffers allows
these questions to contend with the notion put forth by the narrator that God is simply
“testing” Abraham by means of the sacrifice, and encourages us to see complexity in
the divine response.
That God “rescues” Isaac, after placing him in danger in the first place, is
similar to his rescue of Abraham’s other son, Ishmael after having agreed to have him
turned out into the wilderness in Genesis 21 (and also Hagar in Genesis 16).11 I have
drawn the deity as influenced by what he has seen (and overheard), or more precisely,
by what Abraham has specifically shown him. Further, while the deity offers his own
“reason,” in v. 12, I suggest that there is a more pressing reason that can be discerned
from his initial characterization of Isaac as beloved, and from his urgent tone in vv. 1110
Fewell and Gunn, “Keeping the Promise,” 53, suggest God tests Abraham to see how far he
will go when self-preservation is the issue.
11
We can also read God’s rescue of Lot and his family in Genesis 19 as the divine “response” to
Abraham’s concern about the innocent of Sodom, even though this is never explicitly stated in the text.
Both Humphreys and Davies suggest that in Abraham’s argument for the innocent of Sodom, his real
concern is for a very specific group of people, namely, his nephew Lot and his family. See Humphreys,
Character of God, 123, and Davies, “Male Bonding,” 108. I am reading the dialogue between God and
Abraham more broadly, that is, as an example of Abraham’s challenging God to act with justice and
integrity, not simply as a veiled attempt to save his nephew.
127
12: concern for Isaac. The deity, in effect, decides to relinquish his divine prerogative;
he chooses to spare the beloved Isaac, rather than accept him as a “gift.” I see the deity
here as unable to see the sacrifice through. Whether the deity comes to realize this
“divine parental affection” for Isaac along the way, or acts because of it, remains in the
realm of readerly interpretation. By means of their interaction in Genesis 22 Abraham
and God both come in some sense to claim Isaac as “son;” Abraham by explicitly
addressing him as such (vv. 7-8) and God through expressed divine concern (vv. 1112).12 The narrator, too, through poignant images and dialogues early on, draws the
reader in to respond to Isaac’s fate, to imagine Isaac as one’s own child. In the next
chapter the artists join the conversation, picking up and reusing the narrator’s language,
reintoning “Isaac” in starkly different ways and deepening our reading of the biblical
narrative.
The language of Isaac as beloved son that we hear in the mouth of the three
males—God, Abraham and narrator—is borrowed from Sarah. Sarah is absent—
removed—from the interaction, yet her intonation and reaccentuation of the word “son”
from Gen. 21:10 lies at the heart of the interaction, for the issue to be decided regarding
Isaac is not whether by sacrificing the heir all will come to naught—in keeping with
inheritance as the theme of the discourse in the first nine interactions—but rather
whether to see Isaac as the donated or beloved son.13
12
McEvenue, Interpreting the Pentateuch, 90, sees what he calls the “elemental meaning” in
Genesis 22 to be that divine intervention occurs in the realm of family feelings (and in the realm of the
reader’s feelings); however, he overlooks the divine response to the sight of Abraham and Isaac at the
altar, in which something of the divine “feelings” for Isaac are expressed.
13
This dilemma of the “only” child as both “donated” and “beloved” is also at the heart of the
discourse in the narrative of Jephthah’s daughter (Judges 11:34-40).
128
Sight and Insight: Gen. 22: 13-14
Having seen the deity provoked to speech by Abraham’s dramatic scene at the
altar, the narrator now shows us Abraham’s response. Employing the same words he
used in describing Abraham’s first sight of the place of sacrifice—“he raised his eyes
and he saw”—the narrator shows us how Abraham now sees differently. The hnh in v.
13 indicates what Abraham sees; however the rx) in v. 13 can be variously translated
and offers a range of possibilities for interpreting this scene. One way to translate the
rx) in this context is as “behind,” that is, Abraham, whose vision tends to be limited
to what is right before his eyes, has been so focused on Isaac he fails to see the ram
behind him. Abraham’s scope of vision is so narrow he does not perceive that God has
already “seen to” a substitute.14 This resembles the occasion where God “opens
Hagar’s eyes” so she can see the well of water; God’s provision is present throughout,
but we can easily infer that Hagar is blinded by her distress (Gen. 21:19).
But rx) can also be understood to mean “at that moment,”15 that is, the ram is
caught in the bush at the very instant that Abraham looks up and sees it. The
implication here is that at the moment of vision, the deity provides; in this case, the
communication between Abraham and the deity is wordless and based entirely on
sight.16 Abraham, who has been slow to make the connection between what he sees and
God’s words, immediately perceives that the ram is to be the sacrificial victim instead
14
Trible, “Sacrifice of Sarah,” 278, remarks that now that Abraham has been freed of his
attachment to Isaac he “beholds an answer to Isaac’s question, ‘Where is the lamb for a burnt offering?’”
from v. 7.
15
Robert Coote, In Defense of Revolution: The Elohist History (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1991), 24, offers the translation: “Abram raised his eyes and saw a ram caught that very
moment in the bush by the horns.”
16
See White, Narration and Discourse, 198-99; he comments that in Genesis 22 sight (the
“visual mode”) becomes an acceptable vehicle for Abraham’s faith.
129
(txt) of his son.17 The narrator shows us that Abraham now understands by describing
his wordless actions; reusing the verbs he has consistently employed to epitomize
Abraham’s obedience, the narrator reports “he went” (Klh) and “he took” (xql) the
ram. By his reuse of these verbs the narrator puts forth the view that sacrificing the ram
is an act of obedience. As the narrator’s utterance intersects the divine messenger’s
utterance—which reintoned the obedient act of Abraham’s “stretching out” his hand in
v. 10 as one of disobedience in v. 12—the narrator’s language further elaborates what
the messenger does not name: what the sacrificial ritual should now be. In this scene
the narrator shows Abraham (the founding ancestor) making the proper substitution: It
is to be a ram instead of the child.18
Abraham’s words to Isaac in v. 8, “God himself will see to the sheep for the
burnt offering, my son,” 19 prove to be true, whether or not Abraham was cognizant of
his prescience when he uttered them. If in the past we have seen Abraham express
doubts and questions about the deity’s promises (Gen. 15:2,3, 8; 17:17), Abraham now
expresses his confidence in the deity; and he employs the theme (and language) of sight
which has figured so prominently in their engagements. There are a number of points to
note here. First, he verbally acknowledges that God “sees/provides” (h)r), and I keep
both meanings in play in my construction of Abraham’s utterance because “providing”
and “seeing” have been inherently connected here—God provides because of what he
17
BHS also offers the substitution of “one” (dx)) for rx), noting multiple manuscript evidence.
However, I am retaining rh) because it is the more difficult reading—and offers more intriguing
possibilities for translation.
18
Levenson, Death and Resurrection, 112, reads this verse very differently, writing that “the
aqedah does not forbid the sacrifice of the favored son or mandate the substitution of an animal.”
19
Here I have translated “God himself will see” to emphasize that it is God who provides, but I
also use the translation “God will see to it” elsewhere (the suffix wl attached to the verb can be translated
either reflexively or as an object). My intention here is not to choose one translation over another but, by
means of Bakhtinian strategies, to exploit the possibilities in the language to read the text more deeply.
130
has seen. And second, Abraham chooses the future tense,20 “YHWH will see/provide;”
his words evince that his “seeing” has been enlarged. He can now envision the future
generations spoken of and visually “shown” by God in those dramatic displays of land,
dust and stars. Third, by giving the place a name, his utterance “YHWH will
see/provide” becomes a word addressed to the generations yet to come, information for
them about the deity and their future: “YHWH will see/provide.” There is also a visual
component in Abraham’s act of naming: He attaches “YHWH seeing” to a visible
place, or at least a symbolic place, that can be imagined by his descendants. The
narrator will pick up on this place-naming to make a slightly different point.
Since it is the narrator who reports Abraham’s sight, creates the scene of his
insight (i.e., the ram is to be the sacrificial victim), and frames Abraham’s quote,
“YHWH will see/provide” for the reader, there are a few things to note about the
narrator’s language. First, in reporting this scene the narrator reintones the place, from
a place of sacrifice to one of vision. The expression “the place” has been the narrator’s
abbreviation for God’s longer description of the place of sacrifice in v. 2. The narrator
has employed this term “the place” to emotive effect reusing it at key moments in the
journey to relay a sense of anticipation and dread: in v. 3 as a “code word” to signify the
ritual place; in v. 4 as the object of Abraham’s gaze, and in v. 9 to indicate the end of
the journey (and the end of Isaac).21 Now the narrator reintones the word “the place” so
20
See the Vulgate and Syriac which transpose the Qal imperfect (“YHWH will see/provide”) and
the Niphal (“YHWH will be seen/will appear”) in v. 14. My reading reflects the original sequence of the
imperfects of the verb h)r in the MT text in this verse; my emphasis is on the fact that Abraham
recognizes (and declares) that God sees and provides, rather than on Abraham’s experience of a
theophany.
21
The narrator also refers to Sodom as “the place” in the chapter where he reports the city’s
destruction (chapter 19), so that in v. 3-9 it carries the ominous association with its use in the episode of
Sodom (vv. 12, 13, 14).
131
that it no longer bears the threat of Isaac’s death, but is reaccented to mean a place of
vision and theophany. The Niphal (imperfect) simultaneously allows the reading
“YHWH will appear,” “YHWH will be seen” and, as an impersonal phrase, “there is
vision,”22 reflecting that the seeing is both of God and by God. Second, we note that the
narrator quotes Abraham, rather than allowing Abraham to communicate with God in a
way to which the deity could respond. This is reminiscent of the narrator’s tendency,
which we noticed earlier in Genesis 12-21, to portray Abraham as totally in agreement
with God, or at least to portray the two as in concord at the conclusion of an individual
engagement. The narrator’s summary statement in v. 14 has the flavor of a “happy
ending” in a narrative in which harrowing events have taken place, with little
explanation.23 Third, the narrator’s point about the place differs slightly from
Abraham’s. Abraham announces that God will see and therefore provide, whereas the
narrator’s language registers a change in the way the place is now known—as a place
where God can be seen, rather than a place of God’s seeing. 24
The Second Divine Address: Gen. 22:15-18
After the narrator reports on Abraham’s declaration of God as one who sees and
provides, the narrator reports that the divine voice speaks to Abraham again (v. 15).
The pattern is the same as in the first divine address: The narrator identifies the voice as
22
The third masculine singular conjugation of the verb can be translated as an impersonal
statement: “there is vision.”
23
The expression, “the place” though reaccented, still bears its former associations of sacrifice
(and dread and fear).
24
Scholars note that II Chron. 3:1 says that Solomon built the Jerusalem Temple on Mount
Moriah; however they continue to debate the relevance of this verse to Genesis 22. According to Jewish
tradition the Jerusalem Temple is located on Moriah on the spot that Abraham (almost) sacrificed Isaac.
See Levenson, Death and Resurrection, 119-121.
132
a messenger, but the use of the first person in vv. 16 -17 indicates that the deity’s voice
is also present. In the style of the language we can perceive the exuberance common to
his utterances in Genesis 12-21. This can be discerned not only in his reference to his
most extravagant promises (spoken in the midst of his most dramatic displays of land
and the heavens (Gen. 13:14-17; 15: 6)), but also in his use of the infinitive absolute
placed before a finite verb in v. 17 (twice).
There are a number of things to note about the second divine address to
Abraham.25 First, we can perceive God move away from the notion of child sacrifice as
a description of a “God-fearer” toward a more general notion of obedience. I suggested
that one way of reading God’s rather ambiguous “reason” in v. 12 is that God had
learned that Abraham is a God-fearer. We also notice that on this reading the deity
commends Abraham for offering his y η9îδ.26 Yet in v. 16 God separates the
expression “not withholding your son, your only one” from its sacrificial context and
refers to it as a unique act, not as an act belonging to a ritual category: “because you
have done this thing” (hzh rbdh-t) ty#^&( r#$) N(y yk). Thus the phrase
“you did not withhold your son, your only son” (v. 12) no longer simply indicates that
Abraham’s action proves he is a “God-fearer,” but suggests behavior that is non-typical,
even extraordinary—to which the deity responds accordingly by swearing a solemn
25
Most scholars note that vv. 15-18 differ in sentence structure (more complex syntax, and
complicated clausal sentence structure) and vocabulary (e.g., the phrase, hwhy-M)n “an utterance of
YHWH”). It is widely thought to be an addition to an older narrative (probably Gen. 22:1b-14, 19). Since
I am assuming that Gen. 22:1-19 was edited to be read as a coherent whole, in my reading I am regarding
vv. 15-18 as intentionally integrated into the earlier narrative. R.W. L. Moberly, “The Earliest
Commentary on the Akedah: Genesis 22:15-18,” in From Eden to Golgotha: Essays in Biblical Theology
(Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1992), takes another approach, characterizing vv. 15-18 as the first
commentary on the earlier narrative.
26
Levenson, Death and Resurrection, 13.
133
vow.27 Furthermore, as the specific act of not withholding the donated son is reaccented
to represent something out of the ordinary in itself, the phrase is now redefined and
what before was implicit in v. 12 (willing obedience) is now made explicit: “because
you obeyed me,” or more literally, “listened to my voice” (v. 18).28 The description of
a God-fearer is thus broadened, and the act of not withholding the y η9îδ” is now
presented as one act of obedience among many, one act in a general pattern of
obedience. The essence of a righteous person (God-fearer) is not simply, or no longer,
being the one who sacrifices his y η9îδ, but being the one who listens to God’s voice.
By couching Abraham’s act of offering Isaac in the language of obedience, the deity’s
language evokes all of Abraham’s acts of obedience throughout the nine engagements,
especially that first significant initial act of leaving his country, his family and his
father’s house (Gen. 12: 4).29 God’s language constructs Abraham as a man who is
blessed by God because he obeys, not because he practices child sacrifice.
Second, having threatened the promises by issuing the command to sacrifice
Isaac, God now reaffirms his intention to bless Abraham. God accomplishes this by
framing the blessing in v. 17-18 in language that recalls the structure of the original call
to Abraham in Gen. 12: 2-3, that is, (a) God will bless Abraham by making him into a
27
This is the only divine oath in the patriarchal narratives, and it is referenced by Abraham and
others. It is referenced in Gen 24:7, where Abraham directs his servant to find a suitable marriage partner
for his son Isaac; in 26:3 God, speaking to Isaac, promises to keep the oath he swore to Abraham; in
50:24 Joseph, as he is dying, tells his brothers that God will bring them to the land that he swore to
Abraham, Isaac and himself; and in Ex 13:5 Moses speaking to Abraham’s descendents in reference to
the land that God swore to their fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—we note that on this occasion it is
preceded by a call by God to Moses to “Consecrate to me all the firstborn; whatever is the first to open
the womb among the Israelites, of human beings and animals, is mine” (Ex. 13:1,2 NRSV); Wenham,
Genesis 16-50, 11, comments that the sworn oath is often referred to in Deut.
28
See White, Narration and Discourse, 202, who writes that Abraham has not been obedient to
“the person or self of God (‘to me’) but to ‘my voice.’”
29
Speiser, Genesis, 165, surmises that the purpose of the narrative cannot be to demonstrate
Abraham’s obedience as that is shown by his leaving for Canaan on God’s direction from the very first
(Gen. 12:1-4).
134
great nation, and making his name great (v. 2) and (b) the “families of the earth” will be
blessed/bless themselves through Abraham (v. 3). In Gen. 22:16 God fleshes out these
two blessings by quoting himself from the third and fourth engagements, where he
promised plenteous land and descendants beyond counting, reusing the visuals of land
and heavens (Gen. 13: 14-17 and Gen. 15:5, respectively). There is a slight difference
in terminology in that the “dust of the land/earth” from Gen. 13:16 is now “sand” on the
“edge (lip) of the sea” (Gen. 22:17).
In addition, now that the descendant is spared, God no longer speaks of giving
the land to Abraham (“to you” and “your descendants”) as he did in the first nine
engagements (Gen. 13:15; Gen. 17:8). God’s language is now entirely future-oriented;
Abraham (and the nations) are to be blessed by means of his descendants (vv. 17, 18);
his seed—but not Abraham himself—will possess the land.
Third, having observed Abraham’s new found ability to draw insight from sight,
God broadens Abraham’s vision one final time and gives him one last and lasting visual
image of the promises. God combines the two striking visuals of the starry heavens and
land into one image, drawing a picture of landscape for Abraham. In his description the
deity provides a new way to imagine the landscape Abraham “inhabits.” He has been
given a glimpse of the expansiveness of the divine generosity—he has one descendant
(Isaac) and will acquire a small portion of the land (Gen. 23:17), but now as he moves
through the landscape the land and the stars will be a constant visual reminder that
uncountable numbers of future descendants will someday inhabit the land.
However (fourth), as the deity lays out the picture he now includes features that
were previously absent, and in God’s language we can discern trouble ahead for future
135
generations. When the promises were initially spoken the intimation was that God
would bring them to fruition; the context in which they were to be fleshed out remained
unspecified but there was no hint of conflict or hardship in the picture, and no mention
of “enemies” (aside from the warning in Gen 15:3).30 Now the blessings are spoken of
in the language of war—“your descendants will possess the gate of their enemies”—the
imagery of the descendants bursting through the gates of the enemies evokes scenes of
battle (v. 17).31 The language shifts to the political, from “families of the earth” (Gen
12: 3) to “nations” (Gen 22:18).” 32 The result is that what was once to be given by God
now apparently must be acquired (and still awaited.)
The landscape picture God sketches is not a portrait of paradisal bliss, but a
troubled one. Perhaps, in God’s words of promise, we can anticipate one reason there
will be problems ahead: As the descendants become as numerous as the dust, sand and
stars, they will fill the land, coming into contact, and conflict, with those already
owning it.33 In anticipation of this future conflict God paints a scene of victory
employing the language of conquest—Abraham’s descendants “will possess.” Yet this
image of victory is doubled by the depiction of oppression and slavery already fleshed
out by God in more ominous words spoken earlier in Gen 15:13—at least for the reader
it is doubled, for as we noted it is unclear whether Abraham hears these words spoken
in the midst of a vision when he is deeply asleep (Gen 15:12). With God’s vow in vv.
30
Although the deity has made reference to “other” peoples, (e.g., the list of peoples inhabiting
the land, in Gen. 15: 21), God never explicitly uses the vocabulary of war in the promises until Gen.
22:17.
31
This same phrase, with slight changes, will be reused (invoked in blessing) by the family of
Rebekah (the future wife of Isaac) in Gen 24:60.
32
Fewell and Gunn, “Keeping the Promises,” 55.
33
With the words of the oath, God speaks of a future that is doubled: Isaac is spared, the
descendents will proliferate, the nation will possess the land, but as hinted in the vision/nightmare of Gen
15:12-15, violence and suffering will attend the process.
136
16-18 it appears that as Abraham’s descendants move toward nationhood, blessing will
come to the ever-increasing offspring, but from here on, violence and war will be a part
of the picture as well. 34
Where is Isaac? Genesis 22 Dialogized
We hear no response to God’s lavish oath and reiteration of the promises;
instead, the narrator describes Abraham’s actions and we watch as he moves in silence,
retracing his steps of v. 5. He descends the mountain, rejoins the boys and returns with
them to Beersheba.35 What is striking in this image is that Abraham returns without his
son. The narrator’s language highlights Isaac’s absence in a number of ways. First, the
verb “to return” is clearly a masculine singular, and thus signals that Abraham is alone.
Second, because Abraham explicitly told the boys “we will return” in v. 5, the use of the
singular verb makes Isaac’s absence even more salient. Third, the absence of Isaac is
further reinforced by the narrator’s reuse of the phrase “they walked together” in v. 19.
This echoes the refrain “and the two of them walked on together” of vv. 6, 8 and,
although the word “two” is not repeated here, we know from v. 3 that there are two
boys and thus, at the mention of the boys, the trace of the “two” reminds the reader of
that phrase that so characterized the journey of the father and son as they approached
“the place” (vv. 6, 8).
34
Fewell and Gunn, “Keeping the Promise,” 55, comment on how violence breeds violence.
This war-like image can also be doubled, as it represents victory, while bearing the images of blood and
violence—just as the image of Isaac on the altar is an image in which can be seen religious obedience but
also the brutality of child sacrifice.
35
Beersheba is the place where Abraham made an oath with Abimelech, planted a tamarish tree
and invoked the name of YHWH, Everlasting (Mlw( l) hwhy) in Gen 21:31-33.
137
This final image the narrator presents is disconcerting: not only is Isaac
unaccounted for on the journey, but he goes on to report that Abraham settles in
Beersheba without Isaac. The narrator’s closing words, creating this final image of
Abraham descending alone, serve to double the entire utterance of Genesis 22. We
have heard and seen that Isaac is saved, yet his absence leaves the reader with a sense of
unease.36 The story that has been rife with ambiguity ends on a note of uncertainty. 37 In
the next chapter, we will see the artist Chagall take up this ambiguous ending as he
reintones and reaccents Genesis 22.
Conclusion
We have seen God moved by what he sees and has seen to stop the sacrifice he
had commanded, and to modify his definition of religious obedience. We also see
Abraham emerge from the interaction with an enlarged vision regarding the deity and
his own future. Yet the narrator ends the story on a disturbing note: Isaac is absent and
unaccounted for, rendering his fate uncertain. In the next chapter we will turn to
another medium and invite three artists, Rembrandt, Caravaggio and Chagall, into the
conversation, allowing them to deepen our insight into Genesis 22 as they visually
reintone and reaccent the narrative.
36
In Genesis 24 we learn that Isaac is still alive (indirectly) when Abraham sends his servant to
find a wife for “my son Isaac” (Gen. 24:4). Trible, “Sacrifice of Sarah, 280, declares that it is fitting that
Abraham is alone, for the meaning of the narrative has been that Abraham learns “the lesson of nonattachment;” she says, “Alone Abraham returns from the place of sacrifice. It can be no other way. If the
story is to fulfill its meaning, Isaac cannot, must not and does not appear.”
37
Shalom Spiegel’s classic work on the aqedah engages this question and explores it through the
lens of the rabbinical exegesis; see “Where is Isaac?” in Shalom Spiegel, Last Trial, 3.
138