The Messy Text
He said, “Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.” Genesis 22:12 NASB
Fear God – It’s an ancient but very important story. Christianity sees it as a type of the Messiah. Jews view it as a demonstration of God’s eternal promise. But the story itself is remarkably unsettling. Not only does it appear as if God asks Abraham to murder his own son (something strictly forbidden in Torah), but it looks like God wasn’t really sure about Abraham’s faith until this crucial test. The rabbis recognized these problems. Targum Onkelos and Rashi’s commentary try to smooth over the concern. Referring to God’s instruction not to harm Isaac, Rashi writes:
Then he (Abraham) said to God, “If this be so, I have come here for nothing; let me at least inflict a wound on him and draw some blood from him.” God replied, “Neither do thou anything to him”—inflict no blemish on him (ib.) FOR NOW I KNOW—R. Aba said: Abraham said to God, “I will lay my complaint before you. Yesterday (on an earlier occasion) you told me, (XXI. 12) “In Isaac shall seed be called to thee”, and then again you said, (v. 2) “Take now thy son”. Now you tell me, “Lay not thy hand upon the lad.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, in the words of Ps. LXXIX. 35, “My covenant will I not profane, nor alter that which is gone out of My lips”. When I told you, “Take thy son”, I was not altering that which went out from My lips namely, My promise that you would have descendants through Isaac. I did not tell you “slay him” but bring him up to the mountain. You have brought him up—take him down again.”[1]
Hair-splitting? Perhaps, but the commentary, relying on ideas from material written hundreds of years later, attempts to explain Abraham’s potential confusion while maintaining the integrity of God’s instruction. Whether or not you accept this extended interpolation will depend on your method of biblical exegesis. Since Rashi treats the text as if it is one continuous contemporary revelation, he is free to use verses from Psalms (and other places) to provide support for his arguments.
But there’s another problem, perhaps not quite as obvious. Notice how God responds to Abraham. The NASB translates the text, “Now I know that you fear God.” We tend to think that this is God’s final endorsement of Abraham’s love for God, but that isn’t exactly what it says. The Hebrew is yare, a word that covers the wide range of emotional trepidation, trauma, intellectual apprehension of danger and reverence. There is no mention of ‘ahav here. At best Abraham has demonstrated reverence. At worst he is simply afraid of what might happen if he doesn’t obey.
This makes God’s response all the more strange. We would expect, “Now I know that you fear Me,” but the text deliberately uses elohim, not a pronoun. Doesn’t this strike you as odd? In personal conversation, who would refer to himself by his title? It’s almost as if the narrator inserted the word elohim to make a point to subsequent generations who would hear the story. Certainly Abraham was not confused about the identity of the other person in this conversation. There are good reasons for future readers to know that this is about YHVH Elohim, but there is no reason for Abraham to be given this description.
Suddenly this story isn’t quite as straightforward as we always thought. Did you actually read what it says, or did your prior teaching about this story help you ignore the problems?
Topical Index: Abraham, Isaac, sacrifice, Rashi, Onkelos, yare elohim, fear God, Genesis 22:12
[1] Torah with Targum Onkelos and Rashi’s commentary, The Book of Genesis (BN Publishing, 2007), p. 95.
Shalom everyone, I recalled somewhere in the history of TW a similar commentary was given. I looked it up it was February 14th 2008. Two or more witnesses a fact shall be approved.
Wow! This is very thought provoking for me!
Donna R. I have recently been blessed with an acquaintance with these initials. Is this the same D. R? I live in the Northeast state of Massachusetts. Is that where you live? I’ve been introducing this post to my friends, and you maybe one of them. But I know. D. R. Is very common. Shalom anyway
Hi Brett. I recently moved back to MA 12 miles from the shore in Abington. Are you on the north shore?
Stephen
Hello Steven, I am near Springfield Mass, not near the shore. But I know a fellow named Peter who is following the Lord and is in Leominster which is about midpoint between the two of us. If you would like I’ll give you his number.
Thank you. I look forward to hearing back.
Hello Brett!
I don’t believe I am the same D.R. I live in PA. I’ve been reading and learning from Skip’s TW for a long time! It’s been such a blessing. I’m sure those who are joining us will learn much!
Shalom!
The best prior teaching that informed my view of this biblical event is your book “Crossings”. But I marvel at how scholarship finds deeper and deeper implications. This yet proves the opinion of the NSA information systems engineer Dr. Chuck Missler “It is sixty-six books written by forty authors, written between 1446 B.C. & 90 A.D. But, now we discover that it is an integrated message system from outside our time and space domain.”
“The Scripture is inexhaustible—you can never get to the bottom of its depth. And that’s what you would expect from the Word of God.”― Chuck Missler,
The night I was baptized (age 17) I knelt to pray, confident that at last, finally, I ‘belonged’, and so therefore was ‘eligible’ to be helped. I really needed help! I sincerely had turned my life in public demonstration over to God. I heard a Voice in my ear that told me to “get out”. (I wrote about this story a while back, sorry to repeat.) When I timidly asked, what that meant, I was told “death and destruction”. I didn’t want to die, even though I still believed whole heartedly in my baptismal vows. Well, I never went back to church. I never felt so alone and confused in my life. But, I was forced into a direct confrontation with what I believed to be true no matter what, and take responsibility for it. 3 mths later my world flipped over, and I became suicidal (even though I did not agree with suicide, either). If I had not made the decision to take direct responsibility for my life, I believe I would be dead. This had less to do with where I was at with church than where I was at with myself.
I believe that Abraham understood the orders were to kill his son, just like my orders were to leave the church. Not that killing was right any more than that church was wrong; this had to do with personal testing. I needed to know where I stood; I believe Abraham needed to know where he stood. If you believe something is sacred, you tend to worship it; to ascribe to it deference that belongs to God alone. I needed, for my own safety, to see for myself, the difference. I think Abraham must perhaps needed to see, too. Perhaps Isaac needed to know that his life was not about him, either, but about “every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God”; even the ones that appear to contradict what you thought you were agreeing with.
Abraham – I concur with a lot of other deep thinkers – had to have had to believe that God could raise Isaac from the dead if he killed him. I had to believe that I could stay true to my faith even though I was outside the visible parameters of that faith. I still, many years later, looking back, believe that. I identify with Abraham just a bit.
Laurita, thanks again for the transparency, the dark night of the soul has been many a alter built when YHVH, intervened in our lives and stop us cold, the gun did not fire, the pills did not work the rope was not found, and on and on the Hand of YHVH stop us through a voice, a loved one, a stranger, or some other explainable act of mercy.
We all need to know where we stand who holds our hand, day in and day out new bread for a new day, HIS mercy is new every morning
Amen, brother.
I wonder, and I’m just connecting dots here by no means knowing the text that in depth hence the question, but the parallel to circumcision is so close here is there maybe a connection? God instructs to circumcise, but then later they determine it is not a requirement for gentiles to be circumcised in order to be part of the community. Likewise here Abraham asks to “at least inflict a wound on him and draw some blood” and God responds “inflict no blemish on him”. I realize Isaac is not a gentile, but it is still intriguing that the two seem so related considering this is a request of the father regarding his son so this immediately comes to mind. Thoughts?
Dr. Mike…And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac being eight days old, as God had commanded him. Gen. 21:4
Yeah that’s what is odd about this possible connection, maybe eluding to “Israel” is first required to be circumcised, then later “inflict no blemish”. Maybe nothing, but maybe Skip can see something in the word use to connect?
A few ideas. The issue over circumcision with Gentiles is not about being part of the community. It is about ENTRANCE requirements. Circumcision is still one of the Torah commands. It just isn’t required BEFORE you can be accepted. That’s the Acts 15 debate. And, by the way, Abraham was accepted before he was circumcised. As for Isaac, the rabbis seem to struggle more with the idea of sacrifice than with circumcision on this point. They are perplexed about God’s foreknowledge of the event. As they should be.
Skip, I am curious. In your book, God, Time And The Limits Of Omniscience, you point out that we have been taught the Greek understanding of the supposed foreknowledge of God instead of the early Hebrew understanding. With the Christian church, it seems to have been codified mainly by Augustine, etc.
My question is, is there any evidence of this Hebrew perplexity (to use your term, if I could) about the supposed foreknowledge of God prior to either the Hellenistic influence of the Jews in the early centuries AD (they seem to have had similar challenges with this Hellenism along with the Christians), or even with the earlier Hellenistic corruption associated with the first Greek invasion of Palestine? In other words, were they by chance suffering from a possible Augustinian-type influence, too?
That book has started so many itches between the ears I am going nuts!
I know of no evidence that the issue of foreknowing as an attribute of a perfect God occurred prior to the influence of Hellenism. Qohelet points in that direction, but his work seems to also be influenced by an early form of Hellenism and appears to be post-exilic.
Question answered. This clears up so much. Thank you.
Just a thought: by analogy, we begin as little children, we are carried, fondled, allowed to sit on Daddy’s knee, even if he is a king. But as we mature requirements of maturity and modulation of relationship with the parent are put in place. There comes a point when the adult child experiences the parent as more than parent, but person, and the role, position, authority of that person beyond the personal. It would seem at this point of “revelation” a deeper experience and relationship of co-responsibility becomes possible, a point that would be a great joy to the parent.
The commentary by Rashi is extremely helpful to me! God speaking to Abraham says: “I did not tell you ‘slay him’ but bring him up to the mountain”. In most editions of Genesis the Hebrew word “olah” is translated “burnt offering”. However the word “olah” does not literally mean to burn something. Rather it simply means “ascend”. Now the normal way in which such an offering ascended was by slaughter of the animal and burning of the body. The flames and smoke “ascended”. Noah in fact sacrificed such offerings in this way immediately after the flood. My NAS note for “olah” sacrifices includes the following: “expression of devotion, commitment and complete surrender to God”. This is the commitment Abraham has been called to make.
It would be rare for something other than an animal to be involved as the “olah” offering. But the case of Jephthah comes to mind. In Judges 11 we read that a rash oath is uttered. If successful in battle Jephthah will offer up an “olah” of whatever comes out of his house. Normally animals lived on the ground floor so this oath is not totally bizarre. It turns out that Jephthah’s only child, a daughter, runs out to greet him. The account of what follows in verses 37 onwards is important. The daughter asks for two months to “mourn her virginity” in verse 38. Then in verse 39 we are informed that Jephthah “did to her according to the vow which he had made…. And she had no relations with a man”. Some commentaries suggest that Jephthah actually killed his daughter (and burned her body) to fulfill his oath. I disagree! It seems to me that something akin to a life as a “nun” is being described. The daughter would never marry nor have children. That is what she is mourning, not her imminent death. Remember that Jephthah is listed as one of the champions of the faith in Hebrews 11. I do not think a father executing his daughter and burning her body would qualify.
With this in mind let us return to the story of Abraham and Isaac. What if, as Rashi indicates, the “olah” simply was an instruction to take Isaac “up” to a mountain that turns out to be Mount Moriah. Abraham would have to offer him up as a sacrifice of total commitment and dedicated service to God. This reminds me of what happened in the story of Hannah and Samuel when the boy was presented to Eli the High Priest… arguably another “olah”. But how would Abraham have offered up his son? Is it not coincidental that after three days of journey Abraham and the boy end up mere feet away from the walls of Salem, where Melchizedek is High Priest of God as per Gen. 14:18? If one checks the genealogy of Shem (whom many believe was Melchizedek) he actually lived well past even this event involving Isaac. Why did Abraham not report to Melchizedek when he had obviously been led directly there? But Abraham was afraid, and concluded that Isaac had to be killed and burned. God was impressed with the depth of Abraham’s reverence/fear, even if his actions were misguided.
The account in Genesis provides no information that Sarah and Abraham lived together or even spoke after the “binding of Isaac”. One Jewish commentary suggests that Sarah knew that God would NEVER call upon Abraham to do something expressly forbidden in the Torah, namely executing your own children. Nor is there any indication of contact between Abraham and Isaac. When Sarah dies she is living in her own tent near Hebron (Kiriath Arba) and Isaac is dwelling with Ishmael in Beer-lahai-roi (Gen 24:62). Abraham was still in Beersheva. Note that Abraham arrives to mourn Sarah’s death. Later when Eliezer brings Rebekah for Isaac, they go “into his mother Sarah’s tent” to consummate the marriage.
In conclusion God is totally consistent in both his covenant relationships and commandments.