Genesis 22:1-19 “The Reason for the Test”
Introduction
Genesis 22:1-19 is difficult. Many titles have grappled with the subject matter alluding to the binding of Isaac as a central point, but the emphasis is structurally still given to Abraham as this is the ending of his story before a transition to Isaac occurs. It’s a bit of an odd plot point as if the story had just ended with chapter 21 we would end the with the beginnings of the Abrahamic covenant providing a concise end to Abraham’s story. Still Genesis 22 exists and now presents a problem. The problem is not with the presentation of Abraham as he is presented as a man that is obedient and blessed. The problem lies with the potential presentation of God as a cruel and conditional master.
So why does a test like this need to exist? If Abraham was going to receive the covenant blessings regardless of his actions, is such a test necessary? Also doesn’t God, in his omniscience, know that Abraham is a man of faith? The story presented, at face value, defames God in such a way that one would question if He is as holy and righteous as the scriptures claim. Then the simple answer would have been that this story is unnecessary so take it out, but there must be a reason for its inclusion.
We must search the far larger cultural and linguistic considerations in order for us to understand the text clearly. Through a venture exploring a proper understanding of relevant cultural context, the structural emphasis of the text and an exploration of the promise of the seed and blessings, my hope is to illustrate how Abraham is the patriarchal model of obedience and faith for Israel to imitate. By the end of this venture, we will not only show that God is not only consistent, but plans to elevate Abraham in the eyes of future generations. Ultimately, we are asking the question of not just why does this test exist but for who the results of this test are really for?
The Character of God Questioned
The call to sacrifice Isaac is shocking to say the least. It would seem that the fulfillment of Isaac as the answering of the promise made to Abraham would conclude the story well. So at first glance then, this story is reminiscent of bargain bin cash grab sequel movies that studio executives push for to squeeze out every dollar after a successful first movie. Why can’t they just let a good story be a story? Furthermore, the implications of this story pivots the reader to possibly learn a rather troubling characteristic about God. Like Bill T. Arnold notes, up until now Abraham’s story has also a journey of discovery about who God is.[1] And this discovery is terrifying. The implication that God would require child sacrifice is incredibly difficult to reconcile with a gracious God that desires relationship with man. Furthermore, it implies that God could be someone that retracts from his promises by robbing Abraham from his destined child.
This is not a simple case of resolving God’s character by just looking at the end of the story to see a sacrifice was provided. If it was a case with no actual intent of Abraham’s sacrifice, then God also appears cruel to put Abraham through unbelievable heartache. This episode is not only jarring but it also seems inconsistent with “the God that provides” that Abraham keeps reiterating to Isaac as Isaac asks questions about where the offering is. This inconsistency must point to a loose thread in this narrative tapestry this test is not actually cruel but serves a greater purpose than meets the eye.
Because the test is seemingly extremely cruel. The divine imperative that God gives to Abraham requires him to עֹלָ֔ה which carries with it the implication that the offering is wholly consumed.[2] This is further supported by this word being used for and only for Levitical offerings. This means the intensity of the test requires to give his whole heart and see Isaac, the son that he loves, to be consumed completely. To see God wanting a child burned alive is troubling. Can such a jealousy for Abraham’s love be a good thing? By following this course of questioning, we endanger our perception of God to instead be of a pining and crazed lover. Thankfully, looking into cultural contexts gives us a better understanding of what God could be doing.
Cultural Understanding of the Test
The beginning is unique as God’s intention is clearly outlined in the beginning to the reader that God is going to test Abraham. Now testing (נסה) is not an occurrence unique to Abraham – in fact, many of the patriarchs have been tested to reveal the inner workings of their hearts.[3] Furthermore, the word, נסה , also holds the cultural implication of a testing where there will be temporary immense suffering but a much greater return.[4] This would cushion the blow of the following command while also alerting the reader to the great ending that is to come. It would allow readers to give the harshness a benefit of the doubt.[5] This allows the reader to focus less on the testing and instead, this should clue the readers in to pay special attention to how Abraham responds.
This display is not because God doesn’t know what lays in the inner workings of man’s heart, despite God’s admission of “Now I know.” (v. 12) This would contradict God being the one that can search hearts. (Jer 12:3; Psalm 139:1; Proverbs 16:2). Instead, this testing will be able to manifest the faith of Abraham into visible reality rather than stay as probable conjecture. It allows hypothetical faith to be realized and deepens the relationship with God and, by extension, also secures the fullness of the covenant blessings.[6] This will be important in order to establish the legitimacy of Abraham as the patriarchal head of Israel and the coming blessings. Now everybody can see why he is the head.
Our own cultural biases also tend to leave a terrible taste in our mouths whenever a test is mentioned. It is tied with trying times and difficulties that in our contemporary view would be viewed as something disciplinary and unloving. But tests are purifying actions that rid us of dependencies on the finite worldliness our hearts cling to. It cleanses of the impurities of self-dependence and trust in things we falsely believe would bring about our own salvation. It awakens us to the fact that God alone is our salvation.[7] Then testing is not opposed to a divine love but entirely integral to it. A motivated lover would proactively protect a heart that could be stolen away to another love.
Furthermore, the law is clear in revealing God’s stance on child offerings. It is clearly outlawed and condemned. (Deut 12:31, Jer 7:31-32). Thus testing through the asking of child offering is not God backtracking on these positions but this particular ask underlines the severity and uniqueness of Abraham’s test as the patriarchal head of Israel.[8] This offering will never be asked again and the point of emphasis should not be on the severity of the offering but the obedience required of the offering, despite the theological gymnastics this request seems to require.
The cultural understanding of offspring being used as the offering not only illustrates the severity of the test but also elevates the admirability of Abraham’s obedience. God himself points out that Isaac is a beloved child of Abraham.[9] This admission and the suggestive command at the beginning reveals that God is precise in what God intends to test in Abraham: by asking this, his beloved child is now positioned diametrically opposed to obedience to God. What will be revealed in Abraham? Will he disobey God now? After all that they’ve been through? Would you blame Abraham? We can further appreciate the severity of the test by understanding that offspring were considered a further extension of the father’s value.[10] Though Moberly would like to maintain that Isaac could have been replaced as a metaphor for anything that is of equal value, in this polytheistic culture, it was commonly understood that the afterlife was dependent on the existence of a son to continue the father’s life in the ancestral land.[11] Isaac being the sole heir not only sacrifices Isaac’s future but Abraham’s own eternality. Abraham is being asked to give everything - not just his life but everything after.
The Chiastic Implications in the Three Discourses in God’s Provision
But the greater severity of the sacrifice, the greater display of obedience. This is further accentuated when you consider the three discourses separated by Abraham’s response of “Here I Am.” In the first discourse in the calling of Abraham to offer up Isaac, we see that God’s command is tied with a call to go to a specific land of Moriah. Now Moriah is treated as a proper noun in many translations, but a look in the Hebrew introduce some complications. The MT translation provide a rendition of a proper noun and the Samaritan Pentateuch seems to support this view, but the vulgate and the Symmachus’ GV suggests an interesting angle where the word play would suggest that Moriah could carry the meaning of vision suggesting a rendering of “The land of vision.” This may be due to seeing Moriah as a derivation of the word of ראה which can mean provision but also mean to see. The Greek chose the latter translation. The Syriac rendering is parsed as a hophal of the word אמר and suggests, “the land that I have said.”
These complications are interesting as they are wildly different and therefore I’m convinced that the MT is the original rendering, and the scribes are trying to reconcile a difficult rendering of a word into different contexts. So while the variations are fascinating, they seem to be ultimately attempts and nothing more. But this does not mean they are ultimately useless. The difficulty in resolving this word may point to “Moriah” being more than just a proper name and actually a construct change and a rendering of the word ראה. This would suggest that the phrase could be rendered “the land where I will provide.” In fact, Wenham believes that this would tip the reader and Abraham that there is more to this test than meets the eye and would provide a theological hint that God will see Abraham through this.[12] But that’s only the beginning of the rabbit hole.
Moriah having been a three day travel distance and on a hill has been connected to Jerusalem.[13] Arnold argues that there is no real reason to connect the two places together.[14] But I believe that Moberly gives the strongest evidence for it being Jerusalem by pointing out that a place of seeing would bring to readers’ minds either Mount Sinai or Jerusalem.[15] But Sinai is too far from Beersheba and thus Jerusalem is the most likely location. Moberly also asserts that the writer of Chronicles also linked Moriah to Jerusalem and specifically the site of the temple linking the act of sacrifice that Abraham makes to the sacrifices made in the Temple and the basis for why such sacrifices are made.[16]
I am inclined to agree with Moberly as it would be a much more poignant and poetic reasoning for whole sacrifices made to God and the heart that is behind the obedience in sacrifice and not just the actions. This further adds to this story by setting an example for the attitude of Israel as they offer themselves. It is not just a cold Levitical law to offer a whole burnt offering, but it is entirely relational to YHWH. But even if we don’t link the connection to Jerusalem, it is hard to ignore the fact the hint and the wordplay that is being made alluding to God’s intended salvation, then the main point of the first discourse: Abraham, go to the land where I will provide. There is a futuristic and unfulfilled thesis that Abraham will have to make a choice of whether to believe or not. There is a call and the tension is held as we wait for a response.
The second discourse, then is to show Abraham’s unwavering belief in God’s promise that he will provide. This time it comes from his son Isaac who calls on his father and he replies, “Here I am.” When asked about where the offering is, Abraham simply replies, “God will provide.” This is the answer that we want to see from our hero being tested laid out simply but laced with implications. Abraham’s response might feel a bit cold and harsh to his son but it is quite the opposite. How grueling a walk must it have been for Abraham to fully believe that this was may be their last? This next act of the narrative is dark and slowed down building up the tension of Abraham’s final act. It is filled with love for his child yet profound silence in the solemnity of it all.[17]
Abraham’s response almost feels prophetic when seen to the end but he gives a response exacted only to the information he is privy to. He doesn’t know how God will provide nor could he know that it really would be a lamb that would be provided.[18] Still it is an answer full of belief because Abraham’s response of obedience now puts the ball in God’s court. God had promised Abraham descendants through Sarah through Isaac. (Gen 21:12) He had promised a nation through him. So if God was consistent in the way he keeps the promises, it also twists the arm of God into doing what he said he would. God will provide because he has to.[19] This effectively turns the second discourse into a proper response to the thesis of the first discourse: Abraham asserts through his obedience that God will provide.
Finally, the third discourse occurs at the moment that Abraham near commits the command as the story slows down once again and an angel of the Lord calls out to Abraham, and again Abraham responds, “Here I am.” The angel confirms that God has provided an opportunity for the inward obedience of Abraham to have been supremely actualized into reality.[20] The Lord then provides a ram that is used as sacrifice in Isaac’s stead and the place is named, “The Lord will provide.” This turns the final discourse as the conclusion to God’s response to Abraham’s obedience with the showering and establishment of his blessings. Then the summary of this third discourse is the proclamation that the Lord did do what he said he would do and provided establishing that the test brought with it not only blessings but a new shine on Abraham.
The consideration for the three discourses is important in understanding the point of emphasis. The three discourses form a chiastic structure where the focal point is the conversation between Isaac and Abraham. This would then put Abraham’s response as the central focus of the entire pericope and sets a precedent for Israel to follow.[21] The great patriarch is a model of faithfulness and shows the proper response Israel should have to YHWH in offering their whole self to him in obedience.
The Blessings and Purpose of Obedience
This obedience is amplified in the way that it is rewarded. The reward is presented emphatically as ברך is rendered as an infinitive absolute and translated as “really bless.” Though this blessing was mentioned before, it had never been presented in this manner.[22] The following infinitive absolutes also reiterate the previous blessings but magnify them. This extravagant display highlights the connection between Abraham’s great obedience and the subsequent reward. The blessings were not only coming, but they have now been embellished. The reader should desire the blessings that Abraham has received and be spurred onto obedience after seeing such a connection.
But the emphasis on Abraham’s blessings particularly in reference to the descendants is not only for Abraham but for the world. The third promise that God gives is a promise that the nations will be blessed in his offspring. The world is not only being blessed by Abraham but there will be a superior and compounding generational blessing that occurs through the coming generations. This is the establishment of the original purpose of God’s plan for all the nations to know obedience to YHWH. The emphasis also shows the inclusion of Abraham in God’s work of blessing.[23] The blessing is unconditional, but the inclusion of Abraham is also revealing of God’s intent of the testing as establishing Abraham as an exemplary patriarch. This also shows that the blessings poured out to Abraham are now available to future generations of Abraham’s line. It is ironic then that later that claims of belonging to Abraham’s line is envious of the blessings and the salvation from God but not coupled with the actions as Jesus points out. (John 8:39)
It is also hard to ignore the seed that will be carried on in the line of Abraham and Isaac that will ultimately lead to the Messiah. With so much language of substantiating sacrifice through the lamb, it would be hard to deny the Messianic shadow that is lingering over the story for future readers of this story.[24] These connections would also be established and promoted in Galatians 3:7 showing who the real children of Abraham are. But the original audience of Israelite readers would not have had the coming of Jesus in their purview so this falls outside of the scope of this paper and the intended audience. They would see instead the Abrahamic blessings that are to be envied and the foundation of the nation established by Abraham’s obedience. This is ultimately their story.
Conclusion
It is now time to ask the question, “Who was the test for?” We have already established that God had no real need for proving Abraham’s obedience. He is omniscient. So then perhaps the physical realization of his faith was actually for Abraham? But with no response of surprise and a constant straight arrowed belief highlighted throughout the whole story, it would seem that Abraham would have already proved this to himself with the casting out of Ishmael. It would also be ridiculous to claim that the results of the test to be most pertinent to Isaac.
No, I believe that this test is most pertinent to the readers who would be Israelites. The story up to now is a refinement of Abraham’s fear of the Lord. Though he was a man of many failures, establishing a climax that celebrates the man he had become is important to the character of the patriarch. Who would want to belong to a nation established by a failure? There is a redemptive quality of this story that shows Genesis 22 is not just some strange epilogue attached to Abraham’s story but fulfills the entirety of it. The constant emphasis of the blessings of descendants is not just a point of relief for Abraham that his legacy would be carried on, but makes the story extremely intimate to the readers who would see this as the beginnings of the nation. It is a byproduct of a partnership between an ever-constant loving God who pours his blessings generously and a new Adamic figure marked by his faithfulness and obedience despite the most extreme circumstances.
This simplifies the complexities of the cultic in Israelite Levitical law whilst also establishing the precedence for it. It is simply about a loving God and obedience to Him that defines Israel. The foundations were established by the cornerstones of obedience, and sadly we will also see that cracks in the foundation by throwing out these cornerstones is ultimately the reason for Israel’s downfall. It’s almost painfully simple: obedience leads to blessings and the upholding of this covenant and disobedience leads to the withholding of these blessings.
This is where the Messianic shadow is filled with such hope as the blessings of Abraham had always been unconditional and we will see that come into fruition despite Israel’s history of failure. Jesus’ work is further supported by Abraham’s exemplary obedience as the children of Abraham are not counted by blood or ethnicity but obedience to God. So this does not take away from the archetypical nature of Abraham in Israel’s beginnings. He is the patriarch and model for Israel and without God’s divine wisdom in providing this test, because without it Abraham would be a sour one to accept but through it Israel sees the core of their relationship to YHWH. They are obedient children to the great constant provider. God will provide.
Sources
[1] Bill T. Arnold, Genesis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 202.
[2] Victor Hamilton, The Book of Genesis Vol 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdman, 1995), 103.
[3] Gerhard Von Rad, Genesis – A Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1973), 239.
[4] Gordon Wenham, Genesis 16-50 (Colombia: Word Incorporated, 1994), 103-104.
[5] Bruce Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 303.
[6] Kenneth Matthews, Genesis Vol 11-50 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), 284-285.
[7] R.R. Reno, Genesis (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2010), 196.
[8] Matthews, Genesis Vol 2, 285.
[9] Wenham, Genesis, 104.
[10] R.W.L. Moberly, He Swore an Oath, 156.
[11] Arnold, Genesis, 203.
[12] Wenham, Genesis, 105.
[13] Bruce Waltke, Genesis, 305.
[14] Arnold, Genesis, 204.
[15] Moberly, “Christ as the Key to Scripture” in He Swore an Oath eds. G. Wenham, R. Hess, P. Satterthwaite. (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2007), 158.
[16] Moberly, Christ as the Key to Scripture, 158.
[17] Von Rad, Genesis, 241.
[18] Wenham, Genesis, 109.
[19] Arnold, Genesis, 206.
[20] Arnold, Genesis, 207.
[21] Wenham, Genesis, 102.
[22] Wenham, Genesis, 111.
[23] Wenham, Genesis, 112.
[24] Matthews, Genesis, 297.