THE AKEDAH NARRATIVE

Introduction
The Sacrifice of Isaac narrative is one of the most difficult texts to handle and interpret
within the Old Testament. Did God actually want Isaac to be sacrificed? The answer to that
question is a clear no! due to the outcome of the story, but its interpretation and application is
still debated because of the complexity within the story. Jews throughout history have
determined to name the narrative the akedah, meaning the binding, in order to emphasize the
fact that Isaac was not actually sacrificed.1 Jews have traditionally taught concerning the passage
that God never intends for people to kill in His name, and that the obedience required of
Abraham will never be asked for again. They are told to emulate Abrahams fear of God, but not
to go to the great lengths that Abraham did.2 The traditional Christian interpretation has always
been to see Isaac as a type of the suffering Christ. The Church Fathers, most notable Ambrose
held on to this usage of the akedah narrative.3 Another contemporary interpretation is that this

1 Ignaz Maybaum, The Sacrifice of Isaac (London: Valentine Mitchell, 1959), 1.

2 Lippman Bodoff, "The Real Test of the Akedah," Judaism 42 (1993): 71.

3 Louis Berman, The Akedah: The Binding of Isaac (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, Inc.), 106.

story is an etiological account to explain the supremacy of animal sacrifice over human
sacrifice.4
However, as will be noted later, all of these traditional interpretations fail to address all
the facets of the narrative adequately. I will argue that this story should be read as an example of
the obedience of a man, with special attention given to showing the inadequacy of other
interpretations and emphasizing the need to leave no elements out in the interpretation of the
story. I will do this be examining the historical context, the flow of the narrative itself, and then
by attempting to answer the more difficult interpretive questions of the text. Once the proper
context is understood, the final step will be to sift through the historical applications of this story
in order to produce a sound contemporary understanding of the narrative.
Historical Context
Examining the historical context will allow the full meaning of the text to have value. In this
period of world history, it is known that human sacrifice was practiced, although its prevalence is
quite uncertain. The precedence for human sacrifice seems to have been generated many
thousands of years prior to Abrahams time. Archaeological evidence has been found showing
that humans nearest genetic relative, homo neanderthalis, practiced human sacrifice of some
kind. Human skeletons were found interred with animal skeletons at locations evidently used for
sacrifices.5 Closer to biblical times, young children remains from the Minoan civilization at
Knossos were found charred and mingled with animal bones on sacrificial altars dating to
4Berman, The Akedah: The Binding, 107.

5 Bruce Chilton, Abraham's Curse: Child Sacrifice in the Legacies of the West (New York:
Doubleday, 2008), 17.

Second Millennium B.C.6 With the evidence at the present, it is still pure speculation in
determining why humans and humanoid species thought that the gods would be pleased with
their sacrifices of humans.7 Scholar Karen Armstrong puts the situation best:
"[human sacrifice in the pagan world] was cruel but had a logic and rationale. The first
was often believed to be the offspring of a god, who had impregnated the mother in
of droit de seigneur. In begetting the Child, the god's energy had been depleted, so
replenish this and to ensure the circulation of all the available mana, the firstborn was
returned to its divine parent."8

child
an act
to

To relate this to Israel, they too dealt with what appeared to be child sacrifice even after the time
of Abraham. If source theory is accurate, then it is perhaps possible that Genesis 22 was written
in the Northern Kingdom shortly after they split from Judah (ca. 931). In response to Northern
Israelites incorporating pagan culture into their own, this passage could have been developed to
combat that reality.9 Some authors see this story as the beginning of an Israelite war against the
pagan gods' institution of child sacrifice.10 A more familiar context for Abraham himself
however, would have been the divine laws prohibiting murder.11 However, it is hard to piece
6 Ibid., 18.

7 Ibid., 19.
8 Karen Armstrong, A History of God (New York: Ballantine, 1993), 18.

9 The Bible warns against human sacrifice many times after Genesis. See Deut. 12:29-31, 1
Kings 11:4, 7-8, 2 Kings 17:9-11, 23:10 among many others. Some of these references are
indirect but refer to worship of the false God Molek which was associated with child sacrifice.

10 For a further discussion of this concept, see Joseph Hertz, trans. and ed., The Pentateuch
and Haftorahs: Hebrew Text English Translation and Commentary, 2nd ed. (London: Soncino
Press, 1981), 201.

11 See Genesis 9:6.

together Genesis and know with certainty that Abraham would have been familiar with the
prohibition of murder when God called on him to sacrifice his own son. However, scholar Alan
Dershowitz makes an important qualification that could render the Noachide laws irrelevant.
"God did not order Abraham "to murder" his son; such a command would have violated the
Noachide laws against shedding innocent blood. God ordered Abraham to "sacrifice" his son
you murder those you hate; you sacrifice what you love most."12
As is, it is hard to place Abraham in a very specific context. Human sacrifice was and has
been practiced throughout the history of the world. Several ancient myths depict kings who
sacrificed their firstborn sons in order to secure prosperity from the gods13, so it will suffice to
say that Abraham would not have been completely unfamiliar with human sacrifice when God
asked it of him. However, preceding biblical evidence would point to the repulsiveness of this
command. First, there is no biblical precedent for child sacrifice. Up to this point, animal
sacrifice is the only type of sacrifice that is associated with the God of Genesis.14 There are laws
given to prohibit the shedding of human blood, and God has always gave the requirement for
animal sacrifices. To say that this text exhibits God indicating the supremacy of animal sacrifices
is lacking support when, up to this point, the biblical form of sacrifices has always been animals.

12 Alan Dershowitz, The Genesis of Justice (New York: Warner Books, 2000), 111.

13 Chilton, Abraham's Curse, 25.

14 See Genesis 3:21 where God made garments of animal skin for Adam and Eve, Genesis
4:3-4 for the sacrifices of Cain and Abel, and Genesis 8:20-21 where Noah offered burnt
offering to the Lord after the flood.

Even so, it is still possible to see how this text might be God reaffirming, in grand style, the idea
that He is not like the pagan gods of history (who were worshiped with human sacrifices), but He
is quite different.
Leading up to the text itself, it is important to understand the Genesis story up to this
point in so much as it concerns Abraham and Genesis 22. "We cannot understand the akedah
narrative until we familiarize ourselves with the entire Abraham story up to the akedah."15
Abraham was chosen by God and promised that he would be rich in progeny one day16
However, in his old age, he was still left childless so he decided to act upon the counsel of his
wife, and thus Ishmael was born through Abraham's servant Hagar. Later in his life, God was
faithful to his promise and Abraham received a child through Sarah whom he named Isaac: the
child of the promise from God.17 This child is what Abraham had been waiting his entire life for
in fulfillment of Gods promise. In the meantime, Abraham was led to send his other son,
Ishmael, away, meaning that Isaac was the sole heir of the promise that a great and prosperous
nation would come through Abrahams seed.
The Text
In this section, the text will be examined looking at its individual parts and then
concluded with noting the themes present throughout the text. Starting from the opening verses:

15 Berman, The Akedah: The Binding, 3.

16 See Genesis 12:1-3.

17 See Genesis 21:1-7.

Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him,
"Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am." He said, "Take now your son, your only son,
whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt
offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you."
The text begins with the author letting the reader know that the following events will be a
test, nevertheless, in themselves, they do not convey with certainty that Abraham is not supposed
to actually go through with the sacrifice. It could be true that it is only after sacrificing Isaac that
Abraham will have passed the test. But regardless of what exactly the test consists in, the theme
of obedience is already closely associated with this coming test. The reader knows that this story
will consist in a test of Abraham's obedience. The Hebrew word, nissah, translated as "tested"
can also connote the idea of "proving," i.e. that God wanted to prove Abraham's obedience.18
This is important because, with a traditional view of God's foreknowledge, He did not need to
test Abraham. God already knew what was in Abraham's heart, and further, this text wasn't
written so that Abraham could reflect back on his own obedience. The text was written for the
sake of the Israelites who needed an example of obedience to follow as they were about to enter
into the Promised Land. In essence then, God is proving Abraham's obedience to the Israelites
and to the world in this story, making Abraham an example to follow.19

18 William Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament
(Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1988), 239.
19 This is a good place to note the rendition of this story in the Apocryphal Book of Jubilees.
Jubilees 17:16 says, "the prince Mastm came and said before God, 'Behold, Abraham
loves Isaac his son, and he delights in him above all things else; bid him offer him as a
burnt-offering on the altar, and Thou wilt see if he will do this command, and Thou wilt know
if he is faithful in everything wherein Thou dost try him." In this account, Abraham's
obedience is being proved to a certain Mastema (Satan?) just like Job's obedience to the
Lord was proved to Satan in the canonical Book of Job. This insight comes from Bruce Chilton
using this passage [Chilton, Abraham's Curse, 55.]. For the purposes of this paper in dealing
with the Genesis 22 text itself, this separate account has not been examined in detail.

At this point in the text, surely Abraham would have thought regretfully about sending
Hagar and Ishmael away because now Isaac, the only son who could now fulfill the promise, is
going to be sacrificed.20 This could very well be the connection in mind when the author uses the
words "after these things."21 God's request gives increasing specificity to the object of the
sacrifice, Isaac. Isaac is the one whom Abraham holds most dearly to himself.22 This three-fold
description is a parallel to the command given earlier to Abraham in Genesis 12:1. In that
episode, Abraham was called to give up his past. In the akedah narrative, Abraham is called to
figuratively give up his future.23 This beginning section is also notable because Abraham does
not respond in the same way as he had in the past with God wanting to destroy Sodom and

20 Sren Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling, eds. Stephen Evans and Sylvia Walsh, trans.
Sylvia Walsh (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 10.

21 There is an argument out there that the "after these things" is referring actually to a
missing chapter of Genesis that was deleted in the final form. In the bible, the concept of
human sacrifice is, in all other places, associated with a disastrous event that is cause for
the drastic measure of human sacrifice to take place in order to quickly change the situation.
However, this argument is highly speculative and could never be examined further due to a
complete lack of evidence. For a further discussion of this argument, see Berman, The
Akedah: The Binding, 121.

22 Seth Kunin [Seth Kunin, "The Death of Isaac: Structural Analysis of Genesis 22," Journal
for the Study of the Old Testament, no.64 (December 1994): 60.] argues that the text
presents these characteristics of Isaac in order highlight the opposite characteristics of
Ishmael's relation to Abraham. However, this does not make sense with the preceding
textual evidence of Abraham being very upset with having to send away Ishmael (see
Genesis 21:11). It would make much more sense to interpret this three-fold description of
Isaac as God making sure Abraham knew exactly what he was being asked to do by God: to
sacrifice his only beloved son.

23 Everett Fox, The Five Books of Moses (New York: Schocken, 1995), 92.

Gomorrah.24 It is expected that Abraham would respond with protest, but he does not. He is ready
at this point in his life, with a better understanding of God, to obey his commands.25
So Abraham rose early in the morning and saddled his donkey, and took two of his young
men with him and Isaac his son; and he split wood for the burnt offering, and arose and
went to the place of which God had told him. On the third day Abraham raised his eyes
and saw the place from a distance.
Abraham "rose early" indicating that he was ready to complete the task. This is
mentioned to highlight Abraham's obedience to the command given by God. Abraham did not
delay, but rather started preparing first thing in the morning. Abraham seems to split the wood
himself, as opposed to having his servants do the physical labor, in order to assume the full
responsibility of what is going to happen.26 This goes well with the obedience theme because it
can be seen that God asked Abraham specifically do sacrifice Isaac, so Abraham is going through
all of the steps working by himself in order to show his personal responsibility for obeying the
command. After the three day journey, Abraham surely would have been set on obeying God's

24 See Genesis 18:22-33.

25 Louis Berman [Berman, The Akedah: The Binding, 14.] argues that Abraham's silence
should be understood as normal because of the prevalence of child sacrifice at this time. But
many reasons, discussed later, will serve to provide the rationale to think otherwise e.g.
Isaac's asking for the lamb, and the fact that there is no biblical precedence for human
sacrifice.

26 Contra Louis Berman [Berman, The Akedah: The Binding, 15.] who argues that Abraham
split the wood himself in order to delay the task. There is no textual evidence to support the
idea of Abraham delaying his steps though. Abraham is seen as rising early and getting
everything ready. Similarly, Bodoff [Bodoff, "The Real Test," 78.] thinks that the text
highlights all the different steps Abraham went through in order to delay in hope that God
would cancel his command. Again, the text and Genesis story connote the opposite ideas.
The author is specific in the various steps to show that Abraham himself was completely
obedient to the command of God.

command. He would have had much time to think about this sacrifice, especially with Isaac by
his side for the journey.
Abraham said to his young men, "Stay here with the donkey, and I and the lad will go
over there; and we will worship and return to you." Abraham took the wood of the burnt
offering and laid it on Isaac his son, and he took in his hand the fire and the knife. So the
two of them walked on together. Isaac spoke to Abraham his father and said, "My
father!" And he said, "Here I am, my son." And he said, "Behold, the fire and the wood,
but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?" Abraham said, "God will provide for
Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." So the two of them walked on together.
First, Abraham makes this vague statement to the men that he and Isaac will go "worship"
up on the mountain. It is uncertain what Abraham means by this, but should be noted that he has
connected the task with an act of worship. One of the most confusing statements in this narrative,
and possibly the most significant, is that Abraham mentioned in the plural "we will return to
you." This has caused the thought that Abraham knew God wasn't going to actually require the
death of Isaac. By nature of being a burnt offering, if Isaac was to actually be sacrificed, he
would have been consumed completely i.e. Abraham's statement would have been an
impossibility. If Abraham was somehow aware that God wasn't going to actually require Isaac,
then it could be noted that Abraham still went through with the obedient act in order to show his
willingness to obey the command of God to the letter. Nevertheless, an alternate interpretation
could be that Abraham was lying to his servants. This is not unprecedented for Abraham
considering he told the Egyptians that his wife, Sarah, was his sister. However, this narrative is
attempting to uplift the character of Abraham as obedient, so it seems contrary to the author's
purpose to add a line of deception on the part of Abraham. Thus, it should continue to be read
that Abraham had some sort of idea that he and Isaac would indeed return from the mountain.

10

"The two of them walked on together," is mentioned twice in this short section. It appears
that the author wants to put emphasis on Abraham and Isaac's togetherness in this task.27 Isaac
then asks his father where the lamb is for the burnt offering. This goes against the popular belief
that this story is an etiological account of the transition from human sacrifice to animal sacrifice
because Isaac understands that their situation is out of place because no animal is being carried to
the mountain even though all of the other sacrificial items are carried i.e. the wood, knife, and
fire. It is clear then that human sacrifice is not the norm at this time, but rather animal sacrifice
has already become a normality.28 Lastly, Abraham himself says that "God will provide a lamb"
(emphasis mine) for the offering. This could likely indicate, in addition to his earlier statements,
that Abraham knew an animal was going to be sacrificed in place of his son. Again though,
although Abraham has a hunch that God will rescind the command to sacrifice Isaac and instead
provide a more appropriate sacrifice, the theme of obedience is always present in Abraham's
continued action. He could have very well stopped in the morning knowing that God will not
require the sacrifice of his son, but instead he continues to go through all of the necessary steps.
Then they came to the place of which God had told him; and Abraham built the altar
there and arranged the wood, and bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the
wood. Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. But the angel of the
LORD called to him from heaven and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am." 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." Then Abraham
raised his eyes and looked, and behold, behind [him]
a ram caught in the thicket by his
27 This theme is very present in the Koran's rendition of the akedah narrative. Koran
37:99-110 has Abraham actually letting Isaac know of the command God has given
him, and Isaac is seen as a very willing participant. The nature of the Islamic religion
itself however would certainly promote the idea of complete submission and
obedience to Allah regardless of the task commanded.
28 Konrad, Schmid, "Abraham's Sacrifice: Gerhard von Rad's Interpretation of Genesis 22,"
Interpretation 62, no. 3 (July 2008): 269.

11

horns; and Abraham went and took the ram and offered
him up for a burnt offering in the
place of his son. Abraham called the name of that place
The LORD Will Provide, as it is said
to this day, "In the mount of the LORD it will be
provided."
This part of the narrative makes it sound like Abraham is going to go through completely
with the act of sacrificing his son. He even lifts the knife "to slay his son." It would almost be
absurd to assume that Abraham was intent on merely raising the knife without the intention to
bring it down on Isaac. I think that is the picture that the narrative is trying to portray with the
idea of obedience. Abraham is seen as being completely obedient to the command God has given
him to sacrifice his son Isaac. An interesting note is that the ram is offered "in the place of his
son" as if there was an official substitution which took place.
The angel of the Lord is who rescinds the divine command.29 The repetition of
Abraham! Abraham! exhibits urgency on the angel's part because Abraham is seemingly about to
complete his act of obedience by bring down the knife on Isaac.30 Because of God's
foreknowledge, he knew that Abraham would be completely obedient, but angels do not have
that characteristic with their knowledge. To the angel, it would have been seen (just like the
reader's perspective) that Abraham was being completely obedient to the command. This is the
purpose: for everyone, it is meant to be seen that Abraham was exceedingly obedient to God's
commands without wavering.

29 Another interesting discussion could occur on what would have happened if the
angel was late to arrive like the angel was late in arriving to Daniel in Daniel 10:13?
Ellie Wiesel, as cited in Berman, The Akedah: The Binding, 16 says that God sent the
angel because He was too embarrassed to cancel the command Himself because of
its unethical theme. That is pure speculation however, with no textual support or
principle.
30 Jonathan Jacobs, "Willing Obedience with Doubts: Abraham at the Binding of Isaac,"
Vestus Testamentum 60, no. 4 (October 2010): 557.

12

Then the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven, and said, "By
Myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this thing and have not
withheld your son, your only son, indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your
seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall
possess the gate of their enemies. "In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed,
because you have obeyed My voice." So Abraham returned to his young men, and they arose and
went together to Beersheba; and Abraham lived at Beersheba.
The reason given for the ratification of the covenant is that Abraham did not withhold his
son from God i.e. Abraham was willingly obedient to God's command. In the second part of the
above paragraph, Abraham is given progeny because he has obeyed God's voice. This ending
signifies the main theme of obedience as a wrap up of the test of obedience foreshadowed in the
beginning.
Throughout the whole selection, there is a seemingly important repetition of the author
mentioning the "place" where these events will happen. Abraham is told to go to the place God
will show him, and he eventually names this place "Where the Lord will provide." What is the
reason for this focus on the "place"? In addition to the exemplary interpretation of Abraham's
obedience, this text also becomes a foreshadowing to the place where Solomon will build his
temple. Abraham is told to head to the land of Moriah and then he eventually reaches the
mountain where God has shown him the binding of Isaac is to take place. Mount Moriah is the
name of the place where Solomon's temple is built.31 This text then is connected to the temple
and emphasizes the obedience to God's commands that is required to uphold the proper function
of the temple.
What Was the Test?

31 See 2 Chronicles 3:1 which is the only other occurrence of the proper noun
Moriah.

13

It is now time to attempt to determine what exactly God was testing Abraham with. The
main point of reference for understanding this narrative is the knowledge that it was only a test,
so it is important to figure out this point. As noted above, the narrative is making it clear that
Abraham is the main character in the story, so this cannot be a story about Isaac.32 The question
of "what was the test?" is the aspect of the text that is the most debated within contemporary
scholarship today. Bodoff argues that the test was to see if Abraham would refuse to commit
murder even when commanded by God to do so.33 Bodoff makes the point that one should not
just simply listen to "voices" in our heads when they contradict the revealed will of God in his
moral law. Similarly, David Zucker argues, "Genesis 22 begins with the words that God put
Abraham to the test. In failing to protect his child, in failing to question God, even rebuke God,
as Abraham willingly did in [Genesis] 18, it is clear that Abraham failed the test."34 However, in

32 This point is in contrast to David Zucker [David Zucker, "Isaac Betrayed and
Triumphant," Jewish Bible Quarterly 38, no. 3 (July 2010): 167] who argues that God
was testing Isaac's strength and resolve in resisting his father's attempt to murder
him. Zucker argues that the text should be read with a focus put on Isaac as the
triumphant one coming forth from this trial and living to have a normal life after the
incident. But, as the narrative suggests, Abraham is the main character and the text
explicitly states that God is testing/proving Abraham, so "what was the test of
Abraham?" is the real question, not trying to determine how Isaac was tested.
Similarly George Coats argues that because the request is highlighted as the main
dialogue in the story, the text should be read as Abraham's story, not Isaac's. This
can be found in George Coats, "Abraham's Sacrifice of Faith: A Form-Critical Study of
Genesis 22," Interpretation 27, no. 4 (October 1973): 392.
33 Bodoff, "The Real Test," 72. This argument relies on the assumption that Abraham was
aware of God's revealed moral law to Moses and that God wanted to see if Abraham would
hold to the revealed law as opposed to giving priority to God's spoken request in this
narrative.

34 Zucker, "Isaac Betrayed," 171.

14

order to understand the text as the immediate readership would have understood it, it is important
to not take our Western perspective into the story.
The narrative is portraying the primary motif of obedience to the readers, and they would
not have had the same reaction to the command as our modern culture would have if a similar
command was spoken. That is not to undermine the seriousness of the command however. Surely
Abraham would have been immediately perplexed as to why God would ask such a monumental
deed to be done in His name. The text makes it clear that God is giving this test, and with his
prior experiences of God in mind, Abraham took this as a literal command to sacrifice his son for
God's purposes, which is why he went on with the deed.
Some of the more far-fetched answers to the question of what was the test should be
briefly examined. After a close reading of the text, one reads that in the angel's initial speech to
get Abraham to put down the knife, the angel uses a personal pronoun referring to itself saying,
"now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from
me" (emphasis mine). With just this verse in mind, it could be confused that it is actually this
angel who is testing Abraham and even that Abraham was sacrificing to the angel instead of the
Lord! It is possible to see this as some scheme of the angel to test Abraham, but there is no need
to jump to that conclusion. Implicitly in the text, it is understood that the angel is in some sense

15

relaying the words of God to Abraham. Although somewhat confusing, this verse should be seen
as nothing more than God using an angel to convey his thoughts to Abraham.35
Another interpretation is that this narrative is Abraham's testing of God.36 In this view, all
along, this act had been devised by Abraham to see whether human sacrifice was acceptable to
this new God he was following as opposed to the gods he left in Chalcedon where he was
originally from. The narrative supposedly portrays this idea that Abraham was just testing God to
see how far He would allow Abraham to go on with sacrificing his only son, or whether God
would stop Abraham from doing something unacceptable in the name of this God. This view is
not supported by the text because again, it is clear in the text who is doing the testing. Testing is
only mentioned once in the story, and faith is never mentioned. The theme of obedience is in
almost every single verse.
Application
In this section, contemporary application will be proposed. This story is meant to be read
as an example of obedience. The readers, whether Israelites of the time or modern church
members, should be taught to emulate the obedience of Abraham, with a few qualifications:
mainly, that this story was given in a particular context in which child sacrifice was still being
35 Somewhat speculative, there is an argument that the point of the text is to show a
difference between "Elohim" and "YHWH". Notice how the command to sacrifice Isaac is
given by Elohim, but the angel of YHWH stops Abraham from sacrificing his son. See Shalom
Spiegel, The Last Trial: On the Legends and Lore of the Command to Abraham to Offer Isaac
as a Sacrifice, trans. Judah Goldin (Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights Publishing, 1993), 121. It is
argued that the name YHWH is used in rescinding the command in order to emphasize
YHWH's covenantal love that would never ask for a human sacrifice. The purpose of the
narrative would then be that YHWH is not just any "god", but that He has a special character
above the normal usage of God in this time.

36 Bodoff, "The Real Test," 77.

16

practiced throughout the world. In modern times, the majority of people in the world cannot
conceive how a god could ask child sacrifice of them. They are correct, because God would most
likely never ask something like this again because our context would be so opposed to the very
thought to the point that it could not bring someone closer to God in being obedient to that
command. By our standards, Abraham is often seen as wrong, but the standards of his age would
not have made him out to be a criminal. Strictly speaking, God was asking Abraham if he was
willing to be as devoted to YHWH as the pagan idolaters were to their gods.37
I think that the traditional interpretation of seeing this narrative as typological of Christ
falls short in a few ways. Most notably, the fact that Isaac was not actually sacrificed, nor was he
sacrificed for a deficiency in others. However, the Gospel of John seems to pick up slightly on
this idea in that rendition of the crucifixion narrative. God is seen as giving his only son, whom
he loves which is the same terminology that God uses in describing Isaac. Further, John has
Jesus "bound" and carrying his own cross just like Isaac was bound, and carried the wood
himself.38 It is more likely however that these explanations in John's gospel come from his
different perspective in describing Jesus' life rather that drawing from Genesis 22. Nonetheless,
that interpretation has been very popular throughout church history.
The main point in the story is to show how Abraham obeyed God despite the possibility
of losing the child which was promised to him. Abraham calmly obeyed God, shown by his
silence throughout the narrative, which is significant for the modern reader living in a fast paced
37 Joseph Telushkin, Biblical Literacy: The Most Important People, Events, and Ideas
of the Hebrew Bible (New York: William Morrow, 1997), 39.
38 See John 18:12, 24, 19:17. This insight comes from Jerome Gellman, Abraham!
Abraham!: Kierkegaard and the Hasidim on the Binding of Isaac (Burlington, VT:
Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2003), 44-45.

17

world.39 When in the course of being obedient to God's commands, one experiences an
indescribable peace. The second important theme in the story that has been mentioned is the
significance of the place in which the binding occurs. Abraham names the place where "The
Lord will provide."40 This name emphasizes the future tense promise of God's provision.
Abraham has just been let off the hook from sacrificing Isaac literally, and he know has the child
of the promise back. Due to God's faithfulness, He will provide the fulfillment of the full
promise to Abraham in the creation of a great nation of God's people.
Overall, this text provides readers with the opportunity to see what obedience to God
looks like. In the face of uncertainty, Abraham obeyed God. Similarly, whenever Christians are
faced with uncertainty or in the midst of difficulty, obedience to God's commands should be top
priority. It is in this obedience that God's promises are reaffirmed to us to give us hope in the
midst of the struggle. This account of obedience is the theme that the author of the akedah
narrative is intending for the readers to understand and apply to their lives. Word Count: 5743

39 Maybaum, The Sacrifice, 4.

40 Bodoff [Bodoff, "The Real Test, 71] notes that Jewish tradition says that Abraham named
the place "Where God Will Be Seen." However, in either case, the future tense orientation is
the main point to grasp.