ABSTRACT

PARADOX AND PASSIVITY IN GENESIS 22:1-19:

A NARRATIVE ANALYSIS APPROACH

by

David Vanlalnghaka Sailo

Adviser: Carlos Elias Mora

 DISSERTATION ABSTRACT

Doctor of Philosophy in Religion

Adventist International Institute

of Advanced Studies

Theological Seminary

TITLE: PARADOX AND PASSIVITY IN GENESIS 22:1-19: A NARRATIVE

ANALYSIS APPROACH

Researcher: David Vanlalnghaka Sailo

Research advisor: Carlos Elias Mora, ThD

Date completed: May 2019 (tentative)

The difficulties of the narrative of Gen 22:1-19 comprises paradox and passivity.

These difficulties elicit interpretative issues with the characters of the narrative. The text

had been approached using different methodologies, but only few studies attempted to

look at the narrative features comprehensively, especially with a specific purpose of

understanding its paradox and passivity. This study attempts to contribute to a better

understanding of the difficulties of the narrative using the narrative analysis method.

In Chapter 1, an overview of the literature on Gen 22:1-19 introduces the topic

and describes the methodology of the study. Chapter 2 describes various narrative poetics

such as the closure and scene, the plot, the narrator, the point of view, the time and

action, the character, the characterization, the settings, the prop, and the gaps. Each
narrative poetic description is immediately followed by the application of the poetics in

the narrative of Gen 22:1-19. Chapter 3 presents the understanding of the paradox and the

passivity based on the narrative analysis in Chapter 2. Brief theological insights that

emerge from the study follows. Chapter 4 presents the summary and the conclusions of

the study.

The study concludes that paradox and passivity are an integral part of the

storytelling technique. The paradox of the promise of progeny with the test is part of the

complication of the plot that builds tension in the narrative. After Abraham’s words and

actions in the transforming action of the plot remove the tension, the promise of progeny

is reaffirmed in the final situation of the plot. The paradox of the enigmatic words of

Abraham are subtle revelations of his motive for his obedience. The unprotested

obedience of Abraham is the key to removing the tension of the plot which is inspired by

his belief that God will provide. The silent submission of Isaac is part of the rhetoric

device that demonstrates the main plot of the narrative—Abraham’s obedience to God.

Since Abraham is tasked to remove the tension of the plot, other details that do not

contribute to it is left out of the narrative. Thus, paradox and passivity are parts of the

narrative convention that contributes to the plot of the narrative: Abraham obeys God

because he believes that God will provide and God did provide.

3
 Adventist International Institute

of Advanced Studies

PARADOX AND PASSIVITY IN GENESIS 22:1-19:

A NARRATIVE ANALYSIS APPROACH

A dissertation

presented in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN RELIGION

by

David Vanlalnghaka Sailo

April 2019
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER

1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1

Background of the Problem .................................................................... 3

Paradox in the Narrative .................................................................... 3
The Promise of Progeny and the Test ........................................... 5
The Enigmatic Words of Abraham ............................................... 9
Passivity in the Narrative ................................................................... 12
Unprotested Obedience of Abraham ............................................. 13
Silent Submission of Isaac ............................................................ 16
Reticence in the Narrative .................................................................. 19
Overview of Narrative Criticism ....................................................... 22
Brief Historical Development of Narrative Criticism ................... 24
Literary Criticisms ........................................................................ 29
Brief Description of Narrative Criticism ...................................... 34
Importance of Narrative Criticism ................................................ 36
Recent Studies on Genesis 22:1-19.................................................... 39
Statement of the Problem........................................................................ 46
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................... 47
Scope of the Study .................................................................................. 47
Methodology ........................................................................................... 48

2. NARRATIVE POETICS AND ANALYSIS OF GENESIS 22:1-19 ............ 53

Narrative Closure and the Scenes ........................................................... 53

Poetics of Narrative Closure and the Scenes ..................................... 54
Analysis of the Narrative Closure ...................................................... 56
Analysis of the Narrative Scenes ....................................................... 58
The Abstract .................................................................................. 58
Scene I: The Requirement of the Test ........................................... 59
Scene II: Abraham Prepares and Goes for the Journey................. 59
Scene III: Abraham is Nearing Mount Moriah ............................. 60
Scene IV: Abraham and Isaac Worship God ................................ 60
Scene V: The Angel of YHWH Intervenes ................................... 61
Scene VI: God Provides ................................................................ 62

v
 Scene VII: Blessings of Abraham ................................................. 62
Scene VIII: Abraham Returns to Beersheba ................................. 63
Summary of the Closure and Scenes ................................................. 63
Plot .......................................................................................................... 64
Poetics of the Plot .............................................................................. 64
Quinary Scheme ............................................................................ 66
Types and Pattern of Plot .............................................................. 68
Analysis of the Plot ............................................................................ 70
The Plot ......................................................................................... 70
Initial Situation ......................................................................... 71
Complication ............................................................................ 71
Transforming Action ................................................................ 74
Denouement ............................................................................. 78
Final Situation .......................................................................... 80
Plot Type and Plot Pattern ............................................................ 82
Summary of the Analysis of the Plot ................................................. 83
Narrator ................................................................................................... 84
Poetics of the Narrator ....................................................................... 84
Classification of the Narrator ........................................................ 86
Types of Narration ........................................................................ 87
Explicit Commentaries ............................................................. 87
Implicit Commentaries ............................................................. 88
Analysis of the Narrator ..................................................................... 89
Summary of the Narrator Analysis .................................................... 92
Point of View .......................................................................................... 93
Poetics of the Point of View .............................................................. 94
Omniscient Point of View ............................................................. 95
Neutral Point of View ................................................................... 96
Involved Point of View ................................................................. 97
Evaluative Point of View .............................................................. 98
Analysis of the Point of View ............................................................ 99
The Abstract (Verse 1a) ................................................................ 99
Scene I (Verses 1b-2) .................................................................... 100
Scene II (Verse 3).......................................................................... 101
Scene III (Verses 4-5) ................................................................... 102
Scene IV (Verses 6-10) ................................................................. 103
Scene V (Verses 11-12) ................................................................ 105
Scene VI (Verses 13-14) ............................................................... 105
Scene VII (Verses 15-18) .............................................................. 107
Scene VIII (Verse 19) ................................................................... 107
Analysis of the Evaluative Point of View .......................................... 108
Summary of the Point of View .......................................................... 108
Time and Action ..................................................................................... 109
Poetics of the Time and Action.......................................................... 109
Duration......................................................................................... 110
Ellipsis ...................................................................................... 111
vi
 Acceleration ............................................................................. 111
Tableau ..................................................................................... 112
Deceleration ............................................................................. 113
Pause......................................................................................... 114
Order ............................................................................................. 114
Direction ................................................................................... 114
Distance .................................................................................... 117
Reach ........................................................................................ 117
Frequency ...................................................................................... 117
Analysis of the Time and Action ....................................................... 118
The Abstract .................................................................................. 119
Scene I: The Requirement of the Test ........................................... 119
Scene II: Abraham Prepares and Goes for the Journey................. 120
Scene III: Abraham is Nearing Mount Moriah ............................. 121
Scene IV: Abraham and Isaac Worship God ................................ 122
Scene V: The Angel of YHWH Intervenes ................................... 123
Scene VI: God Provides ................................................................ 124
Scene VII: Blessings of Abraham ................................................. 125
Scene VIII: Abraham Returns to Beersheba ................................. 126
Characters ............................................................................................... 126
Poetics of the Characters .................................................................... 127
Types of Characters....................................................................... 127
Protagonist ................................................................................ 128
Foil ........................................................................................... 128
Walk-on .................................................................................... 129
Agent ........................................................................................ 129
Character Traits ............................................................................. 129
Round Characters ..................................................................... 130
Flat Character ........................................................................... 130
Analysis of the Characters ................................................................. 131
God ................................................................................................ 131
Abraham ........................................................................................ 132
Isaac............................................................................................... 133
The Two Servants ......................................................................... 134
The Angel of YHWH .................................................................... 135
Summary of the Character Analysis .................................................. 136
Characterization ...................................................................................... 136
Poetics of Characterization ................................................................ 138
Telling ........................................................................................... 139
Showing ........................................................................................ 141
Direct Showing ......................................................................... 142
Indirect Showing ...................................................................... 143
Analysis of the Characterization ........................................................ 144
God ................................................................................................ 144
Direct Showing ......................................................................... 145

vii
 Perceived Understanding Through Indirect Showing .............. 145
Abraham ................................................................................... 147
Actions ..................................................................................... 147
Direct Showing ......................................................................... 149
Indirect Showing ...................................................................... 150
Isaac............................................................................................... 152
Direct Showing ......................................................................... 152
Indirect Showing ...................................................................... 153
The Two Servants ......................................................................... 153
Summary of Characterization ............................................................ 154
Settings ................................................................................................... 154
Poetics of the Settings ........................................................................ 155
Temporal Settings ......................................................................... 157
Spatial Settings .............................................................................. 159
Social Settings ............................................................................... 159
Analysis of the Settings ..................................................................... 160
Spatial Settings .............................................................................. 161
Temporal Settings ......................................................................... 163
Sphere Settings .............................................................................. 166
Summary of the Settings Analysis ..................................................... 167
Props ....................................................................................................... 167
Analysis of the Props ......................................................................... 168
Summary of the Props Analysis ......................................................... 171
Gaps ........................................................................................................ 171
Poetics of the Gaps............................................................................. 173
Blanks and Gaps ............................................................................ 174
Significance of the Gaps ............................................................... 176
Kinds of Gaps ................................................................................ 177
Gaps of Fact ............................................................................. 177
Gaps of Motivation................................................................... 178
Gaps of Continuity ................................................................... 179
Function of Gaps ........................................................................... 179
Analysis of the Gaps .......................................................................... 180
Gaps in the Abstract of the Plot .................................................... 181
Gaps in the Complication of the Plot ............................................ 182
Gaps in the Transforming Actions of the Plot .............................. 183
Gaps in the Denouement of the Plot ............................................. 188
Gaps in the Final Situation of the Plot .......................................... 189
Summary of the Gaps Analysis.......................................................... 190

3. PARADOX AND PASSIVITY IN GENESIS 22:1-19 ................................. 193

The Paradox ............................................................................................ 193

The Promise of Progeny and the Test ................................................ 194
The Difficulties ............................................................................. 194
The Role of the Narrator .......................................................... 194

viii
 The Play on the Point of View ................................................. 195
The Character Trait of God ...................................................... 196
The Promise of Progeny With the Test in the Narrative Context . 196
The Enigmatic Words of Abraham .................................................... 200
The Difficulties ............................................................................. 201
Its Function in the Plot ............................................................. 201
The Gaps and Blanks ................................................................ 202
The Mode of the Storytelling ................................................... 202
The Enigmatic Words of Abraham in the Narrative Context ....... 203
The Passivity ........................................................................................... 205
Unprotested Obedience of Abraham .................................................. 205
Function of Passivity ..................................................................... 205
Passivity in the Narrative Context ................................................ 206
The Silent Submission of Isaac .......................................................... 208
Theological Insights................................................................................ 210
God Tests His People ......................................................................... 210
God Provides ...................................................................................... 211
God Is Trustworthy ............................................................................ 211

4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................ 213

Summary of the Study ............................................................................ 213

Conclusions of the Study ........................................................................ 219

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................... 221

ix
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The narrative of Gen 22:1-191 is widely recognized as one of the most studied

passages and most theologically demanding in the HB.2 It has not ceased to fascinate, as

well as disturb, interpreters.3 The literary quality of the narrative and its theological

1Genesis 22:1-19 is also commonly known as aqedah or “binding of Isaac” in Judaism and as the

“sacrifice of Isaac” in Christianity. Karen Ann H. Wacome, “Watching the Sacrifice of Isaac: Bakhtin,
Dialogism and Genesis 22:1-19” (PhD diss., Graduate Theological Union, 2005), 2. See also Stephen J.
Stern, The Unbinding of Isaac: A Phenomenological Midrash of Genesis 22, Studies in Judaism 5 (New
York, NY: Peter Lang, 2012), 60. The word aqedah is often transliterated as akedah as well, but to
maintain consistency, the former is used in this study except if it is within quotations.
2According to Yair Mazor, “The story of Isaac’s binding seems to be one of the greatly drained
biblical chapters in the history of biblical exegesis. The shuddering chronicle of the father, whose
fathomless faith to his God almost led him to slay his only son, has been illuminated from varying
standpoints, such as humanistic, theological, psychological, historical, literary and philosophical.” Yair
Mazor, “Genesis 22: The Ideological Rhetoric and the Psychological Composition,” Biblica 67, no. 1
(1986): 81. Edward Kessler noted that “it has been an important passage for Judaism and Christianity from
an early period.” Edward Kessler, Bound by the Bible: Jews, Christians and the Sacrifice of Isaac
(Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 5. According to Walter Brueggemann, this passage is
the best known and most theologically demanding in the Abraham tradition. Walter Brueggemann,
Genesis, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville, KY: John Knox,
1982), 185. Konrad Schmid also stated that “Genesis 22 is a highly controversial text, and there are many
possible hermeneutical approaches to it.” Konrad Schmid, “Abraham’s Sacrifice: Gerhard von Rad’s
Interpretation of Genesis 22,” Interpretation 62, no. 3 (2008): 268. See also Albert van der Heide, “Now I
Know”: Five Centuries of Aqedah Exegesis (New York, NY: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2017), 2.
3Kessler stated that the narrative of Gen 22:1-19 influenced the life, literature, art, and religious
thoughts of both Jews and Christians through the centuries. Kessler, Bound by the Bible, 33. Karen Ann H.
Wacome noted that “for some two thousand years[,] Genesis 22 has informed two religious traditions,
Jewish and later Christian.” Wacome, “Sacrifice of Isaac,” 2. She added, “The Qur’an also contains a
similar narrative in which Allah commands Abraham to sacrifice his son, a story that is rehearsed yearly at
the end of the Hajj. However, my study is restricted to the narrative as it appears in the Hebrew Bible, the
scriptures of both Jews and Christians.” Ibid. James R. Davila also stated that the aqedah has been “one of
the most fascinating and disturbing texts in the Hebrew Bible,” and the meaning of its terse narrative has
bemused commentators for more than 2 millennia. James R. Davila, “The Name of God at Moriah: An
Unpublished Fragment From 4QGenEXOD,” Journal of Biblical Literature 110, no. 4 (1991): 577.
Different approaches such as “humanistic, theological, psychological, historical, literary and philosophical”
were being applied to Gen 22. Mazor, “Genesis 22,” 81. Terence E. Fretheim also noted that “religious
interpretations, especially since Søren Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling seem often to intensify the
1
significance is admired by many scholars.4 While it holds rich promises for exposition, it

remains a difficult passage to interpret.5

contradictoriness of the story, perhaps in the interests of heightening the mystery of God’s ways.” Terence
E. Fretheim, “‘God Was With the Boy’ (Genesis 21:20): Children in the Book of Genesis,” in The Child in
the Bible, ed. Marcia J. Bunge, Terence E. Fretheim, and Beverly Roberts Gaventa (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 2008), 14. Cf. Søren Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling (New York, NY: Penguin, 1985).
Kessler also noted that Gen 22 attracted the interest of “theologians, historians, psychologists, novelists,
poets, artists, and musicians.” Kessler, Bound by the Bible, 30-31.
4Some scholars regarded Gen 22 as the summit of Abrahamic narratives, both in literature and
theology. Bill T. Arnold stated that its literary quality is recognized by all as “the most perfectly formed
and polished of all the patriarchal stories [while] its profound theological insights have stirred Jewish and
Christian readers for thousands of years.” Bill T. Arnold, Encountering the Book of Genesis: A Study of Its
Content and Issues (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998), 106. See also Davila, “Name of God,” 577. In his
commentary on the book of Genesis, Kenneth A. Matthews gave attention to the compositional history of
the text and stated, “I discovered that the literary unit under study normally exhibits literary coherence,
which would suggest that the composition is the result of a single author. This coherence can be seen at the
macro and micro levels of the text. The typical historical-critical reconstructions derived from the source,
form, and tradition criticisms entail complex literary growth that is unnecessary when a simpler explanation
is credibly defended at the exegetical level.” Kenneth A. Matthews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, The New
American Commentary 1B (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2005), 9. Gerhard von Rad considered
Gen 22 as “the most perfectly formed and polished of all the patriarchal stories.” Gerhard von Rad, Old
Testament Library: Genesis, rev. ed. (London, UK: SCM, 1972), 238.
5Stephen J. Stern stated, “This test is obviously significant for Abraham and for biblical teaching
in general, yet the purpose of this test has been debated for centuries.” Stern, The Unbinding of Isaac, 60.
In the concluding chapter entitled “Interpreting Abraham: Journeys to Moriah,” Bradley Beach and
Matthew Powell stated, “It would be better for us if this story never existed or were expunged forever from
the sacred traditions of religion. Unfortunately, we do not have this luxury. We are forced to confront the
narrative and to make sense of it in light of our understanding of God, faith, and moral duty.” Bradley
Beach and Matthew Powell, eds., Interpreting Abraham: Journeys to Moriah (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress,
2014), 213. For example, Berel Dov Lerner stated, “Some texts graciously invite a wide range of internally
consistent interpretations, others foil all attempts at explanation, throwing off would-be exegetes as an
unbroken horse throws off its rider. The Akedah, the story of the binding of Isaac, belongs to the latter
category.” Berel Dov Lerner, “The Akedah: Machloket l’shem shamayim sofa l’hitkayeim,” Jewish Bible
Quarterly 29, no. 2 (2001): 118. Kessler also stated, “The Akedah continues to bring tension and drama,
arousing both terror and pity. It is a paradigm of Aristotle’s catharsis, dealing with the biggest themes and
touching the deepest emotions. Some of the modern works on the subject question whether, as it seems to,
it has a happy ending. Is there an immediately apparent, morally acceptable and topically relevant message?
How could Abraham reconcile the bizarre demand to sacrifice his son against the divine promise that he
would be the ancestor of a people who would spread throughout the world?” Kessler, Bound by the Bible,
30. For the history of the interpretations, see James Swetnam, Jesus and Isaac: A Study of the Epistle to the
Hebrews in the Light of the Aqedah, Analecta Biblica (Rome, Italy: Biblical Institute, 1981); Shalom
Spiegel, The Last Trial: On the Legends and Lore of the Command to Abraham to Offer Isaac as a
Sacrifice; The Akedah (Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights, 1993); Kessler, Bound by the Bible; Karl-Josef
Kuschel, Abraham: A Symbol of Hope for Jews, Christians and Muslims (London, UK: SCM, 1995). See
also Claus Westermann, Genesis 12-36: A Continental Commentary, 1st ed. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress,
1995), 351-363; Jody Lyn Vaccaro, “Early Jewish and Christian Interpretations of the Character of Isaac in
Genesis 22” (PhD diss., University of Notre Dame, 1998).

2
 Background of the Problem

The complexities of Gen 22:1-19 comprises paradox and passivity, along with

reticence, that are literary in nature.6 These complexities further elicit interpretative

issues with the main characters of the narrative: God, Abraham, and Isaac.7 Each of these

complexities and how they contribute to the difficulties of the interpretation are discussed

in the following subsections.

Paradox in the Narrative

The term paradox has various nuances.8 During the period of the classical and

Hellenistic Greek texts, it has negative connotations such as unexpected or

inconsistency.9 During the time when Koine Greek of the NT was written and the

centuries that follow, it has the sense of “contrary to opinion,”10 but it is also used in a

6For the use of the terms paradox, passivity, and reticence in this study, see the subsequent

sections, respectively.
7A character in a narrative is “an individual or collective figure . . . assuming a role in the plot.”

Daniel Marguerat and Yvan Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories: An Introduction to Narrative Criticism
(London, UK: SCM, 1999), 60.
8Paradox “has been understood variously as a logical contradiction, absurdity, enigma, or seeming
contradiction.” Michiko Yusa, “Paradox and Riddles,” The Encyclopedia of Religion, 2nd ed. (New York:
Macmillan, 1907-1987), 11:191. For a good explanation of paradox, see Rosalie L. Colie, Paradoxia
Epidemica: The Renaissance Tradition of Paradox (Hamden, CT: Archon, 1976), 3-40; Narry F. Santos,
Slave of All: The Paradox of Authority and Servanthood in the Gospel of Mark, Journal for the Study of the
New Testament Supplement Series (London, UK: Sheffield, 2003), 2-14. For a detailed study of the origin
and development of the term paradox, see Laura C. Sweat, The Theological Role of Paradox in the Gospel
of Mark, Library of NT Studies 492 (London, UK: T. & T. Clark, 2013), 11-17. See also Santos, Slave of
All, 2-9.
9Paradox can mean “unexpected, surprising, or inconsistent, whether that element is a statement, a
belief, an argument, or an incident.” Laura C. Sweat, “A Paradoxical Portrayal: God in the Gospel of
Mark” (PhD diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 2011), 13. During the time of Philo, paradox in secular
Greek always denotes an “unusual event contrary to belief and expectation.” Gerhard Kittel, “Παράδοξος,”
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT), ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans.
Geoffrey W. Bromiley (1964; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982), 2:255; see also William F. Fry
Jr., “Humor and Paradox,” American Beharioral Scientist 30, no. 1 (1987): 43.
10Santos, Slave of All, 3.

3
positive sense such as strange, wonderful, or remarkable.11 During the 18th and the 19th

centuries, paradox was said to occur “when two claims that oppose one another are in fact

proven to be valid.”12 Modern literary scholars hold on to the contradictory nature of a

paradox,13 but some scholars state that paradox can be interpreted in “a way that make[s]

sense.”14 It may be noted that besides the minute deviations in meaning at different times,

paradox consistently conveys a sense of contradiction.

In a looser sense, the term paradox also denotes something that “has come to our

attention that we are not able to reconcile with all else we know.”15 It is often applied

“not to a strict logical or rhetorical construction involving some kind of dialectical

11See Santos, Slave of All, 3. The Greek word παράδοξος is used in Luke 5:25 “where it is

designed to emphasize the unusual aspect of what was seen in Jesus.” Kittel, “Παράδοξος,” TDNT, 2:255.
For centuries, it remains “something contrary to received opinion.” Sweat, “Paradoxical Portrayal,” 13.
According to William F. Fry, during the 1500s, it generally denotes “a statement or tenant contrary to
received opinion or belief, sometimes with favorable, sometimes with unfavorable connotation. Fry,
“Humor and Paradox,” 44.
12Sweat, “Paradoxical Portrayal,” 15.
13Modern literary scholars define paradox as a self-contradictory statement or a logically

contradictory or absurd statement. According to John Peck and Martin Coyle, “A paradox is a self-
contradictory statement.” John Peck and Martin Coyle, Literary Terms and Criticism: A Student’s Guide
(Hampshire, UK: Macmillan, 1984), 142. Childs and Fowler defines it as “an apparently self-contradictory
statement, though one which is essentially true.” Peter Childs and Foger Fowler, The Routledge Dictionary
of Literary Terms (London, UK: Routledge, 2006), 166. For Laura C. Sweat, paradox refers to “two
independently valid statements that are jointly inconsistent or self-contradictory.” Sweat, “Paradoxical
Portrayal,” 10.
14According to Meyer H. Abrams and Geoffrey G. Harpham, “A paradox is a statement which
seems on its face to be logically contradictory or absurd, yet turns out to be interpretable in a way that
makes sense.” Meyer H. Abrams and Geoffrey G. Harpham, A Glossary of Literary Terms, 9th ed. (Boston,
MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009), 239. David Mikics stated, “A paradox is a contradiction that
somehow proves fitting or true.” David Mikics, A New Handbook of Literary Terms (New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 2007), 222. Rosalie L. Colie stated that novel philosophical or scientific formulations,
which are labeled as paradox, can be understood with the increase of knowledge. Colie, Paradoxia
Epidemica, 9-10. Sweat also noted that “paradox can either be resolve or unresolved. Some paradoxes can
be resolved with more knowledge. Science has proved it.” Sweat, “Paradoxical Portrayal,” 42.
15See Fry, “Humor and Paradox,” 42. Narry F. Santos defines paradox as “an unusual and

apparently self-contradictory rhetorical statement or concept that departs dramatically from accepted
opinion.” Santos, Slave of All, 3; Sweat, “Paradoxical Portrayal,” 42; see also Kittel, “Παράδοξος,” TDNT,
2:255.

4
contradiction, but to a formulation of any sort running counter to received opinion.”16 It

can be used purposefully in a literary or theological work.17 It can function as a rhetorical

device “to attract attention, to secure emphasis and to rivet attention on a crucial point.”18

In this study, the term paradox is used in its looser sense.

There are two paradoxes in the narrative of Gen 22:1-19, and the crux of the

paradox lies with the requirement of the test.19 First, the test is in direct contention with

the promise of posterity that God had given to Abraham previously.20 Second, the

requirement of the test (v. 2) and the actions of Abraham (vv. 9-10) are in contradiction

with what Abraham said to his servants (v. 5) and his son Isaac (v. 8). These apparent

contradictions in the text contribute at large to the difficulties of the narrative.

The promise of progeny and the test. Genesis 22:1 indicates that God tested

Abraham. In v. 2, the requirement of the test is spelled out; God asked Abraham to offer

the promised son, Isaac, as a burnt offering. Even though the readers are well-informed in

v. 1 that this is but a test, the requirement of the test does not fail to disturb the readers.

16Colie, Paradoxia Epidemica, 9.

17Santos noted that “the presence of paradox in any literary or theological work is intentional in

the sense that there is always a calculated and slight alteration of language.” Santos, Slave of All, 12.
18Ibid. “The purpose of a paradox is to arrest attention and provoke fresh thought. . . . Modern
critics view it as a device, integral to poetic language, encompassing the tensions of error and truth
simultaneously, not necessarily by startling juxtapositions but by subtle and continuous qualifications of the
ordinary meaning.” The New Encyclopædia Britanica, 15th ed. (2002), s.v. “paradox.”
19The immensity of this paradox is well described by Daniel Marguerat and Yvan Bourquin. They

stated, “The whole context of the narrative cycle of Abraham pushes the paradox to an extreme. The first
paradox is that the God who has promised the posterity demands the sacrifice of the son. The second
paradox is that while showing himself ready to sacrifice Isaac, Abraham has to love him and also love the
god who gives this order. Without this double paradox the dramatic recourse of the narrative is relaxed.”
Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 110-111.
20See Gen 12:3, 7; 15:1-6; 17:7- 8.

5
 Progeny is one of the three promises God gave to Abraham in Gen 12:3.21 God

reiterated the promise in Gen 12:7; 15:1-6; and in 17:7-8. The requirement of the test in

Gen 22:2, however, dispels any chance of the fulfillment of the promise God made with

Abraham.22 The test creates a paradox in the narrative as it clearly contradicts the

promise of progeny.

Scholars are aware of the grave tension that the test creates, and some view the

test as abstruse.23 The notion that God would command the murder of one’s son created a

feeling of aversion.24 Murray J. Kohn points out, “This divine command is also in direct

21R. W. L. Moberly stated, “Abraham’s story begins with God’s promise to make him a great

nation (12:1-3), yet the promise seems impossible to fulfill. Sarah is initially barren (11:30), eventually
postmenopausal (18:11), and an attempt to circumvent Sarah with Hagar and her son by Abraham is
sidelined by God (Gen 16-17). Against all expectation[,] Sarah at last gives birth to Isaac (21:1-7), and it
appears that the years of perplexed waiting are over and that God’s promise to Abraham can now be
realized through Isaac. This narrative context of Isaac as the child of promise adds to and intensifies Isaac’s
intrinsic value to Abraham as his beloved son (22:2), and gives Isaac enormous symbolic significance as
the focus of Abraham’s hope in God and the future.” R. W. L. Moberly, “Genesis 22: Abraham-Model or
Monster?” in The Theology of the Book of Genesis, ed. Brent A. Strawn and Patrick D. Miller (London,
UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 185.
22Gordon Wenham considered the test as horrific. He stated, “It diverts attention from the question
whether Isaac will be sacrificed to whether Abraham will stand up to the test.” Gordon Wenham, Genesis
16-50, Word Biblical Commentary 2 (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1994), 103.
23Ephraim A. Speiser holds that God must have a significant purpose in mind, but he finds the test
difficult to grasp and admits that “the precise shading is difficult to determine.” Ephraim. A. Speiser,
Genesis, Anchor Bible 2 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964), 162. Wenham, Genesis 16-50, 103. Jon
Douglas Levenson stated that Abraham’s action has been “increasingly and loudly developed into the
interpretation of the last trial as an act of unspeakable cruelty, a paradigm not of love, faith, and submission
to God, as in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, in their traditional formulations, but of hatred, mental
illness, and even idolatry.” Jon Douglas Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The
Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
1993), 262. See also Matthew Levering, “God and Natural Law: Reflections on Genesis 22,” Modern
Theology 24, no. 2 (2008): 151; Aviezer Tucker, “Sins of Our Fathers: A Short History of Religious Child
Sacrifice,” Zeitschrift für Religions-und Geistesgeschichte 51, no. 1 (1999); Howard Moltz, “God and
Abraham in the Binding of Isaac,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 96 (2001): 69; Nahum M.
Sarna, Be-Reshit: The Traditional Hebrew Text With New Jewish Publication Society Translation, The
Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary (Philadelphia, PA: JPS, 1989), 151.
24See Brueggemann, Genesis, 185. Likewise, Howard Moltz stated, “There is something deeper
than sadness, something more disquieting, which is that God, by reason of his cruel command, had
contradicted his image as a god ‘merciful and compassionate’ and ‘abounding in steadfast love and
faithfulness’ (Exod. 34.6). In this contradiction, the story reaches beyond Abraham’s failure as father to tell
of God’s failure as God.” Moltz, “God and Abraham,” 68. Omri Boehm also stated that the command of

6
contradiction of God’s own assurance, for it is through Isaac that [Abraham’s] offspring

shall be continued.”25 Moltz suggests that since God made a covenant with Abraham to

make him the ancestor of multitudes, to fulfill the promise of progeny became a self-

imposed obligation for God.26 Thus, God is accused of being absurd concerning His

conflicting demand27 and unqualified to be the God that He claimed.28 Drawing

connection with Gen 6, Aviezer Tucker even accused God in Gen 22:1-19 of having the

nature of pagan gods such as in the Epic of Gilgamesh.29

God “pierced the eye and enraged the heart.” Omri Boehm, “The Binding of Isaac: An Inner-Biblical
Polemic on the Question of ‘Disobeying’ a Manifestly Illegal Order,” Vetus Testamentum 52, no. 1 (2002):
1-2. Speiser described the test as fearful and horrific from both the physical and spiritual aspects. Speiser
stated, “The nightmare physical trial entrains thus a boundless spiritual ordeal.” Speiser, Genesis, 164.
25Murray J. Kohn, “The Trauma of Isaac,” Jewish Bible Quarterly 20, no. 2 (1991): 96-97.
26Moltz stated, “God, having entered into a covenant with Abraham, had assumed an obligation,
self-imposed but an obligation nonetheless—to make of his covenantal partner the ‘ancestor of a multitude
of nations’ (17 4)[.] Failing to meet that obligation would have compromised God’s own righteousness, for
in the Hebrew Bible to act righteously is to act in accordance with the claims upon behavior that a given
relationship imposes.” Moltz, “God and Abraham,” 62.
27Levering, “God and Natural Law,” 151.
28According to Moltz, both Abraham and God failed the test: Abraham failed as a father and God

failed as a God. See Moltz, “God and Abraham.” As a philosopher, Immanuel Kant bluntly disqualifies
Him from being a God. Immanuel Kant, The Conflict of the Faculties (New York, NY: Abaris, 1979), 115.
29Tucker stated, “In the Bible (Genesis chap. 6; 5-8), the legitimization of the flood is moral: God

realizes that man is evil, he regrets having made man, feels sorry for himself, and decides to annihilate the
human race. When compared with the abstract God of later Judaism, the God of the flood retains pagan
characteristics. As the Babylonian Gods[,] he is emotionally impulsive. God regrets having made man, then
annihilates almost all the human race, and finally upon smelling Noah’s animal sacrifice after the flood, he
decides to never again bring the flood because man is born evil (8; 21-22). Such an impulsive and
inconsistent God is more pagan than Jewish.” Tucker, “Sins of Our Fathers,” 34. John H. Walton also
argues that such a demand was not deemed cruel during the time of Abraham as he stated, “In Canaanite
worldview, the god who provided fertility (El) was also entitled to demand a portion of what had been
produced. This was expressed in sacrifice of animals and grain and in the sacrifice of children.” John H.
Walton, Genesis: From Biblical Text . . . to Contemporary Life, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 510. Though biblical prophets and the laws expressly argue against child
sacrifice, “Abraham’s complaint acquiescence, as much as it reflects the power of his faith, also suggests
that human sacrifice is familiar to his conceptual worldview. . . . It was culturally logical, despite being
emotionally harsh, and only baffling in light of the covenant promises.” Ibid.

7
 The difficulty of the paradox had been well-recognized both in the Jewish and the

Christian circles. Attempts have been made to solve the paradox by shifting the tension

away from God. In Judaism, additional characters are crafted in to instigate the test.30 In

the Christian circle as well, Satan was alluded to as the instigator of the test by drawing

connections with the story of Job.31

Another way scholars attempt to solve the paradox is by emphasizing the

sovereignty of God, arguing that a supreme God who is above all is entitled to request

anything from man.32 For example, Kierkegaard, holding on to the sovereignty of God,

justified the demand of the test by explaining the situation as a “teleological suspension

of the ethical.”33 Brueggemann also emphasized the sovereignty and the gracious

faithfulness of God over the conflicting demand of the test.34 He argues that the lordship

30See Moshe J. Bernstein, “Angels at the Aqedah: A Study in the Develpment of a Midrashic

Motif,” Dead Sea Discoveries 7, no. 3 (2000): 276. See also K. Matthews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, 289. Isaac
himself was seen as instigating the sacrifice. Kohn, “The Trauma of Isaac,” 97. K. Matthews highlighted an
attempt of the interpretation in midrashim for the gap in the narrative of akedah. He stated, “The preamble
in Tg. Ps-J. records a debate between Isaac and Ishmael, each claiming to be the rightful heir based on their
merits. At hearing Isaac’s boast that he would yield all his members to God, the Lord proceeds with the test
(also Gen. Rab. 55.4; b. Sanh. 89). This voluntary spirit by Isaac is enhanced by his mature age of thirty-
seven years (Tg. Ps-J.; also, e.g., Gen. Rab. 55.4), by Abraham informing him in advance that he is the
sacrifice (Tg. Neof. 22:8; also Gen. Rab. 56.2-3), and by the heavenly voice confirming his heroism (Tg.
Neof.). Josephus (Ant. 1.13.4[232]) depicts him receiving the news of his fate ‘with joy,’ whereupon ‘he
rushed to the altar and his doom.’ Later midrash (ca. fourth century) even portrays him binding himself
(Sifre Deut 32). Other explanations ascribed God’s action to Satan’s idea, as in biblical Job (1:9-11; Jub.
17:16; b. Sanh. 89a) or the envy of the angels (L.A.B. 32:1-2; Gen. Rab. 55.4). Also a rabbinic tradition
cited Isaac’s remarkable righteousness (Gen. Rab. 55.2, quoting Ps 11:5), showing another similarity to Job
(1:8).” K. Matthews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, 301.
31Accordingto K. Matthews, God’s testing could be instigated by Satan as in the case of Job. K.
Matthews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, 301.
32See Brueggemann, Genesis, 185.
33Søren Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling: Repetition, ed. and trans. Howard V. Hong and Edna

H. Hong (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983), 54-81.

34In Exod 13:2, God claims that every firstborn child is His, and Job noted the same in Job 1:21.
Thus, Brueggemann argued that “the same God who set the test in sovereignty is the one who resolved the
test in graciousness. In a world beset by humanism, scientism, and naturalism, the claim that God alone
provides is as scandalous as the claim that he tests.” Brueggemann, Genesis, 185.

8
of God over all earthly life entitles Him to claim the firstborn.35 However, Brueggemann

noted that the problem arises when one seeks “reasonableness” in the idea that it was God

who both provided as well as demanded!36

The conflicting demand of God leaves many questions to ponder. “How should

the conflicting demand of God be understood?” “How does the paradox portray the

characterization of God and Abraham as narrative characters?” “How does the paradox

influence the interpretation of the narrative?”

The enigmatic words of Abraham. The faithfulness and obedience of Abraham

to his God in Gen 22:1-19 is celebrated.37 Scholars remarked about the significance of the

words of Abraham to his son Isaac in Gen 22:8 in the narrative.38 It is considered as the

35Brueggemann stated, “The law required Israel to present all the firstborn of animals and the

firstfruits to God. . . . This principle of the firstborn underlies God’s command for Abraham to sacrifice
Isaac. Because Isaac was the firstborn of the promise seed, God’s claim on him was total. Since Abraham
willingly offered the promised seed to God in faith (Heb. 11:17-19), God identifies Abraham’s seed as his
people for as long as there is life.” Ibid.
36Ibid., 193.
37The narrative of Gen 22:1-19, according to Abraham Kuruvilla, projected Abraham as a paragon
of faith. Abraham Kuruvilla, “The Aqedah (Genesis 22): What Is the Author Doing With What He Is
Saying?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 55, no. 3 (2012): 508. Sheri Lindner and Michael
A. Lindner noted that while the faith of Abraham is celebrated, it is also bemoaned and some labeled the
kind of faith he exercised as blind faith. Sheri Lindner and Michael A. Lindner, “The Binding of Isaac: A
Psychoanalytic Developmental Exploration,” Reconstructionist 57 (1992): 5. Moberly derived a theological
lesson from the life of Abraham. Moberly stated that while God does not depend on man to fulfill His will,
He does not “override man, but man is given an indispensable role within God’s purposes.” It is through
the faithful people of God that His mercy is given. Moberly, “The Earliest Commentary on Aqedah,” Vetus
Testamentum 38, no. 3 (1988): 321.
38Jacques Doukhan studied the significance of Gen 22:7-8 in the narrative and he concluded, “The
foregoing literary analysis of the text of the Aqedah leads to the conclusion that the apex of the text, section
C, is located in vv. 7-8. That this is so is demonstrated by (1) the chiastic structure A B C B1 C1 in which
vv. 7-8 serves as the center of the narrative; (2) the concentration of `mr on these verses; and (3) the
framing of vv. 7-8 by the stylistic phrase wayyēleku šenêhem yahdāw in the form of an ‘envelope structure’
or inclusio.” Jacques Doukhan, “The Center of the Aqedah: A Study of the Literary Structure of Genesis
22:1-19,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 31, no.1 (1993): 27. Considering the phrase “and the two
of them walked on together” as an inclusio, Speiser suggests that the succinct conversation that the inclusio
enclosed is “perhaps the most poignant and eloquent silence in all literature.” Speiser, Genesis, 165. In his
structural analysis which contains three series of summons, Brueggemann noted that “there can be little

9
actual crisis of the tension of the drama which was bounded by v. 2 and v. 12.39 However,

the requirement of the test in v. 2, coupled with the actions of Abraham in vv. 9-10, is not

in accord with what Abraham said to his servants and to his son Isaac.40 The words of

Abraham in v. 8 are enigmatic.41

Attempts have been made to make sense of this difficulty in different ways.

According to K. Matthews, the words “my son” in the sentence can be grammatically

understood in two different ways: as a customary use or as an appositional phrase where

Isaac is specifically identified.42 If the latter is the case in Gen 22:8, K. Matthews argues

that what Abraham said to his son Isaac is an honest openness to God’s operation.43 Other

scholars perceived the words of Abraham differently; some understood it as a statement

of hope in the resurrection,44 an echo of faith that God will exercise His mysterious

doubt of the cruciality of this statement on structural grounds. It is without parallel in the first and third
series.” Brueggemann, Genesis, 185.
39According to Brueggemann, “We do not know why God claims the son in the first place nor

finally why he will remove the demand at the end. Between the two statements of divine inscrutability
stands verse 8, offering the deepest mystery of human faith and pathos.” Brueggemann, Genesis, 185, 187.
Emphasis in original.
40The requirement of the test (v. 2) and the actions of Abraham (vv. 9-10) seem to be in

contradiction with what Abraham said to his servants (v. 5) and his son Isaac (v. 8).
41See Brueggemann, Genesis, 185.
42K. Matthews stated, “The ambiguity of Abraham’s intention by ‘my son’ in the sentence
enhances the already-cryptic nature of his answer. Grammatically, ‘my son’ can be understood in two
ways: Abrahams’s address to Isaac, which is the customary interpretation, or an appositional phrase
defining the ‘burnt offering,’ meaning Abraham identifies Isaac as the offering. Such allusions to the
coming events of the chapter contribute to the mood of anticipation that characterizes chap. 22.” K.
Matthews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, 294.
43Ibid., 293.
44Mark Sheridan and Thomas C. Oden noted that based on the account of the apostle Paul

concerning Abraham’s reason behind the sacrifice of Isaac, “Abraham therefore hoped for the resurrection
of Isaac and believed in a future that had not yet happened.” Mark Sheridan and Thomas C. Oden, eds.,
Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture Old Testament: Genesis 12-50 (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 2002), 102.

10
providence45 or an expression of unreserved trust.46 For Walton, the usage of the words

“to see” here is idiomatic.47 Wenham also suggested that it could be a “statement of faith,

as prophecy, or as prayer.”48 However, the action of Abraham in Gen 22:9-10 contested

against the abovementioned positions.

On the other hand, there are scholars who accused Abraham of being less than

honest on this matter.49 They argue that he was misleading the servants and his son Isaac

to have a different perception from what he actually had in mind. Abraham was seen as

being evasive of the appalling dilemma.50 Nahum M. Sarna stated that the syntax

45Walton suggests that Abraham’s words in vv. 5 and 8 are not a denial of their (Abraham and

Isaac) own fate but an echo of his faith. Walton, Genesis, 515. Walton argued that Abraham “is convinced
that the Lord will work out all of the details (v. 8), and when he does, Abraham names the place
accordingly (‘Yahweh Yireh,’ i.e., ‘The Lord will Provide’).” Ibid., 511.
46As explained by Sheridan and Oden, Gen 22:8 is a “statement of utter trust and confidence, but

one that is quite open-ended. Abraham does not tell Isaac all he wants to know because Abraham himself
does not know. He does not know at this moment if Isaac is God’s act of provision. He does not know that
God will provide a rescue for Isaac. It could be either way: Isaac or an alternative to Isaac. Abraham does
not know, but he trusts unreservedly.” Sheridan and Oden, Genesis 12-50, 102.
47Walton stated, “When we say ‘I will see to it that the report is done on time,’ we are using the

verb ‘to see’ to convey that the details will be taken care of. But the idiom also suggests by nuance a
supervisory role rather than an active one. Hebrew uses the verb this way in Genesis 39:23, where the
warden did not have to ‘see to’ anything under Joseph’s care.” Walton, Genesis, 511.
48The sudden snagging of a ram in the thicket was seen as the fulfillment of Abraham’s ambiguous

statement in v. 8 and that the fulfillment was seen as more complete and exact than he had anticipated.
Wenham, Genesis 16-50, 114-115.
49See Robert Davidson, Genesis 12-50, Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press, 1979), 96; Speiser, Genesis, 164; John E. Hartley, “Genesis,” New
International Biblical Commentary, ed., Robert L. Hubbard Jr. and Robert K. Johnston (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 2000), 1:207.
50Robert Davidson suggests that the “conventionally pious words” of Abraham were but an

attempt “to conceal his breaking heart.” Davidson, Genesis 12-50, 96. The answer Abraham gave to Isaac
was “tender but evasive, and the boy must by now have sensed the truth.” Speiser, Genesis, 164. The
speechless walk to Moriah was labeled as “the speechless concentration of a sleepwalker as if thus to hold
off by every possible means the fate that he has no hope of averting.” Ibid., 165. John E. Hartley stated that
the term worship in v. 5 is imprecise and it was a design to belie any suspicion that the servant might have.
The use of cohortatives here expresses Abraham’s “resolve to obey God and his hope for Isaac’s survival.”
Hartley, Genesis, 207. Hartley understood it as hopeful words. He states, “Abraham had a hope deep within
himself that God would not let him kill the child of promise.” Ibid., 208.

11
concealed some truth.51 Mazor also termed it as “procrastination of atrocious truth.”52 It

is “construed as a masterpiece of pious evasion.”53 Tucker even accused Abraham of

lying to his companions and his son; Tucker deduced that telling lie is immoral.54

Cogitating the requirement of the test in Gen 22:2 with what Abraham did to Isaac

in vv. 9-10, Abraham’s words to his servant and to his son Isaac sounded like an

evasion.55 Abraham’s words were not in consistency with his action. Abraham was thus

accused of lying to his servants and telling less than a truthful answer to his son Isaac.56

The enigmatic words of Abraham still beg further perusal. How should the

enigmatic words of Abraham be understood? What is the significance of Abraham’s word

in the narrative? How does it influence the understanding of the difficulties of the

narrative?

Passivity in the Narrative

Passivity is a noun derived from the adjective passive.57 The term passive denotes

a lack of energy or will to act, to react, to resist, or to respond to a situation or to an

51Sarna pointed out that the “use of the plural form conceals the true purpose of the journey from
Isaac.” Sarna, Be-Reshit, 152.
52Mazor, “Genesis 22,” 86.
53See
Wenham, Genesis 16-50, 114. Mazor thinks that Abraham gave less than a truthful answer,
which he termed as psychological wishful thinking. Mazor, “Genesis 22,” 87.
54Tucker, “Sins of Our Fathers,” 35.
55Wenham, Genesis 16-50, 100.
56See Tucker, “Sins of Our Fathers,” 35; Mazor, “Genesis 22,” 87. Moltz considered that

Abraham, as well as God, has actually failed the test. Moltz, “God and Abraham,” 69.
57The New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd ed. (2005) s.v. “passivity.” According to Webster’s
Third New International Dictionary, passivity denotes “the quality or state of being acted upon from
without; an absence of activity, initiative, or decisiveness: inertia; a submission to the will of another or to
outside force: submissiveness.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of English Language
Unabridged (1993), s.v. “passivity.” Passivity is used as a synonym for being weak. Lindner and Lindner,

12
outside influence.58 For the purpose of this study, the term passivity is used in the sense

of submission or lack of resistance. The passivity in the narrative of Gen 22:1-19 takes

the form of an unprotested obedience of Abraham and the silent submission of Isaac.

Unprotested obedience of Abraham. Prior to Gen 22, Abraham voiced his

opinion to God on few occasions.59 When God told Abraham about His plan to destroy

the city of Sodom and Gomorrah, he bargained with God. When God gave His approval

to send Ishmael out, Abraham interceded for Ishmael. However, when Abraham was

asked to sacrifice his son Isaac, he became silent. A man who was outspoken earlier, now

obeys a difficult request without any resistance or hesitation.

“The Binding of Isaac,” 5. For Seth Daniel Kunin, passitivity is the opposite of being active. Seth Daniel
Kunin, “The Death of Isaac: Structuralist Analysis of Genesis 22,” Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament 64, no. 1 (1994): 72. Charles E. Powell stated, “Jesus acted as though He had not actively
released His power; instead that power was procured from Him.” Charles E. Powell, “The ‘Passivity’ of
Jesus in Mark 5:25-34,” Bibliotheca Sacra 162, no. 1 (2005): 72. Shaji George Kochuthara equated
passivity with submissiveness. Shaji George Kochuthara, “Patriarchy and Sexual Roles: Active-Passive
Gender Roles Versus an Ethics of Mutuality,” Journal of Dharma 36, no. 4 (2011): 436. One who has “the
equal right and ability for fulfilment” is considered as having an active role, while “an object that is meant
only to provide satisfaction” is considered as having a passive role. Ibid.
58Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines passive as “lacking in energy or will;
induced by an outside agency without either active participation or resistance of the individual affected; not
active or operating; receiving or enduring without resistance: patient, submissive, unresist.” Webster’s
Third New Unabridged (2002), s.v. “passive.” Cambridge International Dictionary defines it as “not acting
to influence or change a situation; allowing other people to be in control; . . . if you use passive resistance[,]
you show your opposition to something in a peaceful way rather than acting violently. Cambridge
International Dictionary of English (1995), s.v. “passive.” The New Oxford American Dictionary defines it
as “accepting or allowing what happens or what others do, without active response or resistance.” The New
Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd ed. (2005), s.v. “passive.” It is “not acting or participating; the
acceptance of power; submission; showing little interest; nonviolent resistance to government, laws, and
other related matters; a nonsmoker who breathes the fumes of others’ cigarettes; the form of a verb used
when the action of the verb is done to the subject, not by the subject.” Reader’s Digest Word Power
Dictionary (2006), s.v. “passive.”
59Susan Brayford also reasoned, “One might expect Abraham to question this divine order, or at
least to respond to it. After all, he did respond when God first told him about the son Sarah was to bear him
by begging God to consider his firstborn Ishmael (17:18). Furthermore, the narrator described his response
to Sarah’s demand to banish Ishmael and his mother as Sarah’s being ‘harsh’ (σκληρον; 21:11). Finally,
Abraham dared to negotiate with God when God consults him about his plan to destroy Sodom, presumably
to save the life of his nephew Lot. Here when he is told to kill his ‘beloved’ son, Abraham reverts to his
typical method of response to God; he says nothing but goes into action.” Susan Brayford, Genesis,
Septuagint Commentary Series (Boston, MA: Brill, 2007), 330.

13
 The unprotested obedience of Abraham has a mixed response. Some scholars

admired the obedience of Abraham60 and his unprotested obedience to such a horrible

request baffled other scholars.61 Genesis 22:1-19, together with chap. 15, is quoted in the

NT to emphasize the faith of Abraham.62 Kuruvilla praised Abraham for his exemplary

obedience and called him a paragon of faith.63 On the other hand, considering the

dreadful cost of the demand for the test, there are scholars who criticized Abraham for his

unprotested obedience.64 Moltz argued that as a father, Abraham should have at least

tried to reason with God.65 Considering the way Abraham pleaded with God for Sodom

and Gomorrah, his obedience and lack of resistance in this narrative raised concerns

among scholars.66

60For example, see Kuruvilla, “The Aqedah,” 508.

61See Moltz, “God and Abraham,” 62; Fretheim, “God Was With the Boy,” 15.
62See Jas 2:21.
63Kuruvilla stated that the story teaches that nothing should come between God and His people.

Kuruvilla, “The Aqedah,” 508.

64See Hartley, Genesis, 205; Fretheim, “God Was With the Boy,” 15; Moltz, “God and Abraham,”
62-63.
65Moltz stated, “But whatever the depth of his allegiance, how could Abraham, whose name
(Abram) means ‘exalted father,’ when told ‘to take [his] son, [his] only son’ (22.2), have refrained from
asking: ‘Is this the God for whom justice and righteousness are definitional?’” Moltz, “God and Abraham,”
62. Fretheim also questioned, “What kind of faith does Abraham have? A blind faith? No questions are
asked and no objections are raised. In fact, he shows no emotion whatsoever, though many retellings of the
story have portrayed an agonized Abraham.” Fretheim, “God Was With the Boy,” 15.
66See Hartley, Genesis, 205. Fretheim is also concerned. He argued, “Earlier in the narrative (Gen
18; cf. 15:2, 8), Abraham could raise sharp questions with God about the fate of the righteous in Sodom
and Gomorrah, but he is strangely passive when it comes to his own child.” Fretheim, “God Was With the
Boy,” 15. Moltz stated, “Years earlier Abraham had challenged God’s plan to destroy Sodom and
Gomorrah: ‘Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?’ (18.23). ‘Shall not the Judge of
all the earth do what is just?’ (18.25). Yet now, when commanded to sacrifice Isaac, he readily obeys.”
Moltz, “God and Abraham,” 62-63.

14
 Few scholars criticized Abraham for holding steadfastly on to what they termed as

“blind faith.”67 Moltz suggested that it was not out of obedience but out of fear that

Abraham obeyed God.68 He argued that Abraham could have disobeyed God and the

story could still teach an equally great lesson of ethical import because “the hope of man

rests in his ethical deportment rather than in his blind, unquestioned obedience to

supreme authority.”69 Levenson also stated that Abraham’s action has been “increasingly

and loudly developed into the interpretation of the last trial as an act of unspeakable

cruelty, a paradigm not of love, faith, and submission to God, as in Judaism, Christianity,

and Islam, in their traditional formulations, but of hatred, mental illness, and even

idolatry.”70 While Abraham earned many praises for his unprotested obedience, many

scholars see it differently.

The passivity of Abraham towards the request of God calls for further study. Why

did not Abraham protest? What reason could be there for such obedience? Did Abraham

know what the readers were not aware of? Are there any literary clues that can further the

understanding of the passivity of Abraham? How does the passivity of Abraham

influence the interpretation of the narrative?

67See Kohn, “The Trauma of Isaac,” 104. Malcolm E. Schrader also stated, “In the conventional
interpretation of the Akedah, the command to perform the repugnant and unacceptable act of child sacrifice
is used to demonstrate the principle of blind obedience.” Malcolm E. Schrader, “The Akedah Test: What
Passes and What Fails,” Jewish Bible Quarterly 32, no. 4 (2004): 254. See also Fretheim, “God Was With
the Boy,” 15.
68Moltz stated, “Based on this crisscross of behaviors and on the opposing emotions it reflects, I
would suggest that as Abraham’s courage had failed before earthly rulers, so his courage failed before God.
Or to put it another way: as in the abandonment of Sarah, so in the willingness to sacrifice Isaac, I think
Abraham acted out of fear.” Moltz, “God and Abraham,” 63.
69Kohn, “The Trauma of Isaac,” 104.
70Levenson, The Death and Resurrection, 262.

15
 Silent submission of Isaac. In Judaism and Christianity, the silent submission of

Isaac to his father has been a constant point of reflection. The submissiveness of Isaac in

this narrative can be seen in his contentment with his father’s enigmatic answer to his

serious question and in his cooperation with his father in carrying the wood and acting a

part in the sacrifice upon the altar. A few scholars described Isaac as passive.71 Since he

was passive, David J. Zucker perceived that he was “never too adept at anything.” 72

Isaac’s passivity challenges interpreters as they seek to resolve the “ambiguity to give

Isaac a certain character that would provide a contemporary context of understanding for

their audiences. It is this character of Isaac that continues to make the story present for

readers today.”73

In the Jewish circle, much of the interest on the study of Gen 22:1-19 has been

focused on the character of Isaac, and the passage is referred to as the aqedah.74 In Jewish

tradition, the aqedah is “an alleged theology for the sacrifice of Isaac which has an

71See Zoltan Fischer, “Sacrificing Isaac: A New Interpretation,” Jewish Bible Quarterly 35, no. 3
(2007): 174. Allowing his father to act on him as he does in the story is alleged as passivity. Lindner and
Lindner, “The Binding of Isaac,” 7. See Joshua Backon, “Why Isaac Wasn’t Permitted to Resist at the
Akedah: Legal Requirement to Obey the Command of a Prophet,” Jewish Bible Quarterly 42, no. 2 (2014):
131. Fretheim also questioned, “What kind of son is this who asks only one question and exhibits no
struggle? Does this behavior reveal a child who is completely cowed by an authoritarian, if loving father?
Or is this a son who trusts his father as his father trusts God?” Fretheim, “God Was With the Boy,” 16.
Also refer to Nicky Lachs, “Isaac: A Psychological Perspective,” Jewish Bible Quarterly 30, no. 4 (2002):
266-271; Schmid, “Abraham’s Sacrifice,” 270.
72See David J. Zucker, “Isaac Betrayed and Triumphant,” Jewish Bible Quarterly 38, no. 3 (2010):
166.
73Vaccaro, “Isaac in Genesis 22,” 320.
74In the prologue, Kessler noted, “For Jews, from at least as early as the third century CE, the
Akedah has been read on Rosh ha-Shana, the Jewish New Year. For Christians from around the same
period, the story, commonly titled the Sacrifice of Isaac, is mentioned in the Eucharist prayers and read in
the period leading up to Easter.” Kessler, Bound by the Bible, 5. In the words of Sarna, “The Akedah, as the
story is popularly called—because of the Hebrew stem ‘-k-d, ‘to bind,’ in verse 9—is organically
connected with the preceding chapter.” Sarna, Be-Reshit, 105.

16
atoning concept.”75 It is also “the supreme example of self-sacrifice in obedience to

God’s will and the symbol of Jewish martyrdom through the ages.”76

In the Jewish literature, Isaac was often depicted as playing an active and very

prominent role in the narrative.77 In Genesis Rabbah (Gen R. 55.1), Isaac was depicted as

an active participant. The account of Gen 22:1-19 was presented as the result of his

contention with Ishmael concerning their devotion to God, to which God asked Isaac to

offer himself to God as a sacrifice.78 Abraham Oh stated that Fragmentary Targum Gen

22:10 depicted Isaac as willingly giving his consent to his father and requested his hands

to be bound, and in v. 14, “Abraham even asks God to remember Isaac’s willingness as

well as his own obedience.”79 A 13th-century Midrash, Yalkut Shim ‘oni depicted both

75According to Oh, many writers though the aqedah has influenced the atonement theology of the

NT, but the aqedah does not surface in the NT as the antitype of Christ’s death and resurrection. Oh
investigated all the NT passages that are connected to Gen 22:1-19 and concluded that “the NT does not
assume the Aqedah.” Abraham Oh, “Canonical Understanding of the Sacrifice of Isaac: The Influence of
the Jewish Tradition,” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 72, no. 3 (2016): 1.
76Louis Jacobs, “Akedah,” Encyclopaedia Judaica: A-Ang, corrected ed. (Jerusalem, Israel: Keter,

1972), 2:480.
77K. Matthews stated, “In regard to Isaac, a fundamental shift occurred from the passive Isaac of

Genesis to the mature, active, and virtuous volunteer, the perfect offering. Isaac’s sacrifice became the
idealized sacrifice, which was especially related to the New Year’s feast or alternatively the Passover
sacrifice.” K. Matthews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, 300-302.
78According to Kunin, “In Genesis Rabbah[,] Isaac offers a limb to God, while in Lekach Τον he

offers himself as a sacrifice. This midrash continues a development already seen in both Genesis Rabbah
and Pirke Rabbi Eliezer, for example, that Isaac was a full partner in the sacrifice (perhaps to
reduce Abraham’s culpability). The same text also creates a further opposition between Ishmael and Isaac.
While Ishmael is circumcised against his will, Isaac goes to the altar willingly.” Kunin, “The Death of
Isaac,” 73.
79Oh, “Sacrifice of Isaac,” 1. For Oh, “The Aqedah has been developed in Jewish literature

granting the power of atonement to Isaac’s death. In Jewish literature, Isaac has an active role in Abraham’s
offering of Isaac. When Abraham announced to Isaac that he is going to be sacrificed, Isaac is described to
be willing and determined to be sacrificed as an act of piety. He does not only consent to be sacrificed
but also requests to be bound (Fragmentary Tg Gn. 22:10). Abraham even asks God to remember Isaac’s
willingness as well as his own obedience (Fragmentary Tg Gn. 22:14).” Oh, “Sacrifice of Isaac,” 1. Cf.
Martin McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis, The Aramaic Bible 1A (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical,
1992), 117-119.

17
Abraham and Isaac as working together very closely to build the altar.80 However, Oh

argues that what is presented in Gen 22 differs “from the theologically enriched

interpretation in the Jewish tradition.”81 It was the disturbing gaps in the narrative that

compelled commentators to provide an explanation.

During the 1st centuries of the Common Era, the role and function of Isaac in the

narrative became “a point of contention between the Jews and the Christians”82 as the

early Christians considered Isaac in Gen 22:1-19 as a type of Christ. Jewish interpreters

like R. Simeon bar Menaisa argued against such claims by saying, “If Christians are

inclined to find Christ in the Hebrew Bible, they misread it because the texts they think

refer to Christ refer in fact to Isaac.”83 However, there are scholars who argue against the

stand of Menaisa.84

80Kunin stated, “One text in Yalkut Shim ‘oni (a thirteenth-century midrash) further enhances

Isaac’s participation in the sacrifice. The text states, the two of them came to the place, and the two of them
brought the stones, and the two of them brought the fire, and the two of them brought the wood. . . . (Isaac
said to Abraham) ‘Father quickly do the will of your creator. Burn me well and bring my ashes to my
mother’ (Yalkut Shim’oni 101).” Kunin, “The Death of Isaac,” 78.
81Oh, “Sacrifice of Isaac,” 2.
82Robert L. Wilken, “Melito, the Jewish Community at Sardis, and the Sacrifice of Isaac,”

Theological Studies 37, no. 1 (1976): 65. Robert L. Wilken stated that the “Christological interpretation of
the Akedah became the classical view of Genesis 22” for the Christians. Ibid., 58-68. See also Wacome,
“Sacrifice of Isaac,” 2. Robert J. Daly has the same view. See Robert J. Daly, “Soteriological Significance
of the Sacrifice of Isaac,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 39, no. 1 (1977): 45-75.
83Wilken, “Melito,” 69. In the words of Wilken, “At Isaac’s Akedah[,] the angels sang ‘O Lord,

our Lord, how glorious is your name in all the earth’ (Ps. 8).” Ibid. See also Spiegel, The Last Trial, 148.
84According to Oh, the concept that the aqedah in Jewish tradition “influenced the atonement
theology of the New Testament . . . has not been proven.” Oh, “Sacrifice of Isaac,” 1. Oh’s investigation of
all the occurrences of the NT texts that reflected Gen 22 yields the supposition false and that the atonement
concept of the NT stands apart from the aqedah. Ibid. Philip R. Davies and Bruce D. Chilton looked at
whether the Jewish aqedah influenced the NT soteriology in his article “The Aqedah: A Revised Tradition
History” and concluded that the NT soteriology predates any traces of the Jewish theology of aqedah
development. Philip R. Davies and Bruce D. Chilton, “The Aqedah: A Revised Tradition History,” The
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40, no. 4 (1978): 514. On the other hand, Kessler stated, “Jews and Christians
need to be reminded that the history of their relationship is not simply one of condemnation and contempt.
There is an additional story to be told of the Jewish-Christian encounter. Rather than simply breeding
contempt, familiarity has also generated admiration and respect. On an exegetical level, at least, Jews and

18
 The biblical portrayal of Isaac as a narrative character is different from the role

and function that the Jews and Christians ascribe to him. His passivity and his momentary

dynamics in the narrative seem to have a deeper rhetorical significance other than the

extended active role given to him. The significance of the passive role Isaac played in the

narrative has not received enough attention. How does Abraham’s enigmatic answer to

Isaac’s fateful question suffice Isaac? Is there something missing in the text or that the

readers failed to notice? What meaning does Isaac’s submission to his father contributed

to the interpretation of the narrative?

Reticence in the Narrative

Often in the OT narratives, the narrator85 deliberately refuses to reveal some

features of the narrative, forcing the readers to remain curious.86 A careful analysis of the

nature in which stories are shaped into a narrative and the strategies employed in the

Christians took into account the interpretations that each developed, sometimes appropriating the others’
interpretations and incorporating them into their own exegetical tradition. Perhaps the moment has arrived
when Jews and Christians will begin to truly realize the significance of a shared exegetical tradition and the
extent to which they are bound by the Bible.” Kessler, Bound by the Bible, 187-188.
85Whileit is best fit to use genderinclusive pronouns (he/she or his/her), for better readability,
masculine pronouns will be used to refer to the narrator throughout in this paper.
86See William W. Klein, Craig Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical

Interpretation (Dallas, TX: Word, 1993), 66-67. For example, Brayford concluded the comment on Gen
22:1-19 as follows: “There is no mention of Isaac’s fate. Neither is there any mention of Sarah; she
presumably never knew of God’s test or Abraham’s willingness to execute it and his son. Or perhaps she
did know, because she and Abraham never speak again. If Isaac had not reappeared later in the story,
readers would never have known that he also came down from the mountain. The parental silence extends
to the father and his so-called beloved son. Abraham and Isaac never talk again either. Nor, in fact, do
Abraham and God ever talk again. Like God, Abraham provides for his family; he will see to it that Sarah
gets an appropriate grave and that Isaac gets an appropriate wife. But the silence among the major
characters testifies to the challenging consequences of subordinating compassion to obedience.” Brayford,
Genesis, 332-333.

19
construction of the narrative become a significant part of biblical interpretation.87 The

narrative in Gen 22:1-19 is told in a few words, leaving many things unsaid in the story.

Labeling the passage as “the most crucial narrative in the Bible,”88 Walton stated that

since the text is filled with questions for which the answers are not provided in the text, it

“deeply intrigued interpreters as far as commentaries exist.”89 Davidson noted that the

narrative is “remarkable for its restrained economy of words, its ability to depict with a

few deft touches a scene almost unbearable in its emotional intensity.”90

Scholars are aware that it is the restrained economy of words that makes the

interpretation of the narrative difficult.91 The reticence makes the narrative infinitely

87See L. Daniel Hawk, “Literary/Narrative Criticism,” Dictionary of the Old Testament:

Pentateuch, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003), 536-
538. Marcos R. Paseggi also stated, “At the beginning of the 21st century, literary criticism is emerging as
a valuable tool in the attempt of scholars to deepen the meaning and scope of the biblical text.” Marcos R.
Paseggi, “Lazos de sangre: Una aproximación literaria a la aqueda,” DavarLogos 1, no. 1 (2002): 44.
88Walton, Genesis, 508.
89Ibid. Kohn also raises concerns on the difficulty of the narrative because of the restrained
economy of words. Kohn stated, “The major question still remains: What happened to Isaac immediately
following the Akedah? Did he leave the scene unscathed, serene, and unharmed from this anguish-laden
trauma? Or is the unreported condition of his state of mind indicative of a problem? From the few biblical
texts and from the exegetical materials in rabbinic literature, we are able to piece together a clearer picture
of Isaac’s lifelong psychological suffering from his early youth and culminating in the Akedah experience
and its aftermath.” Kohn, “The Trauma of Isaac,” 98-99.
90Davidson, Genesis 12-50, 92.
91Wenham pointed out the difficulty of the narrative when he stated that it is “what is left unsaid
that gives it such depth and richness.” Wenham, Genesis 16-50, 108. Doukhan listed a few scholars that
deal with the significance of the silence in the narrative. O. Rodenberg, “Der Opfergang. Gen. 22, l-14,”
Theologische Beitrage 9 (1978), quoted in Jacques Doukhan, “The Center of the Aqedah: A Study of the
Literary Structure of Genesis 22:1-19,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 31, no.1 (1993): 28; Phyllis
Trible, Genesis 22: The Sacrifice of Sarah, Gross Memorial Lecture 1989 (Valparaiso, IN: Valparaiso
University, 1990), quoted in Jacques Doukhan, “The Center of the Aqedah: A Study of the Literary
Structure of Genesis 22:1-19,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 31, no.1 (1993): 28; Gérald Antoine,
Exegesis: Problems of Method and Exercises in Reading (Genesis 22 and Luke 15), ed. François Bovon
and Grégoire Rouiller, trans. Donald G. Miller (Pittsburgh, PA: Pickwick, 1978), quoted in Jacques
Doukhan, “The Center of the Aqedah: A Study of the Literary Structure of Genesis 22:1-19,” Andrews
University Seminary Studies 31, no.1 (1993): 28. Speiser stated, “The evocation of Abraham and his son is
realized on the foundations of barrenness, of solitude, and of silence.” Speiser, Genesis, 165.

20
sensitive.92 Moltz recognized that so much is left out in the story and that “calls on the

imagination of the reader to uncover the hidden.”93 The gaps in the narrative are obvious,

and the creative filling of these gaps was the work of the Rabbis.94 On the other hand, the

missing details which constitute the depth and richness of the narrative95 become the root

of an unending riddle that troubled the interpreters.96 Wenham also noted that

commentators and preachers tend to paint different pictures in their attempts to fill the

gaps.97

A careful study of the reticence becomes significant for the understanding of the

narrative in Gen 22:1-19. The choice of words, details that are chosen either to report or

92Speiser rightly noted that “there is now the danger of one’s reading into it too much—or too

little.” Speiser, Genesis, 165. Walton stated, “There is sufficient emotional drama in the scenario alone—
the narrator does not have to build it up literarily. As a result[,] there is no discussion about informing
Sarah, no exploration of Abraham’s feelings, and no heart-rending father-son exchanges. Abraham appears
almost artificial in the subdued, matter-of-fact way that he moves from one step to the next.” Walton,
Genesis, 511.
93Moltz, “God and Abraham,” 60.
94Moltz explain that “to interpret the Akedah, as well as many other stories in the Hebrew

Bible, one must fill in the ‘gaps,’ uncover those allusions and associations within the text which, when
brought into view, make the text a literary whole. And, in fact, just this kind of filling-in-of-things was
done, often brilliantly, by the Rabbis for whom biblical exegesis was largely an act of discovery.” Ibid., 61.
95Wenham stated, “It is not merely what is said but what is left unsaid that gives it such depth and
richness.” Wenham, Genesis 16-50, 108. Considering the phrase “and the two of them walked on together”
as an inclusio, Speiser suggests that the succinct conversation that the inclusio enclosed is “perhaps the
most poignant and eloquent silence in all literature.” Speiser, Genesis, 165.
96Recognizing that so much is left out in the story, Moltz stated that the silence and the

fragmentary speeches call “on the imagination of the reader to uncover the hidden.” Moltz, “God and
Abraham,” 60. See David Brown, Tradition and Imagination: Revelation and Change (Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press, 1999), 237-260. See also Moberly, “Genesis 22,” 192-193.
97Wenham stated, “It leaves so much unsaid; even Isaac is not mentioned though he has been the

subject of the promises, and no mention is made about what Sarah felt. Commentators and preachers have
often been tempted to fill in the gaps, but in so doing[,] they draw attention away from the central thrust of
the story, Abraham’s whole-hearted obedience and the great blessings that have flowed from it.” Wenham,
Genesis 16-50, 112. He also stated that many questions are left unanswered such as “why does he not want
his servants to accompany him? Is the way too rough for the donkey? Did he not want the lads to see the
sacrifice? Did he fear they might interfere? Was a donkey too unclean to take to a sanctuary? Had God
simply told him to leave them? All these possibilities are open and remain unresolved.” Ibid., 107.

21
left out, seems to play a significant role toward a better understanding of the narrative. A

method that can be used to analyze these features will be necessary.

Overview of Narrative Criticism

Until recently, interest in the Bible as a literary text was lacking in the field of

biblical studies.98 One of the reasons was the way interpreters perceived the Scripture.

Since Christians and Jews regarded the Bible as “the primary, unitary source of divinely

revealed truth,”99 no literary questions but purely religious questions were raised by

scholars.100 The Bible has not been studied for its literary quality because it “has been

98There were literary interests in the Bible to some degree in the past. It is attested in the Midrash

and in the form criticism of the historical-critical methods, but there were no literary studies that approach
the text using poetics. Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (1983; repr., Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 17. One may argue that the form-critical approach of Hermann Gunkel was
primarily literary in nature. While that is true, the nature of their interest in the text is different from recent
literary studies that are interested in the final form of the text. See John J. Collins, “Historical Critical
Methods,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, ed. Stephen B. Chapman and
Marvin A. Sweeney (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 132; cf. Tremper Longmann III
also said that Gunkel’s “use of the concepts of genre (Gattung), form (Form), and setting in life (Sitz im
Leben) are heavily informed by literary and sociological theories of his day.” Tremper Longman III,
Literary Approaches to Biblical Interpretation: Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation (Grand
Rapids, MI: Academie, 1987), 16. John J. Collin stated that the “later practitioners of form criticism often
tended to use the analysis of forms as a way to establish the earliest stage of the text.” Collins, “Historical
Critical Methods,” 130. Robert C. Morgan also stated that “historical criticism changes the focus from the
texts themselves to their context or the history behind them, and the latter [referring to historical criticism]
interest often involves a more negative critical attitude to the texts and its sources.” Robert C. Morgan,
“Biblical Hermeneutics and Critical Responsibility,” in The Future of Biblical Interpretation: Responsible
Plurality in Biblical Hermeneutics, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Matthew R. Malcolm (Downers Groove, IL:
IVP, 2013), 103.
99Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York, NY: Basic, 1981), 16.
100According to Robert Alter, “The one obvious reason for the absence of scholarly literary
interest in the Bible for so long is that, in contrast to Greek and Latin literature, the Bible was regarded for
so many centuries by both Christians and Jews as the primary, unitary source of divinely revealed truth.
This belief still makes itself profoundly felt, in both reactions against and perpetuations of it.” Ibid. He also
stated, “At the same time, the potent residue of the older belief in the Bible as the revelation of ultimate
truth is perceptible in the tendency of scholars to ask questions about the biblical view of man, the biblical
notion of the soul, the biblical vision of eschatology, while for the most part neglecting phenomena like
character, motive, and narrative design as unbefitting for the study of an essentially religious document.”
Ibid., 17. Similarly, Elizabeth R. Malbon also stated that “most readers of the New Testament for almost
two thousand years have asked religious questions. What does the text mean? What does it mean to me? To
us? To our faith and our lives? The answers have reflected not only the different individual readers but also
broader cultural shifts. The time and place of the readers or communities of readers have influenced their

22
read as a record of significant history, a compendium of revealed truth, or a guidebook

for daily living.”101 An aesthetic appreciation of the Bible has not earned the amount of

significance it is receiving lately.102 Robert C. Morgan elucidates that most biblical

interpretations have been “theological interpretation, done by believers with religious

aims and presuppositions.”103 Thus, even though there were admirations for the non-

theological literary studies, it was the purpose behind the biblical studies that kept

scholars away from applying literary methods to the Bible.

Apart from the interpreters and their interest in the Bible, the instability of the

literary method fundamentally disinterested biblical interpreters from employing a

literary method.104 Mohammad Khosravishakib noted that there was an overlap in the

classification of a text into a literature.105 Alter also stated, “Books that were not

answer.” Elizabeth S. Malbon, “Narrative Criticism: How Does the Story Mean?” in Mark & Method: New
Approaches in Biblical Studies, ed. Janice C. Anderson and Stephen D. Moore (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress,
2008), 29.
101Mark Allan Powell, What Is Narrative Criticism? Guides to Biblical Scholarship New

Testament Series (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990), 1.

102Ibid.

103Morgan, “Biblical Hermeneutics,” 102. According to Morgan, biblical interpreters “may well
admire non-theological scholarship on the Bible, but its independence of religious presuppositions may
reduce its religious value.” Ibid.
104David Jasper stated, “Literary readings of the Bible hover between the imaginative and poetic,
and the academic. That is why, in spite of the development of the language and science of literary theory,
they have never quite been taken seriously by biblical criticism emerging out of the demands of historical
critical methods and theology.” David Jasper, “Literary Readings of the Bible,” in The Cambridge
Companion to Biblical Interpretation, ed. John Barton (Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press,
1998), 25.
105Khosravishakib questioned, “If literature is ‘creative’ or ‘imaginative’ writing does this imply
that history, philosophy and natural science are uncreative and unimaginative?” Mohammad
Khosravishakib, “Literary and Non-Literary Texts From Viewpoint of Formalism as Rudimentary of Other
Literary Criticism,” International Journal of Arts 2, no. 3 (2012): 11. Alter also admits that there are
overlaps between the elements of literary text and nonliterary text and stated, “There are, of course,
intriguing borderline cases in which the ostensibly nonliterary text achieves literary force or uses literary
techniques, as in Gibbon’s history, Plato’s philosophy, Freud’s psychological theory.” Robert Alter, The
Pleasures of Reading: In an Ideological Age (New York, NY: Touchstone, 1986), 29.

23
originally imagined to belong to the category of literature, like Augustine’s Confessions,

Nietzsche’s The Birth of Tragedy, Freud’s The Interpretation of Dreams, are read into the

canon and discussed in the same breath—or in the same course—with novels and

poems.”106 Thus, the lack of literary interest among scholars comprises the way the

Scripture was viewed, the theological interest of the interpreters in the text, and the

instability of the literary methods themselves.

Brief historical development of narrative criticism. A shift in the

methodological approaches from the patristic biblical exegetical practices to the Scripture

was prompted by the inadequacy of the current approaches.107 For example, an allegorical

method was a matter of saying what the text meant within an ecclesial context and not

about a faithful exegesis of what the texts said.108 While this approach could retain the

OT as Scripture, the rise of modern philological and historical exegesis affected the

allegorical method’s credibility even within the field of theological criticism.109

In the 19th century, along with the rise of German historiography, a new method

called historical criticism developed in the field of biblical studies.110 Historical criticism

106Alter, Pleasures of Reading, 25. Emphasis in original.

107Jasper stated, “Ancient Jewish hermeneutics comprised four overlapping methods of reading -

Literalist, Midrashic, Pesher and Allegorical.” Jasper, “Literary Readings of the Bible,” 21. See also
Werner G. Jeanrond, Theological Hermeneutics: Development and Significance, Studies in Literature and
Religion (London, UK: Macmillan, 1991), 16-17.
108Morgan, “Biblical Hermeneutics,” 105.
109Ibid.,106. Referring to the allegorical method, Morgan stated, “Its place in performing that
particular task has been taken by historical criticism, but this has tended to damage the witness of Scripture
to the gospel by eroding confidence in its truth, and more fundamentally because it does not speak
normatively of God.” Ibid.
110Collins, “Historical Critical Methods,” 130. Within the method of historical-criticism, Mark A.
Powell identified three fundamental approaches: source criticism, form criticism, and redaction criticism.
Mark A. Powell, What Is Narrative Criticism? Guides to Biblical Scholarship New Testament Series
(Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990), 2. Jerome also noted that “in the history of biblical scholarship, the
centuries after the Enlightenment saw the gradual triumph of a single critical approach to the Bible, called
24
“seeks to reconstruct the life and thought of biblical times through an objective, scientific

analysis of biblical material.”111 Scholars suggest that history is important for Christian

life, and biblical texts themselves invite “historical study and the methods that have been

developed have proved fruitful.”112 The biblical historical-critical methods dominated

biblical studies for more than a century.113

The modern historical research makes tremendous contribution to the field of

biblical studies but at the same time, with their non-theological questions, runs the risk of

discrediting Christian faith and practices.114 John J. Collins contends that “there is no

doubt that the division of texts into multiple layers has often been (and, especially in

‘historical criticism.’” Jerome T. Walsh, Old Testament Narrative: A Guide to Interpretation, 1st ed.
(Louisville, KY: Westminster, 2009), 3.
111M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 2. Morgan argues that “history is important for Christian faith,
and we share well-tried methods, and even some assumptions, with secular readers.” Morgan, “Biblical
Hermeneutics,” 102. According Walsh, “Its goal was to get behind the text to its origins, on the premise
that the meaning of the text was what its (human) author intended to communicate.” Walsh, Old Testament
Narrative, 3.
112Morgan, “Biblical Hermeneutics,” 102. Walsh succinctly summarizes the methods under

historical criticism. As explained by Walsh, “Textual criticism retrieves original working when manuscripts
differ because of scribal changes; source criticism reconstructs older written documents that were
incorporated piecemeal into our present texts; redaction criticism reveals ways in which editors overlaid
their own interpretations onto the materials they transmitted and manipulated; form criticism and tradition
history even promise to penetrate the period of oral tradition that predated the written text and thereby to
allow glimpses of the originating events themselves. And historical critics have collaborated with other
disciplines—history, archaeology, ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean studies—to coordinate data and
integrate interpretations within broader horizon.” Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 3.
113M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 2.
114While Reformation emphasized the importance of biblical text, the Enlightenment emphasized

the human origin of the Bible which is subject to criticism. Collins, “Historical Critical Methods,” 130.
“The common complaint against this entire scholarly tradition (which is still flourishing, especially in
Germany) is that it led to the eclipse of biblical narrative by breaking up the text into its component parts.
Redaction criticism tried to address that problem to some degree, but it still focused much of its attention
on distinguishing diachronic layers in the text. Accordingly, a reaction has arisen (especially in English-
speaking countries) that focuses rather on the final form of the text.” Ibid., 131. “Both historical
responsibility and critical responsibility touch on the relationship between Christians’ and non-Christians’
interpretation of the Bible. All use the same methods, and share some of the same aims, but Christians
presuppose the essential truth of the theological subject matter of the Bible, as others do not.” Morgan,
“Biblical Hermeneutics,” 104.

25
German scholarship, continues to be) carried to excess.”115 Consequently, enough

attention to the text of the Bible was lacking.116 Therefore, in the words of Collins,

“Attention to the final form of the text in recent years is a salutary, and overdue,

corrective.”117

The emergence of the literary approaches to biblical texts was a radical change of

paradigm in the field of biblical studies.118 While historical criticism was obsessed with

the author, the production of the text, and its historical audience, literary analysis shifted

biblical scholarship interests towards the final form of the text and the reader.119 It

115Collins, “Historical Critical Methods,” 132. Collins also suggests that “the common complaint

against this entire scholarly tradition (which is still flourishing, especially in Germany) is that it led to the
eclipse of biblical narrative by breaking up the text into its component parts. Redaction criticism tried to
address that problem to some degree, but it still focused much of its attention on distinguishing diachronic
layers in the text. Accordingly, a reaction has arisen (especially in English-speaking countries) that focuses
rather on the final form of the text.” Ibid., 131.
116M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 2.
117Collins,“Historical Critical Methods,” 132. Adele Berlin also noted that “biblical scholars until
that point had been oriented toward historical and philological disciplines, and literary analyses came as
something of a revelation, opening as they did the doors to new kinds of interpretation.” Adele Berlin,
“Literary Approaches to the Hebrew Bible,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Hebrew Bible/Old
Testament, ed. Stephen B. Chapman and Marvin A. Sweeney (New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press, 2016), 164.
118M. Powell suggests that while literary approaches are distinct from historical-critical

approaches, there is inherent connection between them. For Powell, “The relationship between modern
literary approach to the Bible and traditional historical-critical methodology is somewhat ambiguous. On
the one hand, the literary approaches may be viewed as logical developments within and extensions of form
and redaction criticism. On the other hand, these newer literary approaches incorporate concepts derived
from movements in secular literary criticism that repudiate the significance of historical investigation for
the interpretation of texts.” M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 7. According to Berlin, “Literary approaches to
the Bible are actually quite ancient, but the modern academic approaches and methodologies that are
subsumed under this rubric date from the middle of the twentieth century.” Berlin, “Literary Approaches,”
163. Longman differentiates traditional literary theory from traditional biblical criticism as follows: “The
difference between traditional literary theory and traditional biblical criticism against contemporary for
both is the difference between a diachronic and a synchronic approach. Roughly speaking[,] a diachronic
approach to literature examines the historical development of literature and is concerned with changes over
time. On the other hand, a synchronic approach concentrates on one stage (usually the final form of the
text), regardless of its prehistory.” Longman, Literary Approaches, 22.
119Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 9. “Biblical scholars until that point had
been oriented toward historical and philological disciplines, and literary analyses came as something of a
revelation, opening as they did the doors to new kinds of interpretation.” Berlin, “Literary Approaches,”

26
involves “a self-conscious reading of the Bible in a way that it has not usually been

read.”120 M. Powell stated that historical critics themselves were the first ones to express

their “desire for a more literary approach.”121 As stated by Collins, the paradigm shift was

“both on purely literary and on theological ground.”122 Thus, scholars began to ask

literary questions in search of “internal meaning rather than external (or referential)

meaning.”123

164. Berlin stated that the early proponent of the literary approach “maintained that while historical critics
sought to get behind the text to its pretextual and early textual origins (a ‘diachronic’ approach), literary
critics concentrated on the final product, the text as it now stands (a ‘synchronic’ approach). Additionally,
historical critics assumed the text to be a conglomeration of sources, but literary critics approached it as a
coherent unity.” Ibid., 165-166. Jasper also stated, “A major shift in literary theory in recent years has also
been reflected in literary approaches to the Bible—that is, the change in focus of interest from the intention
of the author and the original context of the writing, to the response of the reader in determining the
meaning and significance of the text.” Jasper, “Literary Readings of the Bible,” 27.
120M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 1.
121Ibid., 3. Moreover, M. Powell stated, “The prevailing sense was not that historical criticism had
failed or that its goals were invalid, but that something else should be done. The Bible was not being
studied in the same manner as other ancient literature.” Ibid.
122Collins, “Historical Critical Methods,” 132. Angela R. Erisman stated, “Literary theory became
popular in biblical studies during the 1980s, as scholars became increasingly less convinced by the yield of
classic historical-critical method, which seemed to focus more on deconstructing a narrative based on
stylistic differences than explaining how it works as a whole.” Angela R. Erisman, “Literary Theory and
Composition History of the Torah: The Sea Crossing (Exod 14:1-31) as a Test Case,” in Approaches to
Literary Readings of Ancient Jewish Writings, ed. Klaas A. Smelik and Karolien Vermeulen (Boston, MA:
Brill, 2014), 53.
123Malbon, “Narrative Criticism,” 30. Walsh stated, “In the second half of the twentieth century,

for reasons that would take us too far afield to investigate, some biblical scholars began to ask new
questions—questions that focused not on the world behind the text, but on the text itself (sometimes called
the ‘world in the text’), or on the text’s effective presence in the contemporary world (the ‘world in front of
the text’).” Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 4. Emphasis in original. Likewise, Malbon lays out
elaborately some of the literary questions such as, “How do various literary patterns enable the text to
communicate meaning to its hearers and readers? How do the interrelated characters, settings, and actions
of the plot contribute to a narrative’s meaning for a reader? The move from historical to literary questions
represent a paradigm shift in biblical studies.” Malbon, “Narrative Criticism,” 30. Such awareness to the
literary details in turn cast biblical authors in a different light. They are no longer considered as cut-and-
paste editors but lively characters. Ibid.

27
 Initially, the interests in the final form of the text is “ahistorical and has attempted

to view the text without regard to its historical context.”124 Literary criticism holds that

the text has coherent meaning in spite of historical criticism’s demonstration that “the

text is the end product of an enormously complex array of oral traditions, written sources,

and editorial manipulations.”125 Literary critics are interested in the text and the readers126

and “tried to read texts as artifacts in their own right, apart from considerations of

authorial intention or setting.”127 The author is presupposed128 and is substituted with an

implied author129 “to elucidate the perspective from which the narrative must be

124The interests in the final form of the text “in biblical criticism corresponds to a movement in

literary criticism called the ‘new criticism.’” Collins, “Historical Critical Methods,” 132. Malbon also noted
that biblical literary criticism has been influenced by both the new criticism and structuralism that “focus
on the text itself—the language of the text and the text as language.” Malbon, “Narrative Criticism,” 32.
See also Berlin, “Literary Approaches,” 166.
125Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 4.
126F.Scott Spencer stated, “Regarding the now familiar triad of author-, text- or reader-oriented
approaches to biblical interpretation, current literary-focused critics concentrate on the latter two options.
Generally frustrated with elusive excavation for authorial identity and intention, these interpreters prefer
the more palpable company of texts and readers.” F. Scott Spencer, “The Literary/Postmodern View,” in
Biblical Hermeneutics: Five Views, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Beth M. Stovell (Downers Grove, IL: IVP,
2012), 48.
127Collins, “Historical Critical Methods,” 132. According to M. Powell, “The New Criticism

rejected the notion that background information holds the interpretive key to a text. It is not necessary, for
instance, to know that John Keats was caring for his dying brother when he wrote ‘Bright Star,’ a sonnet
replete with themes of love and death. . . . The New Critics held that the author’s intention is ‘irrelevant to
the literary critic, because meaning and value reside within the text of the finished, free-standing, and
public work of literature itself.’” M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 4. Collins states “that movement has now
faded in literary criticism and replaced to a great degree by a new historicism.” Collins, “Historical Critical
Methods,” 132.
128According to Spenser, “Still, a text and readers in the hand hardly nullify an author in the bush.
Someone wrote the first Gospel and did not do so willy-nilly, slapping traditions together in haphazard
fashion. Judging from the final, polished narrative product—which recent literary analysis has particularly
demonstrated—this ‘someone’ was an intelligent, careful and purposeful writer.” Spencer, “The
Literary/Postmodern View,” 49. Emphasis in original.
129Marguerat and Bourquin defined the implied author as “the image of the author as revealed in
the word by its choices of writing and the deployment of a narrative strategy.” Marguerat and Bourquin,
How to Read Bible Stories, 15. While it is best to use gender-inclusive pronouns (he/she or his/her), for
better readability, masculine pronouns will be used ro refer to the author or the implied author throughout
in this paper.

28
interpreted.”130 This way, “the interpretive key no longer lies in the background

information, but within the text itself.”131

Literary criticisms. Defining literature is not an easy task, though it is not

without “distinctive character.”132 Literature is an unstable entity133 and there is an

overlap in its classification.134 Classifying a text into a literature or non-literature based

on imaginative/fiction writing versus facts or historical versus artistic truth is not a simple

task.135 Literary texts may be likened to a metaphor in terms of facticity.136 Literary texts

are forms of representation.137 Thus, literature shares some core characteristics of

metaphor but in a larger scale as Luis Alonso Schokël and Jose Maria Bravo call macro-

130M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 5.

131Ibid.
Literary criticism is different from historical criticism in that the unity of the text is
emphasized with its focus on the final form where the text becomes an end in itself. See ibid., 6-10.
132Alter argues that in spite of the overlap, “fuzzy borders do not imply that a phenomenon lacks
distinctive character.” Alter, Pleasures of Reading, 29.
133Ibid., 25.
134Alter also admits that there are overlaps between the elements of literary texts and nonliterary
texts. For Alter, “There are, of course, intriguing borderline cases in which the ostensibly nonliterary text
achieves literary force or uses literary techniques, as in Gibbon’s history, Plato’s philosophy, Freud’s
psychological theory.” Ibid., 29.
135Khosravishakib questioned, “If literature is ‘creative’ or ‘imaginative’ writing[,] does this imply
that history, philosophy[,] and natural science are uncreative and unimaginative?” Khosravishakib,
“Literary and Non-Literary Texts,” 11.
136Luis Alonso Schokël and Jose Maria Bravo reasoned, “Is the metaphor false, ornamental, true?
Taken literally, a metaphoric sentence is false.” Luis Alonso Schokël and Jose Maria Bravo, A Manual of
Hermneutics, trans. Liliana M. Rosa, The Biblical Seminar 54 (London, UK: Sheffield, 1998), 131.
137Berlin illustrates, “Abraham in Genesis is not a real person any more than a painting of an apple
is a real fruit. This is not a judgment on the existence of a historical Abraham any more than it is a
statement about the existence of apples. It is just that we should not confuse a historical individual with his
narrative representation.” Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 13.

29
metaphor.138 In terms of complexity, literary texts could “range from easy to understand

to something that has to be read more than once and analysed.”139

Literary texts usually “are well constructed and take time to compose creatively

and meaningfully.”140 In order to attract a unique mode of attentiveness, general cohesive

devices are used to such a heightened “degree in literary texts that it [the text] becomes a

difference in kind.”141 For example, language manipulation devices such as “strategic

selection of vocabulary, shifts in levels of diction, juggling of syntax, repetition,

metaphorical substitution,”142 and so on are more clearly deployed in certain literary

texts. Thus, high aesthetic quality is a mark of literary text.

At the same time, literatures at least partly “express values that are deemed

important by the culture at large.”143 In terms of priority, Khosravishakib argues that the

138Schokël and Bravo stated, “We may go more deeply into observation of the macro-metaphor

which is the literary work.” Schokël and Bravo, A Manual of Hermneutics, 133.
139Khosravishakib, “Literary and Non-Literary Texts,” 15.
140In the words of Khosravishakib, “Non-literary texts tend to allow the reader to simply enjoy the
texts. Rather than having an intention to teach a person something, its sole purpose is for entertainment.
The main character still may change as they go through their ‘adventure,’ however[,] it usually lacks in
metaphor and symbols. There’s no need to reread any of the text, because there are no layers of
complication rather it means what it says. There could be lesson in the text, most likely a life lesson that is
simple and easy to identify. In other words, it’s more than mindless babble, but it lacks in substance to be
taught in a classroom.” Ibid.
141The purpose of using these devices is that “they necessarily marshal all kinds of techniques to

establish internal links, create transitions, and produce meaningful movement from sentence to sentence
and segment to segment.” Alter, Pleasures of Reading, 38. Moreover, Alter believes that “the strength of
this invitation may be most evident in the way we are led to perceive how the many components of the
individual work interact with one another-recurrent rhetorical devices, like zeugma and catalogs, recurrent
or related images, thematic key words, parallel scenes and narrative situations.” Ibid.
142Ibid., 33.
143Ibid., 28. Drawing from the way literary canon shifted, Alter proposed, “Literature, then,
according to this line of reasoning, is not a fixed entity but a reflection in any society of the values of the
ruling class, abetted by a learned or priestly elite.” Ibid., 25.

30
purpose of a literary text is to teach rather than to entertain.144 It has some intention of

purposeful communication with the centrality of aesthetic pleasure.145 Adele Berlin

defines literature as

a verbal construction of a world, analogous to the visual construction of the world

in art. It may represent the real world (in which case it may appear historical even
when it is not) or a nonreal world (e.g., heaven, Sheol, or apocalyptic visions). It
may represent the real world realistically or not (earlier scholars sometimes
mistook realism, or verisimilitude, for historicity).146

Literary criticism is an umbrella term today that encompasses different

methodologies including narrative criticism.147 Various schools of literary criticism may

be categorized under one or more of the following types:148 expressive,149 pragmatic,150

144Khosravishakib stated, “In the end[,] we can say that literary texts tend to teach the reader some
kind of life lesson through the main character evolving and changing as the novel or short story progresses.
It utilizes metaphors and symbols to show and enhance the protagonist’s (the main character, usually the
hero) adventure throughout the novel.” Khosravishakib, “Literary and Non-Literary Texts,” 15.
145According to Alter, “If any purposeful ordering of language implies some intention of
communication, literature is remarkable for its densely layered communication, its capacity to open up
multifarious connections and multiple interpretations to the recipient of the communication, and for the
pleasure it produces in making the instrument of communication a satisfying aesthetic object—or more
precisely, the pleasure it gives us as we experience the nice interplay between the verbal aesthetic form and
the complex meanings conveyed. It is on these grounds that it is valued as literature.” Alter, Pleasures of
Reading, 28. Concerning the significance of aesthetic in the literature, Alter stated, “I do not mean to claim
that literature is more precise or more profound than these other kinds of discourse, only that it is different
in the way it plays with multiple meanings and in the centrality of aesthetic pleasure to the act of
communication.” Ibid., 29.
146Berlin, “Literary Approaches,” 165.
147Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 4. M. Powell lists different schools of literary criticism:
“Formalism, Realism, Imagism, Aestheticism, Decadence, Deconstruction, and so forth.” M. Powell,
Narrative Criticism, 11.
148This is a system of categorization devised by Abrams. See Meyer H. Abrams, The Mirror and
the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition (1953; repr., New York, NY: Oxford University
Press, 1971), 8-29. It is succinctly summarized by Powell. See M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 11.
149Expressive types of literary criticism “are author-centered and tend to evaluate a work in terms
of the sincerity and adequacy with which it expresses the views and temperament of its writer.” M. Powell,
Narrative Criticism, 11.
150Pragmatic types of literary criticism “are reader-centered and view the work as something that is
constructed in order to achieve a particular effect on its audience; the work is evaluated according to its
success in achieving that aim.” Ibid.

31
objective,151 and mimetic.152 Within these categories, the literary studies of historical

criticism may be classified under the mimetic and the expressive modes of literary

criticism.153 Recent literary criticisms such as structuralism, rhetorical criticism, reader-

response criticism, and narrative criticism fall under the objective and pragmatic types of

literary approaches.154 These literary methods help readers realize the unique genius of

ancient Israelite literary craft by discovering new insights into their literary conventions.

Their stylistic and psychological subtleties inspire readers to an “unprecedented

appreciation of their literary aesthetic.”155

Narrative criticism differs from the other recent literary criticisms in its approach

to the text. With the assumption that fixed law governs literary works, the goal of

structuralism is to devise a “grammar of literature” through their observation of deep

structures in the texts.156 While both narrative criticism and structuralism fall under the

objective types of literary criticism, narrative critics are more concerned about the linear

progression of the story to define the surface meaning rather than “discovering deep

structures that undergird it.”157

151Objective types of literary criticism “are text-centered, viewing the literary product as a self-
sufficient world in itself. The work must be analyzed according to intrinsic criteria, such as the
interrelationship of its component elements.” Ibid.
152Mimetic types of literary criticism “view the literary work as a reflection of the outer world or
of human life and evaluate it in terms of the truth or accuracy of its representation.” Ibid.
153Ibid., 12.
154Ibid.

155Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 4.

156M. Powell stated, “Structuralists conceive of texts as conglomerates of meaning with one layer

of underlying structures superimposed upon another. Generally, the ‘deep structures’ are the goal of
research, for they may reveal conventions of belief in the text that transcend the conscious intentions of the
author.” M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 13.
157M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 14.
32
 Rhetorical criticism holds that the purpose of writing could be to instruct, delight,

move, or persuade the reader and rhetorical critics seek to understand how literature

accomplishes these particular effects to the reader.158 It is a pragmatic type of literary

criticism. On the other hand, narrative criticism is “a more text-centered approach . . .

[that seeks to] interpret the text from the perspective of an idealized implied reader who

is presupposed by and constructed from the text itself.”159 Narrative criticism is more

interested in “the rhetoric of narrative rather than of persuasion” that rhetorical criticism

seeks.160

Reader-response criticism studies “the dynamics of the reading process in order to

discover how readers perceive literature and on what bases they produce or create a

meaning for any given work.”161 Rhetorical critics place the readers over the text162 and

hold that the readers determine the meaning of the text. On the contrary, narrative critics

hold that it is the text that determines the reader’s response.163 Thus, the understanding of

reader-response critics and the use of the reader (the real reader) are different from the

narrative critics’ definition of the reader (the implied reader).

158Ibid.

159Ibid., 15. Emphasis in original. Marguerat and Bourquin defines the implied reader as “the

recipient of the narrative constructed by the text and capable of realizing its meanings in the perspective
into which the author leads him: this image of the reader corresponds to the readership imagined by the
author.” Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 15.
160M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 15.
161Ibid., 16.
162M.Powell asserts that “since meaning is largely subjective, readers are not ultimately
constrained by literary dynamics or authorial intention in their interpretation of a work.” Ibid., 17.
163See Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 7; and also M. Powell, Narrative

Criticism, 18.

33
 In general, literary criticism is concerned with the question, who are the

readers?164 In narrative criticism, both the implied reader and the implied author are

distinct from any real historical reader or author. The critic is interested in the “clues

within the narrative that indicate an anticipated response from the implied reader.”165 The

real author and readers are considered as “extrinsic to the communication act that

transpires within the text itself.”166 Thus, narrative criticism is distinct from other literary

approaches in the way it prioritizes the text over the author and the reader.167

Brief description of narrative criticism. In 1982, David Rhoads coined the term

narrative criticism.168 He defines it as an approach that investigates the formal features of

the narrative, “which include aspects of the story-world of the narrative and the rhetorical

techniques employed to tell the story.”169 A narrative comprises two broad components

164According to M. Powell, “Rhetorical criticism is interested in the original readers to whom a

work was first addressed (sometimes called the intended readers). Structuralism wants to define the
responses of a competent reader who understands a work’s codes . . . [but] narrative critics generally speak
of an implied reader who is pre-supposed by the narrative itself.” M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 19.
165Ibid.

166Ibid., 20.
167Holding the hermeneutical triad as interrelated, Spencer stated that “if we must prioritize, I
maintain that, in their best-practiced forms, literary/portmodern approaches cohere in giving prime
attention to the text at the high point of the triangle, with reader especially (texts do not read and interpret
themselves) and authors (texts do not produce themselves) providing vital base support.” Spencer, “The
Literary/Postmodern View,” 49. Emphasis in original.
168M.Powell stated that David Rhoads was not aware that he was naming a new method. Mark
Allan Powell, “Narrative Criticism: The Emergence of a Prominent Reading Strategy,” in Mark as Story:
Retrospect and Prospect, ed. Kelly R. Iverson, Christopher W. Skinner, and Society of Biblical Literature
(Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 19; David M. Rhoads, “Narrative Criticism and the
Gospel of Mark,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 50, no. 3 (1982): 411-412.
169Rhoads was working on the Gospels in particular. Rhoads, “Narrative Criticism,” 411-412. M.
Powell stated, “At first, narrative criticism was always called ‘a text-oriented approach.’ In secular studies,
this phrase had been used to describe formalism, structuralism, and New Criticism, but in biblical studies it
was used mainly to distinguish narrative criticism from the ‘author-oriented approach’ of the traditional
historical study: meaning could be determined by paying attention to the form, structure, and rhetorical
dynamics of the work itself, without reference to background information regarding what the author may or
may not have intended.” M. Powell, “Narrative Criticism,” 21. M. Powell argues that secular narrative

34
called story (the what) and discourse (the how).170 Elizabeth Struthers Malbon elaborates

the story of the narrative as “the content of the narrative, including events, characters, and

settings, and their interaction as the plot. Discourse indicates the rhetoric of the narrative,

how the story is told.”171 However, story and discourse are not really separable because

“the story is where the characters interact; the discourse is where the implied author and

implied reader interact.”172 Thus, a biblical narrative is largely considered as a literary art

form.173

Narrative criticism as a method of biblical interpretation is now well-

established.174 To discern “how the implied reader of a narrative would be expected to

critics applied their works to novel and not to “the historically grounded narratives,” so they “had little to
no impact on the development of the narrative criticism.” Ibid. See also M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 4-
6.
170Seymour Chatman, Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film (Ithaca, NY:

Cornell University Press, 1978), 19. Chatman explains that a “narrative has two parts: a story (histoire), the
content or chain of events (actions, happenings), plus what may be called the existents (characters, items of
setting); and a discourse (discours), that is, the expression, the means by which the content is
communicated.” Ibid. Emphasis in original.
171See Malbon, “Narrative Criticism,” 32. Emphasis mine.
172Ibid.

173Berlin suggests, “Biblical narrative is a literary art-form. No matter how or when these
narratives originated, they are and always were in the form of a literary (oral or written) communication. A
poetic approach allows us to see them in their essential form—a literary entity.” Berlin, Poetics and
Interpretation, 21.
174Since the time of Alter, only few books on narrative criticism as a method have emerged. See
Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative; Shimon Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (London, UK: Sheffield,
1989); Jan P. Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Narrative: A Practical Guide, trans. Ineke Smit, Tools for
Biblical Study Series 1 (Leiden, The Netherlands: Deo, 2000); Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical
Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press,
1985); Hawk, “Literary/Narrative Criticism”; Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories; M.
Powell, Narrative Criticism; James L. Resseguie, Narrative Criticism of the New Testament (Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker, 2005); Susan Zeelander, Closure in Biblical Narrative, Biblical Interpretation Series 111
(Boston, MA: Brill, 2012). Examples of serious studies done with this method include Judith Ann Streit,
“The God of Abraham: A Study in Characterization” (PhD diss., The University of Denver, 1996); Eike A.
Mueller, “Cleansing the Common: Narrative-Intertextual Study of Mark 7:1-23” (PhD diss., Andrews
University, 2015).

35
respond to the text” is the main goal of narrative critics.175 They assume that a reader who

(1) receives the narrative in the manner that they would be expected to receive it,
(2) knows everything that the reader of this story would be expected to know—
but nothing else, and (3) believes everything the reader of this story is expected to
believe—but nothing more. How would such a reader be expected to respond to
this narrative?176

Through the principles and procedures of narrative criticism, narrative critics attempt to

differentiate expected reading from unexpected reading.177 Alter suggests that the

intention of narrative criticism espoused by biblical scholars move “to a deeper

understanding of the values, the moral vision embodied”178 in the OT narratives.

Importance of narrative criticism. Special attention to narrative analysis in

biblical studies is of great importance since nearly half of the OT falls under the narrative

genre.179 Biblical narratives often contain literature of the “highest order, much of it

written by poets and writers who, though often enmeshed in the particular prejudices and

175M. Powell, “Narrative Criticism,” 23. He explains that “narrative critics typically end up
discerning a range of what would qualify as ‘expected responses’ or ways in which an implied reader might
be expected to respond. In practice, then, narrative criticism allows for discernment of what I call
‘polyvalence within perimeters,’ the perimeters being set by what would accord with expected responses
attributable to the narrative’s implied reader.” Ibid., 24.
176Ibid.

177Expectedreading is “invited by signals within the text itself,” while unexpected reading is a
reading where “factors extrinsic to the text cause the reader to resist or ignore the text’s signals.” Ibid., 25.
178Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, x. M. Powell also stated, “Narrative criticism exposes the
(universal) meaning of the text, rather than simply a meaning that the text may have had in one particular
historical setting.” M. Powell, “Narrative Criticism,” 35. Emphasis in original. See also Donald H. Juel, A
Master of Surprise: Mark Interpreted (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1994); Malbon, “Narrative Criticism,”
40.
179Greg A. King, “Interpreting Old Testament Historical Narrative,” in Understanding Scripture:
An Adventist Approach, ed. George W. Reid (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 2006), 153.
Berlin also stated, “Narrative is the predominant mode of expression in the Hebrew Bible. The longest
block of narrative runs from Genesis to 2 Kings, and there are shorter narrative units such as Ruth, Esther,
and Jonah.” Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 13. Berlin also suggests that “no matter how or when these
narratives originated, they are and always were in the form of a literary (oral or written) communication. A
poetic approach allows us to see them in their essential form—a literary entity.” Ibid., 21.

36
preconceptions of their own cultures, continue to speak with a universal voice.”180 Since

attempts to reconstruct any biblical narrative author’s intention “beyond what can be

found in the text is bound to be hypothetical,”181 a serious effort to understand the

convention of a biblical narrative becomes very significant in order to understand biblical

narrative author’s message correctly.182

It is a general truth that no author or autobiographer can give a complete record of

everything that happens in a person’s life; the life of the literary character is directed by

the author.183 This is also true with the narratives in the HB; therefore, “the interpreter

must pay special notice to the details that are given in the Bible.”184 Narrative criticism

“is a text-centered approach which holds that the text sets parameters on

interpretation.”185 Contrasting narrative criticism against the conjectural inclination of the

historical methods, M. Powell argues, “For narrative criticism, the standard for

interpretation is the intention of the text, to which we have access today, rather than the

180Jasper, “Literary Readings of the Bible,” 31. Bar-Efrat added that “these are of the highest
artistic quality, ranking among the foremost literary treasures of the world.” Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the
Bible, 9. See also Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 135.
181M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 96. Berlin suggests, “It follows, then, that if we are to
understand the biblical text, we must understand the basics of biblical narrative—its structure, its
conventions, its compositional techniques.” Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 13.
182Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 21.
183Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 121.
184D. Brand Sandy and Ronald L. Giese Jr., Cracking Old Testament Code: A Guide to
Interpreting the Literary Genres of the Old Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 74.
185M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 95. Jasper also stated, “By focusing upon text rather than

context, these literary readings of the Bible claim to overcome the hermeneutical problem of the ‘two
horizons,’ that is, the gap between the ancient text and the modern reader. By concentrating on the literary
qualities of the biblical texts, the reader encounters with new immediacy their power and mystery. Like all
great texts of literature, they are seen as both historical and contemporary, as living within history.” Jasper,
“Literary Readings of the Bible,” 27.

37
supposed intentions of the authors, to which contemporary access is denied.”186 Recent

works of narrative critics such as Alter, Meir Sternberg, and Berlin, to mention a few,

shed new light and proved the method fruitful.187

Genesis 22:1-19 is a narrative with a storyteller and a tale and also with a highly-

rated literary quality.188 There are unexpected complexities in the elements of the story

which seem “burdensome and obfuscation” for the reader.189 Narrative criticism as a

method has been developed to analyze each of these complex narrative components

effectively and use it as “an array of entry points for deeper insight and analysis of a

narrative’s meaning.”190 As proposed by Berlin, “Literary works should be analyzed

according to the principles of literary science rather than according to the principles of

186M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 96.

187See Jasper, “Literary Readings of the Bible,” 26. For narrative criticisms done on OT narratives,
see Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative; Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical Narrative; Berlin, Poetics and
Interpretation; Gabriel Josipovici, The Book of God: A Response to the Bible (New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 1988).
188Jasper argues that “the Bible also is literature, often of the very highest order, much of it written
by poets and writers who, though often enmeshed in the particular prejudices and preconceptions of their
own cultures, continue to speak with a universal voice that responds to readings made with literary
sensitivity and imagination, often prompting such readings even when the scholars would prefer to believe
that other and different critical tools will better discern the mystery of its pages.” Jasper, “Literary
Readings of the Bible,” 31. See also von Rad, “Old Testament Library,” 238. Bar-Efrat also affirms that
“anyone who did not pay attention to their artistic form was not only deprived of considerable pleasure but
also failed to clarify their meaning.” Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 9. Moberly stated that while
scholars still follow Gunkel’s interpretation of Gen 22 as an etiology for substituting child sacrifice with
animal sacrifice, it “has been largely displaced by renewed interest in the narrative dynamics of the story as
a story.” R. W. L. Moberly, The Bible, Theology, and Faith: A Study of Abraham and Jesus (Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 74.
189Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 9.
190Ibid. Victor H. Matthews also suggests, “When dealing with the embedded dialogues in the
biblical narrative, these [discourse analysis] techniques open up new possibilities for critical exploration of
the text and the storytelling process.” Victor H. Matthews, “Social Science Models,” in The Cambridge
Companion to the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, ed. Stephen B. Chapman and Marvin A. Sweeney (New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 159.

38
some other science.”191 Thus, as Gen 22:1-19 has been recognized for its literary quality,

approaching it with a method of narrative analysis becomes a necessity.

Recent Studies on Genesis 22:1-19

Modern scholars are still challenged with Gen 22:1-19.192 Even in recent years,

scholars seek to grapple with the difficulties of the narrative using different

methodologies.193 There are few studies that show interest in the narrative elements and

look at some aspects of the narrative component.194 However, because of the difficulties

of the narrative, only few studies seek to exhaust the analysis of the narrative complex

components using narrative criticism as a method.

In Francis Landy’s book, Beauty and the Enigma: And Other Essay on the

Hebrew Bible, he has a chapter entitled “Narrative Techniques and Symbolic

Transactions in the Akedah.”195 In this chapter, Landy seeks to resolve the conflicting

demands of the narrative of Gen 22:1-19 using the structuralism theory called symbolic

transaction.196 He observed that “the two narrative programs—the test of Abraham and

191Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 16.

192Fretheim stated, “While this text long occasioned theological and pastoral problems for

interpreters, readerly anxieties have intensified over the course of the last century or so, not least because of
the focus given to the abuse of children.” Fretheim, “God Was With the Boy,” 15.
193See for example Francis Landy, “Narrative Techniques and Symbolic Transactions in the

Akedah,” in Beauty and the Enigma: And Other Essays on the Hebrew Bible (London, UK: Sheffield,
2001), 123-158; Lindner and Lindner, “The Binding of Isaac,” 8; Wacome, “Sacrifice of Isaac,” 2.
194See Streit, “God of Abraham,” 192; David W. Cotter, ed., Genesis, Berit Olam: Studies in

Hebrew Narrative & Poetry (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2003), 179; Terence E. Fretheim, “God,
Abraham, and the Abuse of Isaac,” Word and World 15, no. 1 (1995); Fretheim, “God Was With the Boy,”
3-23; Paseggi, “Lazos de sangre,” 43-61.
195Landy, “Narrative Techniques,” 158.
196Symbolic transaction, according to Lynda, is a term “for a transaction between two or more
parties in which one or both sides of the bargain is not fulfilled in practice but expressed symbolically. In
this way, the narrative achieves its end while remaining open. The symbolic transaction occurs when the

39
the sacrifice—converge and are deflected along different coordinates, through prolepsis

and metaphor.”197 Landy did not look at the difficulties of the narrative.

Sheri Lindner and Michael A. Lindner read Gen 22 like a fairy tale and argue that

the attempt does not devalue the biblical text. They understand the story as depicting the

concept of maturity, and they conclude that a fully autonomous individual is the highest

achievement of maturity.198 They seek to understand the concept that enables this

disturbing biblical story to endure so long as an oral tradition with suppositions that there

must be underlining structures or inner conflicts within the text which all humans can

relate to.199 The absence of Sarah in the story is explained from a psychoanalytic

perspective. They state that Isaac now enters, and is firmly planted, into the world of

males, so Sarah is notably absent. Though they assure in the outset that reading the

biblical story as a fairy tale does not devalue biblical account, their conclusion contradicts

their initial claim when they mention that the text falls short when read as a “real”

story!200

In the dissertation entitled “Watching the Sacrifice of Isaac: Bakhtin, Dialogism

and Genesis 22:1-19,” Karen Ann H. Wacome used a mixed method of Bakhtinian

dialogic and Mieke Bal’s narrative reading of visual art to study the passage.201 Wacome

narrative is faced with conflicting demands that cannot be resolved except by a logical sleight-of-hand,
such as mediation. A mediating term, according to structuralist theory, intervenes between the poles of an
irreconcilable opposition and partakes of the nature of both; for each, it represents the other.” Ibid., 148.
197Ibid., 149.
198Lindner and Lindner, “The Binding of Isaac,” 8.
199Ibid.

200Ibid.

201Wacome, “Sacrifice of Isaac,” 5.

40
focused on the dialogic interaction between God and Abraham over the issue of

sacrificing Isaac.202 Wacome saw Abraham as silently obeying God while his silence was

also seen as a wordless argument against the sacrifice.203

Phyllis Trible applies a feminist reading of the narrative. Since Abraham was

never projected in the narrative as being attached to anyone, Trible discounted him as

worthy of a parental figure for Gen 22.204 Trible concluded that “Sarah has been

sacrificed by patriarchy to patriarchy.”205 Sebastian Brock also studies the views of both

Jewish and Christians writers of the 4th-6th centuries AD concerning the silence of the

narrative about Sarah in homilies.206 These approaches do not give a satisfactory answer

that is grounded on the narrative, and the question about the omission of Sarah from the

narrative still lingers.

Janice Ann Curcio used the historical-critical method to link Gen 22 with Ezra

and Nehemiah’s reform in her dissertation entitled “Genesis 22 and the Socio-Religious

Reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah.” She proposed that Ezra was, perhaps, the final editor of

202Ibid., 15.
203Ibid., 92.
204Phyllis
Trible, “Genesis 22: The Sacrifice of Sarah,” in Not in Heaven: Coherence and
Complexity in Biblical Narrative, ed. Jason Philip Rosenblatt and Joseph C. Sitterson (Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University Press, 1991), 187.
205Phyllis Trible concluded, “From exclusion to elimination, denial to death, the attachment of
Genesis 22 to patriarchy has given us not the sacrifice of Isaac (for that we are grateful) but the sacrifice of
Sarah (for that we mourn). By her absence from the narrative and her subsequent death, Sarah has been
sacrificed by patriarchy to patriarchy. Thus[,] this magnificent story of nonattachment stands in mortal
danger of betraying itself. It fears not God but holds fast to an idol. If the story is to be redeemed, then the
reader must restore Sarah to her rightful place.” Ibid., 190.
206Sebastian Brock, “Reading Between the Lines: Sarah and the Sacrifice of Isaac (Genesis,

Chapter 22),” in Women in Ancient Societies: An Illusion of the Night, ed. Léonie J. Archer, Susan Fischler,
and Maria Wyke (New York, NY: Routledge, 1994), 169.

41
Gen 22 who polished it to suit the purpose of the Ezra-Nehemiah reform agenda.207

Concerning the purpose of the narrative, the test of Abraham is primary while “any

aetiological function should be considered secondary.”208 Curcio concluded from the

study of the terms such as testing, fearing God, Moriah, and the gate of his enemies that

there is sufficient relevance to situate Gen 22 to the time “of the Second Temple

community . . . to benefit the reform efforts of Ezra and Nehemiah.”209 However, the

conclusions of the study have some difficulties. For example, Curcio argues that the

phrase “the gate of enemies” should be understood as an indication of a single city and as

such, it cannot be located to no other time than the Persian.210 Curcio fails to note that

though the word gate is used in the singular form, the genitive noun enemy is in the plural

form. The gate could then refer to as many gates as the Israelites have enemies. This

phrase does not reduce the scope of the gate to a single city.

In her dissertation “The God of Abraham: A Study in Characterization,” Judith

Ann Streit focuses on God as a narrative character in Gen 12-25 using a narrative

analysis method.211 Comparing Abraham and God as narrative characters, Streit sees God

as more faithful to Abraham, and Abraham’s faithfulness is only instrumental to ensure

his progeny while God’s faithfulness is in terms of taking initiatives in the life of

Abraham.212 However, the focus of the study is on God as the character in the Abraham

207Janice Ann Curcio, “Genesis 22 and the Socio-Religious Reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah” (PhD

diss., Brunel University, 2010), 4.

208Ibid., 10.
209Ibid., 101.
210Curcio, “Genesis 22,” 100-101.
211Streit, “God of Abraham,” 1-230.
212Ibid., 192, 194.
42
cycle; Streit neither dealt exhaustively with all the elements of the narrative nor directed

her concerns with the difficulties of the narrative of Gen 22:1-19.213

David W. Cotter did a narrative character study on God and Abraham but without

using a narrative approach to the study. Cotter was interested to know whether the

character of God changes or not; he concluded that it is both but in a different way. He

admits that at the end of the excursus, he was left with many more questions about God

and His relationship with Abraham.214 Cotter’s remark somehow invites a narrative

approach to the story.

Marcos R. Paseggi tested the literary analysis on Gen 22:1-19 in order to

appreciate the artistic features of the narrative as “basis and tools toward a fuller

understanding of the narrative.”215 He concluded that “the literary method applied to the

aforementioned text could clarify or specify situations and elements that cannot be

understood in any other way.”216 However, Paseggi is not attentive to the difficulties of

the narrative.

Jacques T. van Ruiten did a comprehensive comparison of the MT and the

Jubilees on “Isaac’s Binding (Gen 22:1-19; Jub. 17:15-18:19).”217 It included a

discussion about the difference between the two texts. Van Ruiten stated that the Jubilee

has an addition of the introduction and the halakah in the text which is absent in the

213Ibid., 99.
214Cotter, Genesis, 179.
215Paseggi, “Lazos de sangre,” 43.
216Ibid., 60.
217Jacques T. van Ruiten, “Isaac’s Binding (Gen 22:1-19; Jub. 17:15-18:19),” in Abraham in the
Book of Jubilees: The Rewriting of Genesis 11:26-25:10 in the Book of Jubilees 11:14-23:8, ed. Benjamin
G. Wright III (Boston, MA: Brill, 2012), 209-226.

43
MT.218 The introduction was prompted by the beginning phrase “after these things,”

where the word dabārim is understood as words, which gave a license to add additional

scene in heaven.219 Though there are suggestions that the introduction is influenced by

the Book of Job, van Ruiten argues that since Job is probably written later than Gen 22,

there is no reason to allude to it.220 He is not concerned about the problem of paradox or

passivity.

Stephen J. Stern uses a Talmudic/Aggadic/Midrashic approach which he calls

collagic method and claims that it exposes traditional philosopher’s “search for an

alleged essence that directs one’s search.”221 Associating the collagic method with

philosophies, biblical meanings, and his standpoint, he stated that “both unbinds that

which is familiar and entwines new meanings that sometimes go beyond both the

authors’ and the readers’ (traditional) understanding of this biblical narrative.”222 In

Chapter 4, Stern works with Gen 22:1-19 and looks at the test. Examining Abraham,

Isaac, and Sarah for being affected directly by the test, Stern argues that the test is not

about the faith of Abraham as Kierkegaard proposes in Fear and Trembling but “learning

to take responsibility for the Other.”223 He is not concerned about literary problems, and

218Ibid., 209.
219Ibid., 211.
220Ibid., 213-214.
221Stern, The Unbinding of Isaac, xv-xvi.
222Ibid.

223Ibid., 60. Cf. Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling, 83.

44
some of his arguments and conclusion can be argued.224 The book is insightful only in

terms of exposing the midrashim understanding of the narrative.

In his book A Critical Theology of Genesis: The Non-Absolute God, Itzhak

Benyamini uses critical theology225 to present a textual analysis which is an alternative

reading of Genesis from Creation to the binding of Isaac. Benyamini is “deconstructing

the deity’s behavior, as related in the biblical text, and examining the factors that may

account for it.”226 In his analysis of the binding of Isaac, Benyamini states that Abraham

is usually represented as submissive to God in Jewish and Christian commentary.227

However, he argues that Abraham acts out of retaliation against God, not out of

submissiveness, fear, nor faith.228 Concerning the conversation between Abraham and

Isaac, Benyamini argues that what Abraham said is not a white lie but a cunning answer

224For example, Stern thinks that Sarah departed Abraham and died in a foreign land because

Abraham was willing to take the test. Ibid., 72. However, this is not evident in the text and this explanation
becomes a conjecture.
225Critical theology is “a theology that takes a critical stance vis-à-vis the deity while, at the same

time, seeking to understand what motivates God and what is accomplished, for better or worse, by what
God does.” Itzhak Benyamini, A Critical Theology of Genesis: The Non-Absolute God, trans. Jeffrey M.
Green (New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), vii. In the foreword, Green noted, “Benyamini’s
reading is suffused with psychoanalysis, informed by both the classic concepts of Freud and by those of his
postmodern critical follower, Jacques Lacan.” Ibid.
226Benyamini, Critical Theology of Genesis, vii.
227Ibid., 140.
228Benyamini stated, “Abraham’s action can be understood as retaliation against God. He puts God
to the test. He is not necessarily submissive to the demand, and there is neither discomfiture nor deep fear
here, rather presence: here I am, a mirror image that is directed back at God.” Ibid., 143. Benyamini
opposed Kierkegaar or Leibowitz in their regard of Abraham as a knight of faith in Gen 22:1-19. They
refused to see Abraham in perusal of his personal benefits at the expense of others such as Isaac and Sarah.
Benyamini argues, “Abraham is not a Kierkegaardian or Leibowitzian knight of faith.” Ibid., 144.

45
to provoke God that he knew the power game God is playing with him.229 He concluded

that since Abraham refused to back out, it was God who admitted the defeat.230

Joppi Rondonuwu looks at the episodes of Abraham’s journey, which include his

journey to Mount Moriah, using a narrative analysis method.231 He perceived Abraham’s

journey as a learning method and looks at the three elements of the narrative—the scenes,

the plot, and the characterization—and concludes that the analysis shows that the faith of

Abraham is clearly depicted here and that “God rewards those who pass the test of

faith.”232 It also shows that Abraham had matured spiritually.233 Since the concerns of

Rondonuwu’s are on the theological message of the journey, only the aspect of the

journey was taken into consideration.

Statement of the Problem

The difficulties of the narrative of Gen 22:1-19 comprises paradox and passivity.

These difficulties elicit interpretative issues with the characters of the narrative. The text

had been approached using different methodologies, but only few studies attempted to

look at the narrative features comprehensively, especially with a specific purpose of

understanding its paradox and passivity. This study attempts to contribute to a better

understanding of the difficulties of the narrative using the narrative analysis method.

229Benyamini, Critical Theology of Genesis, 147.

230Ibid., 148.
231The analysis of the journey to Moriah is found in Chapter 4. Joppi Rondonuwu, “Abraham’s

Journey Episode: A Narrative Analysis” (MA thesis, Phillippine Union College, Silang, Cavite,
Philippines, 1996), 83-90.
232Ibid., 83-90.
233Ibid.

46
 Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study is to examine the storytelling technique of Gen 22:1-19.

The study uses the narrative criticism method of biblical interpretation. Likewise, the

study seeks to understand the narrative’s paradox and passivity which are grounded on

the analysis of the narrative.

Scope of the Study

This study is mainly literary in nature; therefore, it does not concern itself with

historical questions. There has been an extensive study on the history of the

interpretations of Gen 22:1-19,234 and a significant number of surveys and comparisons

have also been done in the interpretative history of the Akedah study in recent years, both

in the Jewish and the Christian circles.235 While this study incorporates the

abovementioned studies into the discussion, it focuses only on the narrative features that

are ingrained in the narrative of Gen 22.

The interest of the study is in the final form of the narrative; therefore, a social

science approach is beyond the scope of this study.236 However, text-critical

234As noted earlier, extensive studies have been done on the history of interpretation. See
Swetnam, Jesus and Isaac, 1-243; Spiegel, The Last Trial, 1-208; Kuschel, Abraham, 1-286; Kessler,
Bound by the Bible, 1-222; Westermann, Genesis 12-36, 351-363; Vaccaro, “Isaac in Genesis 22,” 1-359.
235For example, see Beach and M. Powell, Interpreting Abraham, 1-233; Davies and Chilton, “The
Aqedah,” 514-546; Karin Finsterbusch, Armin Lange, and Diethard Römheld, Human Sacrifice in Jewish
and Christian Tradition, Numen Book Series (Boston, MA: Brill, 2007); Moltz, “God and Abraham”;
Tucker, “Sins of Our Fathers.”
236Social science is an eclectic field that includes “the analysis of sociolinguistic, rhetorical,
economic, political, and social forces.” V. Matthews, “Social Science Models,” 147. V. Matthews describes
social science as “an exploration into the world that produced the text. With an emphasis on establishing
both the ‘plain meaning’ of the text and how it would have been ‘heard’ by the ancient audience, social
science methods delve into the human character of the storytelling process. These methods represent a
multidisciplinary approach, taking advantage of the theoretical models created over the last century by
psychology, sociology, geography, and anthropology. In employing these models, its primary aim is to
explore the social dimensions that are evident in the biblical narrative.” Ibid. According to Robert A.

47
considerations are given to variant readings within the passage. A detailed comparison of

the manuscripts is the main focus of this study.

Methodology

Interests in the poetics of biblical narrative began in the 1970s which were

provoked by the close reading technique of the new criticism and by the narrative

theory.237 In the past, there was literary interest in the Bible, that is, to some degree,

similar to narrative poetics such as in the Midrash—the form criticism of the historical-

critical methods and the literary methods such as rhetorical criticism and total-

interpretation.238 However, they all “fall short of being poetics, for they neither aim for

nor discover general rules of composition.”239 Because of its directive interests in the text

as literature, poetics in biblical narratives is a unique literary theory.240

Nisbet, social science is “any discipline or branch of science that deals with human behavior in its social
and cultural aspects. The social sciences include cultural (or social) anthropology, sociology, social
psychology, political science, and economics. Also, frequently included are social and economic geography
and those areas of education that deal with the social contexts of learning and the relation of the school to
the social order. History is regarded by many as a social science, and certain areas of historical study are
almost indistinguishable from work done in the social sciences. Most historians, however, consider history
as one of the humanities. It is generally best, in any case, to consider history as marginal to the humanities
and social sciences, since its insights and techniques pervade both. The study of comparative law may also
be regarded as a part of the social sciences, although it is ordinarily pursued in schools of law rather than in
departments or schools containing most of the other social sciences.” Encyclopædia Britannica, 15th ed.
(2002), s.v. “social science,” accessed March 19, 2017, https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-science.
237Berlin, “Literary Approaches,” 166.
238Berlin stated, “The Midrash noted the formulations at the beginnings and ends of pericopes, the
ordering of certain pericopes, and a wealth of verbal usages. But there is a crucial difference between
Midrashic ‘poetic’ and our own. The Midrash never completely frees itself from meaning, from semantic
explanations of what we would consider to be poetic phenomena.” Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 17.
239Ibid.

240According to Chatman, “Literary theory is the study of the nature of literature. It is not
concerned with the evaluation or description of any particular literary work for its own sake. It is not
literary criticism but the study of the givens of criticism, the nature of literary objects and their parts.”
Chatman, Story and Discourse, 18. Emphasis in original. He stated, “Aristotle provides a precedent; the
Poetics is nothing less than a theory of the properties of a certain type of literary discourse.” Ibid.

48
 Poetics concerns itself with the literariness of the text, not in the literary text

itself.241 It seeks to describe “the basic components of literature and the rules governing

their use. Poetics strives to write a grammar, as it were, of literature.”242 It attempts “to

specify how we go about making sense of text, what are the interpretive operations on

which literature itself, as an institution, is based.”243 Berlin illustrates, “If literature is

likened to a cake, then poetics gives us the recipe and interpretation tells us how it

tastes.”244 Thus, poetics refer to the grammar that governs a narrative or “building blocks

of narrative discourse and structure, and its conventional modes of expression.”245 That

is, “poetics makes us aware of how texts achieve their meaning”246 and forms the basis

for the interpretation of a literary text.

In its broadest sense, any literary work that tells a story may be defined as a

narrative.247 The contents of the narrative such as the events, characters, and settings are

called the story, and how that story is told (the rhetoric) is called the discourse. The

systematic arrangement of the narrative elements is called the plot, and the story “can be

241Chatman stated, “The question for poetics (unlike literary criticism) is not ‘What makes
Macbeth great?’ but rather ‘What makes it a tragedy?’” Ibid., 17. Peotics seeks to construct “a theory of the
structure and functioning of literary discourse, a theory which presents a set [tableau] of possible literary
objects.” Ibid., 18. It mainly aims “to ascertain the compositional techniques and building blocks of the
narrative.” Berlin, “Literary Approaches,” 166.
242Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 15.
243Jonathan D. Culler, Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics, and the Study of Literature
(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1975), viii. See also Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 17.
244Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 15.
245Berlin, “Literary Approaches,” 166. “The study of narrative, or narratology, is a subdivision of
poetics. Poetics, the science of literature, is not an interpretative effort—it does not aim to elicit meaning
from a text. Rather it aims to find the building blocks of literature and the rules by which they are
assembled.” Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 15.
246Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 17.
247M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 23.

49
told in ways that produce very different narratives.”248 Therefore, this study seeks to

understand the way the implied author tries to guide the readers “through devices

intrinsic to the process of storytelling.”249

Based on Eric Auerbach, M. Powell suggests that the depiction of reality is the

subject of literary study.250 The poetic function of any work that assumes a narrative form

may then be analyzed using narrative criticism.251 According to Berlin, Todorov is

“simply and correctly prompting the idea that literary works should be analyzed

according to the principles of literary science rather than according to the principles of

some other science.”252

Narrative poetics becomes a tool for narrative criticism to analyze the different

complex elements of the narrative. Narrative elements such as “characterization, point of

view, plot structure, foreshadowing, type scenes, and various uses of repetition”253 and

248Ibid.

249Ibid.

250M. Powell states that “any narrative that presents such a depiction may be studied as literature
regardless of whether or not the depiction is intended to be accepted as accurate.” Ibid., 94. Cf. Erich
Auerbach, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature, trans. W. Trask (Garden City,
NY: Doubleday, 1957), 72.
251M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 94. M. Powell explains that “there is no reason why many of
the principles found in Story and Discourse could not applied to other genres than fiction and film.” Ibid.
Emphasis in original.
252Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 16. He also stated, “The work is, in its essence, literary, and
should therefore be explained in a literary mode.” Ibid. However, “At some point[,] poeticists must seek to
relate their field to others.” Ibid. Cf. Tzvetan Todorov, Introduction to Poetics, Theory and History of
Literature 1 (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1981), 3-12, quoted in Adele Berlin,
Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (1983; repr., Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 16.
253Berlin, “Literary Approaches,” 166. “More specific points may be the ways that characters are
referred to (often by relational terms such as ‘son’ or by ethnic terms or titles), whether speeches are
repeated exactly or with changes in wording, whether the narrator and the characters share the same point
of view, whether the plot unfolds in chronological order, and other similar questions. Other characteristics
of biblical narrative have been noticed, such as the general absence of detailed description for its own sake
and the reliability of the narrator.” Ibid.

50
also the gaps and blanks in the narrative are very significant.254 Unlike poetic critics who

seek to write the grammar of poetics, narrative critics seek to apply the principles of

poetics on the narrative.

This study is a narrative analysis of Gen 22:1-19. It seeks a comprehensive

understanding of the paradox and passivity, along with reticence, in the narrative of Gen

22:1-19 using narrative poetics as the criteria for the literary analysis. In like manner, this

study seeks to have a better understanding of the interpretative issues that are related to

the characters of the narrative. The different elements of the narrative in Gen 22:1-19

such as the plot, settings, characters, narrators, and gaps, to mention a few, are

systematically analyzed. The interpretation of the passage then advances from the

findings of the narrative analysis.

In Chapter 1, preliminary questions such as the background of the problem,

statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the scope of the study, and the

methodology are addressed. Chapter 2 consists of the detailed analysis of the narrative

elements using the narrative analysis approach. The report of the analysis of each element

includes an explanation of the narrative poetics followed by the analysis of the element.

The elements of the story such as the plot, settings, gaps, characters, and props, to

mention a few, in the narrative are assessed in order to have a better understanding of the

storytelling technique that the implied author employs. This chapter serves as the basis

for a better understanding of the paradox and passivity, along with reticence, in the

narrative of Gen 22:1-19. Chapter 3 presents the interpretation of the paradox and

254“There is also the question of the gaps in the narrative (all narratives have gaps) and the ways

the reader may fill them in. In other words, how much of the interpretation is dictated by the text and how
much by the reader.” Ibid., 167.

51
passivity in the narrative based on the narrative analysis of Gen 22. It also contains

theological insights that emerge from the narrative study. Chapter 4 presents the

summary and the conclusions drawn from the narrative analysis of Gen 22:1-19

52
 CHAPTER 2

NARRATIVE POETICS AND ANALYSIS

OF GENESIS 22:1-19

This chapter confines itself to the analysis of the narrative of Gen 22:1-19. The

following presentation selectively presents narrative elements that are relevant to this

study. Various aspects of the story are analyzed using narrative poetics with the purpose

of understanding the storytelling technique of the implied author.1 Each element of the

narrative analysis has two parts: the poetics of the narrative elements and the poetics

analysis of the narrative.

Narrative Closure and the Scenes

Biblical narrative lacks clear physical markers to differentiate between stories.2

Defining the limits of a narrative is the first step towards a meaningful reading.3 The

1For the use of the term implied author, see Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories,
15.
2In her study of the closure in biblical narrative, Zeelander noted that “biblical narratives have no

physical markers for an end-point and certainly none for ‘end-section.’” Zeelander, Closure in Biblical
Narrative, 19. She also notes that “the lack of physical separators between stories, however, has not kept
readers of the Bible for sensing the parameters of biblical narratives.” Ibid. Marguerat and Bourquin also
notes that “the division of the text into chapters does not go back to the biblical authors, nor does the
division into verses.” Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 31. Walsh also notes that “the
ability to discern the boundaries between literary units and subunits is not a luxury. The articulation of a
text into structural units and subunits mirrors and reinforces its thematic organization.” Jerome T. Walsh,
Style and Structure in Biblical Hebrew Narrative (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2001), 118.
3Walsh states, “Ways of marking the boundaries between syllables or words, for instance, are
interesting linguistically, but not narratively, and the major topical shifts that mark the boundaries between
large narrative complexes, such as the shift from Edomite genealogies in Genesis 36 to stories of Jacob’s
sons in 37:1-2, are too obvious to warrant much comment. What remain are literary units comparable to the
English terms paragraph, episode, scene and the like—in other words, narrative units that function as

53
indicators that delimit the text into the totality of a narrative is called closure of the

narrative.4 It gives the story its beginning and its ending to make a meaningful reading

possible.5 Awareness of the closure in biblical narrative is important for this study as the

concern is with a unit of narrative and not so much with the larger narrative in which it is

situated.

Poetics of Narrative Closure

and the Scenes

In its broadest sense, any literary work that tells a story may be defined as a

narrative.6 Biblical narratives are often made up of several stories that are connected with

one another in certain ways.7 The narrative of Gen 22:1-19 constitutes a unit of a larger

literary work; therefore, the closure of such narrative unit will be the main concern in this

section.

Micro-narrative, also called narrative episode, is “the minimal narrative unit

presenting a narrative episode the unity of which can be identified by the indicators of

closure.”8 The closure of the narrative episode can be identified through certain

subunits of larger, connected narratives or closely woven narrative complexes.” Walsh, Style and Structure,
117.
4Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 30.
5The beginning and the ending of a story are significant elements of a narrative because “this
decision already involves the meaning of the narrative.” Ibid.
6M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 23. Zeelander defines narrative as “a prose ‘representation,’ that

is, a retelling or recounting of events; it includes at least two events or one state and one event that alter it.”
Zeelander, Closure in Biblical Narrative, 22.
7Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 31.
8Ibid., 34.

54
parameters such as “the time, the place, the constellation of characters and the theme.”9

Several narrative episodes linked by a common theme or by the presence of the same

principal character make up a narrative sequence.10 In the HB, narrative sequences may

be constructed around a hero or a theme.11

Micro-narrative is made up of multiple successive sub-units called scenes.12 A

narrative scene is made up of the smallest narrative unit called incident. When a character

is the logical subject of an incident, it is called an action; when it is the logical object of

an incident, it is called an event.13 Combination of several incidents makes scenes.14 Like

a film, successive scenes make up a narrative episode.15 Individual narrative episodes and

its scenes (subunits) of a narrative often exhibit the same dynamic in a more limited and

relative way.16

9See ibid., 32. They state, “Caution will lead us to add together two or three criteria rather than to

pronounce the closure of a micro-narrative on the basis of a single criterion. The difficulty in finding a
second criterion to fix a closure reveals that the micro-narrative is part of a narrative sequence (several
micro-narratives added together) and that this sequence has indications of continuity hierarchically superior
to the indications of closure in the episode.” Ibid. See also Berlin, Peotics and Interpretation, 102. Ska also
states, “In determining the main units of a narrative, the chief criteria are dramatic criteria: change of place,
change of time, change of characters (characters entering or leaving the ‘stage’), or change of action. These
criteria are frequently combined. Stylistic criteria are also very useful (repetitions, inclusions, shift in
vocabulary).” Jean L. Ska, “Our Fathers Have Told Us”: Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew
Narrative, Subsidia Biblica 13 (Roma, Italy: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2000), 1.
10Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 34, 36.
11For an elaborative description, see ibid., 36-39.
12Ibid., 34. In other words, the scenes of the narrative are the sub-units of the narrative episode

(micro narrative) that make up the larger unit of the literary work (macro narrative). Ibid., 32.
13Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 93.
14Ibid.In modern plays, scene “usually consist of units of action in which there is no change of
place or break in the continuity of time.” Abrams and Harpham, A Glossary of Literary Terms, 3.
15Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 34.
16Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 14.

55
 A change of character, place, time, or perspective is the marker of the scene

closure, but it is desirable that at least two criteria converge to serve as an indicator of the

scenes transition.17 Walsh also describes and defines the poetics of the scene as follows:

Obviously, arc of tension, at least subordinate ones, are often coterminous with
scenes. Conventions for marking the beginning and the ending of scenes can
therefore be a clue to the thematic and tensive organization of the story. . . .
Common types of simple scenes include dialogue (speech by one character,
answering speech by another), command and compliance or noncompliance
(orders given by one character and either obeyed or not by the other), prophecy
and fulfillment or nonfulfillment.18

In other words, “when the narrator makes the readers see something else, when he offers

them another overall view or another segment of it,”19 changes in the scene can occur.

Analysis of the Narrative Closure

The narrative of Gen 22:1-19 is situated within the macro-narrative of the Book of

Genesis which can be broadly divided into four narrative sequences: the primeval

narrative sequence (1:1-11:32), the Abraham narrative sequence (12:1-25:18),20 the Isaac

narrative sequence (25:19-36:43), and the Jacob narrative sequence (37:1-50:26).21 The

narrative episode of Gen 22:1-19 is situated towards the last part of the Abraham

17Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 34. For a descriptive explanation of

narrative division, see Walsh, Style and Structure, 119-125.

18Ibid., 18-19.
19Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 34.
20Marguerat and Bourquin states, “The Hebrew Bible is well known for its sequences constructed

round a hero.” Ibid., 36. The narrative sequence of Gen 12:1-25:18 is constructed around the character
Abraham.
21George W. Coats, Genesis: With an Introduction to Narrative Literature, The Forms of the Old

Testament Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983), 14.

56
narrative sequence, and this particular passage happens to be the last encounter of God

with Abraham, which is recorded in the Book of Genesis.22

Genesis 22:1-19 as a narrative episode unit is well recognized.23 The boundary of

the narrative of Gen 22:1-19 is simple. The indicators of closure are clean where there is

an indication of time, a command to go to a place, and a new constellation of characters

in the beginning of Gen 22:1.24 Verse 19 ends with Abraham establishing himself in

Beersheba. Moreover, v. 20 contains an indication of a new narrative episode such as “a

new indication of time identical to v. 1, changes of subject, and changes of character

group.”25 Thus, the episode that precedes the narrative of Gen 22:1-19 is about Abraham

and Phicol, the commander of king Abimelech (Gen 21:22-34) while the episode that

follows is about the report of Abraham’s brother Nahor.

Apart from the parameters of the narrative closure, insights from the Masoretic

tradition also support the observations mentioned earlier. The Masoretes of the late-

Medieval period marks section breaks in the manuscripts “according to the terminology

of the Masoretes by the letters (‫ פ)תוחה‬or (‫ ס)תוַמה‬written in the spaces themselves.”26

22Thestory in Genesis 22:1-19 is a pre-Israel setting that happen within a family circle. Fretheim,
“The Abuse of Isaac,” 50.
23See Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 32. See also Berlin, Poetics and
Interpretation, 102.
24Berlin specify Gen 22:1 as an example of the beginning of a new narrative. She states, “A

narrative may begin with a clause or two which summarizes the whole story . . . a phrase like ‘And it was
after these things, God tested Abraham’ (Gen 22:1) serves as an abstract. It tells, in a nut-shell, what the
story is about.” Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 102. Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible
Stories, 32.
25Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 32.
26Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1992), 51.

57
Genesis 21:34 is closed with parašah petuhah,27 indicating the end of a narrative unit in

the Hebrew text. Genesis 22:1 then begins with parasah setumah,28 indicating the

beginning of a new narrative unit. Next, parašah petuhah is found in v. 19. Thus,

according to the Masoretic tradition, the narrative of Gen 22:1-19 is a unit in itself.

Analysis of the Narrative Scenes

Including the abstract, there are eight scenes in the narrative of Gen 22:1-19. The

analysis of the scene will look at only at the parameters that set up the scenes without

going into the content of the scenes. The discussion of the narrative content is in another

section.

The abstract. Genesis 22:1a is the abstract of the narrative: “After these things,

God tested Abraham.” Brief as it is, the first statement of the narrative has three

significant information about the framework of the narrative which is given here in the

first statement of the narrative: the relationship of the narrative with the preceding

episode, the main characters of the narrative, and the theme of the narrative. The

continuity of the narrative is asserted by the phrase “after these things” in v. 1. It tells the

implied readers that the narrative is chronologically arranged and has a strong

relationship with the previous episodes.29 It is an indication that the knowledge of the

27“A unit in the 𝕸 [Masoretic text] beginning a new topic (a main subdivision) started on a new
line. Thus, the last line had to be left blank after the last word of the preceding unit. For this practice, the
Masoretes used the term ‫פרשה פתוחה‬, parašah petuhah, ‘open section (or: paragraph).’” Ibid., 50.
28“The main textual unit could itself be subdivided into smaller units separated by a space—
amounting to nine letters according to the later tradition—within the line. For the spacing in the middle of
the line the Masoretes used the term ‫פרשה סתומה‬, parasah setumah, ‘closed section (or: paragraph).’” Ibid.,
50-51.
29Marguerat and Bourquin defines the implied reader as “the recipient of the narrative constructed
by the text and capable of realizing its meanings in the perspective into which the author leads him: this

58
broader literary context will contribute to a better understanding of the narrative. God and

Abraham are the first two characters who appear in the narrative, and they are also the

main characters in the narrative: God tested Abraham (v. 1). The framework of the

narrative is a test.

Scene I: The requirement of the test. The first scene of the narrative is found in

Gen 22:1b-2: “And He said to him, ‘Abraham,’ and he said, ‘Here I am.’ And he said,

‘Please take your son, yours only, which you love, Isaac, and go by yourself to the land

of Moriah, and offer him there for burn offering upon one of the mountains which I will

tell you.’” After a proper introduction to the narrative, the main characters appear in the

first scene. The scene includes a brief dialogue where one of the main characters, God,

does most of the talking. The location, time, and background of the scene are not given.

The narrator does not describe the response of Abraham or Isaac. Thus, God is the main

focus of this scene.

Scene II: Abraham prepares and goes for the journey. The second scene of the

narrative is found in Gen 22:3: “And Abraham rose early/eagerly in the morning and he

saddled his donkey, and he took two of his servants with him, and Isaac his son. And he

chopped wood of/for burn offering, and he arose and went to the place which God told to

him.” New sets of characters, a change of time, and a transition of location mark the new

scene. The new sets of characters include Abraham, his two servants, and his son; God is

removed from the scene. There is a time element—“early in the morning.” There is an

indication of the change of place as well. Abraham started the journey to the

aforementioned place. Walsh notes that “the scene of Abraham’s preparation for his

image of the reader corresponds to the readership imagined by the author.” Marguerat and Bourquin, How

59
sacrificial journey with Isaac ends with a departure notice (22:3b).”30 Changes in the

temporal settings mark the end of the closure.

Scene III: Abraham is nearing mount Moriah. The third scene is found in Gen

22:4-5: “On the third day, Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place from a distance.

And Abraham said to his lads, ‘Stay here by yourself with the donkey while I and the lad

will go yonder and worship, and we will return to you.’” Time element and new location

are used to introduce the new scene. It has been 3 days now since they set out from home.

They have not reached the place, but they are at a visible distance from the place.

Abraham asks his servants, along with the donkey, to wait for him and for his son while

they go and worship God. It may be noted that the location where Abraham asks his

servants to stay with the ass is not specified, leaving it ambiguous. Likewise, the place

where he and Isaac will go is also left ambiguous by the use of the word yonder. Changes

of characters mark the ending of the closure of the scene.31

Scene IV: Abraham and Isaac worship God. The fourth scene of the narrative

if found in Gen 22:6-10:

And Abraham took the woods for burned offering and put upon Isaac, his son, and
he took in his hand the fire and the knife, and both of them walk together. And
Isaac said to Abraham his father, and said, ‘My father,’ and he said, ‘Here I am,
my son.’ And he said, ‘Behold, the fire and the woods, but where [is]the lamb for
burn offering?’ And Abraham said, ‘God will see for himself the lamb for burn
offering my son,’ and both of them walk together. And they come to the place

to Read Bible Stories, 15.

30Walsh, Style and Structure, 139.
31Walsh states, “Generally only the two main characters interact; secondary character do little

more than supply whatever is needed to keep the scene running. The ‘young men’ who accompany
Abraham and Isaac in Genesis 22 are necessary (somebody has to watch the donkey!—22:5), but only
Abraham and Isaac are truly principal actors in the scene. The departure of one of the main characters, or
the appearance of a new character, can signal a unit boundary in such cases, even when the departure or
arrival is not explicitly mentioned in the text.” Ibid., 121.

60
 which God told to him, and Abraham build there the alter and set in order the
woods. And he binds Isaac his son and he put him upon the alter from above to
the woods. And Abraham stretch out his hand and took the knife to slaughter his
son.

Change of character group and limitation of scope or change of perspective are used to

set the new scene. The main character is in focus here with the requirements of the

sacrifice to offer to God. Substances that will be offered are in one group (the wood and

Isaac), and all the other elements are in another group (Abraham, the fire, and the knife).

Abraham and Isaac walk together towards the mountain, and they have a very

brief conversation along the way. It may be noted that this is the only record in the Bible

where Abraham and Isaac have a conversation. The scene depicted a father and a son

walking together harmoniously towards a destination. As usual, no more comment was

made about the way Isaac received the answer his father gave him.

Scene IV presented the culmination of the response to the command of God to

Abraham to offer his son Isaac as a burnt offering in scene I. Scenes II-V recorded how

Abraham responds to God’s request to take Isaac and go to one of the mountains in

Moriah (v. 2). Now, Abraham is about to satisfactorily fulfill the command, and no one

can stop him from carrying out what he has come to do.

Scene V: The angel of YHWH intervenes. The fifth scene of the narrative is

found in Gen 22:11-12:

And the angel of YHWH called to him from the heavens and said, ‘Abraham!
Abraham!’ And he said, ‘Here I am.’ And he said to him, ‘Do not stretch your
hand to the lad, do not do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God
because you did not withhold your son, yours only from me.’

The additional character and the extension of the location to heaven marks a new scene

here. The structure of the scene has a unique similarity or parallelism with that of scene I

61
except for additional information in scene V. When the angel of YHWH called, the

location from where he called is identified as “from the heaven,” and Abraham’s name

was consecutively repeated. In scene I, nothing was said about the uncertainty of God

about whether Abraham feared Him. However, in scene V, the implied author informs

that the Protagonist God acquires new knowledge that Abraham feared God because

Abraham demonstrates that he is willing to give up his only son.

The implied author does not explain if the protagonist God in scene I is the same

as the angel of YHWH in scene VII. Perhaps, the implied author expects the implied

reader to know this character. While the angel of YHWH seems to function as an agent,

he also has the authority of God, bringing an end to the quest of Abraham.

Scene VI: God provides. The sixth scene of the narrative is found in Gen 22:13-

14:

And Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw, and behold a ram behind, being caught
in the thicket by its horn. And he went and took the ram and offer it for burnt
offering instead of his son. And Abraham called the name of the place ‘YHWH
himself will see,’ which is called today, ‘In the mountain of YHWH, it will be
seen.’

Only Abraham appears in this scene while the angel of YHWH and Isaac are left out of

the scene. The location is still the mountain. Abraham finds a ram that he sacrifices in

place of Isaac and then names the mountain that reflects his experience.

Scene VII: Blessings of Abraham. The seventh scene of the narrative is found in

Gen 22:15-18:

And the angel of YHWH called to Abraham second time from the heavens. And
he said, ‘By Myself I sworn declared YHWH, for because since you have done
this thing, and you did not withhold your son, yours only. I will greatly bless you,
and greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is
upon the seashore. And your seed shall possess the gate of his enemies. And in

62
 your seed, all the people of the earth will be blessed because you have heed
with/in/at my voice.’

The scene moved back to the settings of scene VII. Abraham and the angel of YHWH are

on the scene while Isaac is out of focus. No location is specified; therefore, the same

mountain is assumed here. The angel of YHWH pronounces a catena of promises as a

result of Abraham’s obedience.32

Scene VIII: Abraham returns to Beersheba. The last scene of the narrative is

found in Gen 22:19: “And Abraham returned to his lads and they arose and walk together

to Beersheba. And Abraham dwelled in Beersheba.” A change of characters, place, and

time introduced a new scene. It seems that the use of a singular verbal form to report

Abraham’s return to the two servants implies that Isaac was not with him. However,

looking at the narrative grammar, the use of a singular verbal form in v. 9 is not unique

because Abraham is the main focus.

Summary of the Closure and Scenes

The result of the narrative analysis closure illustrates that Gen 22:1-19 has clean

closure indicators. Both Gen 22:1 and 22:20 have time indicators, changes of subjects,

and changes of character groups. The Masoretic tradition has marks as well.

In this narrative, the abstract is followed by eight scenes. In terms of movements,

there is a chronological progression in the location. There are four location markers:

home, mountain, the heavens, and Beersheba. Scenes I and II are located at the home of

Abraham. Scenes III is located at a distance from the place God told Abraham to go.

Scene IV approaches the mountain, and scenes V-VII are located on the mountain. Scene

32Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 18-50, The New International Commentary

on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 116.

63
VIII is a short description of the journey back to Beersheba from the mountain. While the

narrator gives a few details on the journey from Abraham’s home to the mountain, the

return journey is relatively very brief.

Plot

The systematic arrangement of the narrative elements is called the plot, and the

story can be told in different ways to produce different narratives by altering the plot.33 A

plot gives us “a sweeping overview of the story and a sense of how the story is

organized.”34 The analysis of the plot seeks to understand the way the implied author

guides the implied readers through devices intrinsic to the process of storytelling.35

Poetics of the Plot

The plot in the narrative serves as the path through which the narrative gradually

progresses. In contrast to paintings or sculptures where one is exposed to the totality of

the view, a narrative is written in a linear form which “affords an author both limitations

and opportunities.”36 The linearity of the text allows the author to control the precise flow

of the narrative as he guides the reader gradually through the text.37 The narrator has full

control of the pace and perspective of the narrative. He has “the opportunity to add

33M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 23.

34Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 13.
35M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 23.
36Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 15.
37Walsh states, “The author controls precisely what I observe, and the order in which I observe it.”
Ibid.

64
nuance to our focus, to sharpen it, or even to redirect it.”38 The plot thus safeguards the

unity of actions and “gives meaning to the multiple elements in the story.”39

The plot is “the main organizing principle”40 of the story. Malbon describes it as

the “‘what’ and the ‘why’ of the narrative.”41 Walsh notes that “a plot moves like an arc

from a situation of (relative) stability, through a process of tension or destabilization, to a

new situation of (relative) stability.”42 Structurally, it orderly and meaningfully

systematizes the events or the happenings of the story with a causal link and temporal

sequencing.43 The connections and relationships between the various units create the

structure of the plot through cause and effect, parallelism, and contrast.44 Thus, “tension

is what impels a plot: What happens next?”45

38Ibid.

39Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 40. According to Resseguie, plot is “the
designing principle that contributes to our understanding of the meaning of a narrative. Resseguie,
Narrative Criticism, 197.
40Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 40. Fokkelman, Reading Biblical
Narrative, 76. Shimon Bar-Efrat states, “If the characters are the soul of the narrative, the plot is the body.”
Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 93.
41Malbon, “Narrative Criticism,” 38.
42Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 14.
43Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 41. Bar-Efrat states, “The plot of the
narrative is constructed as a meaningful chain of interconnected events.” Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the
Bible, 93. “Actions (or acts) that bring about changes of state in the character” are called events. Resseguie,
Narrative Criticism, 197. “The action of characters may bring about changes of state in the narrative
events.” Ibid. And things that happen to a character or events that occur in a setting are called narrative
happenings. Ibid., 198. Forster also states, “A plot is also a narrative of events, the emphasis falling on
causality. ‘The king died and then the queen died,’ is a story. ‘The king died, and then the queen died of
grief’ is a plot. The time-sequence is preserved, but the sense of causality overshadows it.” Edward. M.
Forster, Aspects of the Novel, electronic ed. (New York, NY: RosettaBooks, 2002), 61.
44Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 93. Resseguie notes that “biblical plots, in particular, rely
on cause and effect to answer some of life’s most important questions: questions of origin, destiny, and
purpose.” Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 199.
45Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 14.

65
 The plot is arranged systematically “to arouse the reader’s interest and emotional

involvement, while at the same time imbuing the events with meaning.”46 According to

Bar-Efrat, such effects in the readers are “achieved by careful selection, entailing the

omission of any incident which does not fit in logically with the planned development of

the plot.”47 Thus, the narrative plot bears substantial information about the structure, the

unity, and the direction of a narrative.48 Therefore, “in order to get a sweeping overview

of the story and a sense of how the story is organized,”49 analysis of the plot is a

significant task in the narrative analysis.

Quinary scheme. There are different ways of looking at the elements of a plot.50

The quinary scheme is preferred in this paper to analyze the plot of the narrative of Gen

22:1-19.51 According to Marguerat and Bourquin, quinary scheme is “an established

canonical model by which any plot can be measured.”52 Among other benefits of quinary

scheme, the ability to grasp the effect sought by the narrator is an important element this

46Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 93.

47Ibid. Since each part of the incidents recorded in the narrative contributes to the entire edifice,

therefore, “the removal of one may cause the entire structure to collapse or at least damage its functional
and aesthetic perfection.” Ibid.
48Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 197.
49Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 13.
50For example, Sky refers to the plot as “different moment of the plot.” Ska, “Our Fathers Have

Told Us,” 20. And he listed four moments: “exposition, inciting moment, complication, and climax,
turning-point, resolution, denouement.” Ibid., 20-21; see also Ibid., 21-30. Berlin termed it as narrative
structure and listed six elements: “abstract, orientation, complicating action, evaluation, result or resolution,
coda.” Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 102; see also Ibid., 101-110.
51Quinary
scheme is “a structural model splitting up the plot of the narrative into five successive
moments.” Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 44.
52Ibid., 43.

66
scheme contributed to the study.53 In the quinary scheme, as its Latin name suggests, five

stages make up the plot: (a) initial situation or exposition, (b) complication (action

trigger), (c) transforming action (turning point of the story), (d) denouement (applying the

transforming action), and (e) final situation.54 Locating the narrative complication stage

and the denouement stage is the key to locating the plot of the narrative.55

1. Initial situation or exposition: The initial situation provided the who, what,

and how of the narrative, introducing the situation of the story as it begins.56

2. Complication (action trigger): In this stage, “the dramatic tension usually

begins . . . [with] statement of difficulty, a conflict, an incident, [or] a

hindrance in the way of the resolution of a problem.”57 It is “an element that

sets off the narrative, introducing the narrative tension.”58

3. Transforming action (turning point of the story): The transforming action

stage “aims at removing the difficulty or the shortage or the disturbance

announced by the story. The transforming dynamic can consist of a particular

action or a long process of change. Classically, the turning point of the story

53Ibid.,
47. Dieter T. Roth, “The Boy With Loaves and Fish: Picnic, Plot, and Pattern,” in
Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Approaches to Seventy Figures in John, ed., Steven A.
Hunt, D. Francois Tolmie, and Ruben Zimmermann (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016), 356.
54Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 43.
55Ibid., 46.
56Ibid., 43, 44. For example, see Roth, “Picnic, Plot, and Pattern,” 356-357.
57Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 44.
58Ibid.

67
 usually situated here.”59 It can be “either at a pragmatic (action) or a cognitive

(evaluation) level.”60

4. Denouement (applying the transforming action): The denouement of the

narrative “states the resolution of the problem indicated”61 in the

complication. Berlin termed denouement as evaluation and explains that it

“indicates the point of the narrative—its raison d’être. No one wants to hear a

pointless story; so, the narrator must have ways of letting his audience know

why he is telling his story, why it is worth telling. It is through the evaluation

that the point of the story is emphasized.”62

5. Final situation: The final situation of the narrative presented the new state of

the main character which was the result of the transformation.63 It may also

tell “simply what finally happened.”64 The action ends in this situation;

however, the discourse may or may not be completed.65

Types and pattern of plot. There are two broad types of plot: revelation plot and

resolution plot. When the transforming action of a plot “consists in a gain of knowledge

59Ibid. For example, see Roth, “Picnic, Plot, and Pattern,” 357.
60 Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 44.
61Ibid.The denouement describes the “effects of the transforming action on the people concerned
or the way in which situation is re-established in its former state.” Ibid.
62Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 104-105.
63Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 44.
64Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 107.
65Ibid.

68
about a character in the story,”66 it is called revelation plot. In resolution plot, “the

transforming action essentially involves a doing, and thus is situated at a pragmatic level

(a request of healing, a search of purity, a desire for an encounter).”67 While the quest of

the hero usually consists of both the pragmatic and the cognitive aspects, it is the purpose

they serve in the narrative that decides the plot type. When “the knowledge is put at the

service of the acquisition of a good,”68 it is a resolution plot and when “the doing

becomes the instrument of an increase in knowledge,”69 it becomes a revelation plot.

In terms of patterns, plots can also be broadly classified into comedy plot (U-

shaped) or tragedy plot (inverted U-shaped).70 A comedy plot can be visualized as a U-

shaped curve. The story begins “with a state of equilibrium, a period of prosperity or

happiness.”71 A stable situation is then disrupted by “adversity, misunderstanding, or

rebellion”72 which propels the plot downward to the bottom of the U-shape. A reversal of

the downward curve is triggered at the bottom of the U-shaped plot “by a fortunate twist,

divine deliverance, an awakening of the character to his or her tragic circumstances, or

some other action or event”73 that eventually result in an upward turn. When “a new state

66Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 56. Resseguie also states, “A recognition
plot, for instance, posits characters that are initially unseeing and unknowing but eventually awaken to an
important discovery.” Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 204.
67Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 56.
68Ibid.

69Ibid.

70Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 204.

71Ibid., 205.
72Ibid.

73Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 205.

69
of equilibrium—a return home, reconciliation, new life”74 is reached, the U-shaped curve

is completed which brings an end to the story.

The movement of an inverted U-shaped plot pattern is opposite to the U-shaped

plot pattern. Ressegguie explains the inverted U-shaped plot as follows:

The introduction of a conflict initiates the rising action, the beginning of the
upward turn. The conflict is developed and complicated until the rising action
reaches the climax of the protagonist’s fortunes. This is the top of the inverted U.
A crisis or turning point marks the reversal of the protagonist’s fortunes and
begins the descent or falling action to disaster.75

Unlike the U-shaped plot, the inverted U-shaped plot ends in “disaster, adversity, and

unhappiness.”76 Thus, the movement of the arc determines the type of the plot.

Analysis of the Plot

The analysis of the plot consists of two parts. The first part is the analysis of the

plot using the quinary scheme. The second part is the analysis of the plot type. Then, the

summary follows.

The Plot. The story of the test of Abraham in Gen 22:1-19 precisely embodies the

five stages of the quinary scheme. It does not, however, elaborate the initial situation or

exposition of the plot which is found in the abstract (v. 1a). The analysis of the plot of

Gen 22:1-19 follows.

74Ibid. Resseguie added, “The final state is characterized by happiness and prosperity or, in
biblical terms, peace, salvation, and wholeness.” Ibid.
75Ibid., 206-207. Emphasis in original.
76Ibid., 207.

70
 Initial situation. The narrator introduces the initial situation with the phrase “and

it was after these things” (v. 1a). This is a “vague note of time.”77 Considering the stature

of Isaac who could carry a load of firewood (v. 6), the initial situation could be at least a

decade since he was weaned (21:8).78 Likewise, having peace sworn with an oath with

Abimelech in 21:31, Abraham must have a peaceful moment. While the duration of the

time that has elapsed is not definite, there is a sense of chronological continuity from the

preceding narratives.79 The main participants of the story are introduced here as God and

Abraham.80 God tests Abraham, but the narrator does not describe the reason for the

test.81

Complication. A brief dialogue between God and Abraham in scene I comprises

the complication of the plot. God’s request to Abraham using three imperatives—‫ַקח־נָא‬,

‫ְוֶלְך‬, and ‫—ְוַהֲעֵלהוּ‬triggers the dramatic tension of the narrative.82 Abraham has to remove

the tension of the complication of the plot in the transforming action of the plot by

77Herbert
E. Ryle, The Book of Genesis in the Revised Version With Introduction and Notes, The
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1921), 185.
78Bruce K. Waltke and Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI:

Zondervan, 2001), 303; David S. Dockery, ed., Holman Bible Handbook (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible,
1992), 131; Ryle, The Book of Genesis, 233. Ishmael was 14 years old (see Gen 16:16; 17:1) when Isaac
was weaned (21:8). The brief account of Ishmael in Gen 21:19-20 tells that Ishmael had grown up and got
married. For a better understanding of the initial situation, one needs to look back at the things that
happened leading up to this situation. See the analysis of the temporal settings.
79Seealso to Gen 15:1; 22:20; 39:7; 40:1; and 48:1. According to Westermann, the function of the
phrase is “always to insert a single event into a broader context.” Westermann, Genesis 12-36, 356.
80Details about the characters are presented in the analysis of the characters and characterization.
81There is no strong textual clue on whether Abram knew that God was testing him or not.
However, the use of the particle ‫ נָא‬with the imperative ‫ ַקה‬in v. 2 could have some implication. See the
analysis of the complication of the plot in the discussion that follows.
82Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 44.

71
fulfilling the request. The actions and words of Abraham then become the main focus in

scenes II-IV.

The syntax of the particle ‫נָא‬, copulated with the maqqef with the imperative ‫ַקה‬, in

v. 2 has a unique feature. While the usual translation of the particle ‫ נָא‬is “please” or “I

beg you,”83 some scholars assign “a strengthening function instead of the usual precative

meaning.”84 For Sarna, the particle here means “either that God has something at stake in

Abraham’s response or that Abraham is free to decline it.”85 Following the word ‫ ִה ֵנּ ֽנִי‬in

22:1, Thomas O. Lambdin understands it as a logical consequence and that would mean

“since you are ready to obey me, take your son.”86 Reference to the particle ‫ נָא‬copulated

with the imperative verb, and with God as the source of the command, is also found in

Gen 13:14; Gen 15:5; Exod 11:2; Isa 7:3.87 These verses do not contain a strong

command but they have a polite request or an attempt to entice the other to cooperate.88

83Jon L. Dybdahl also noted and states, “The divine command is softened by a rare particle of
entreaty (“please”) that is not reflected in the translation of the NKJV.” Jon L. Dybdahl, ed., Andrews Study
Bible Notes (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2010), 32. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis,
101.
84See Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, 101 It is considered as “part. of entreaty or exhortation, I
(we) pray, now (enclitic).” Francis Brown, with S. R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English
Lexicon of the Old Testament With an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic, based on the lexicon of
William Gesenius (1952), s.v. “‫נָא‬.”
85Sarna, Be-Reshit, 151.
86Waltke and Fredricks, Genesis, 305.
87Victor P. Hamilton also notes that the particle -na “which occurs more than sixty times in
Genesis, is used only five times in the entire OT when God speaks to a person.” Hamilton, The Book of
Genesis, 101.
88See also Moberly, Bible, Theology, and Faith, 78. See also Gen 33:11; 1Sam 9:3; 17:17; 26:11;
1Kgs 17:10, 11; 2Kgs 5:15; 7:13; and Jonah 4:3. These verses also contain the phrase ‫ַקח־נָא‬, but in no way
convey a strong command. Genesis 33:11 is especially interesting. As Jacob tries to make peace with his
brother Esau, he begs him to accept his gift using this phrase, which is in no way a strong command. The
verse concludes with narrator’s comment, “So he urged him, and he took it.”

72
Accordingly, this study employs the term request over the term command to describe

what God asks Abraham to do in the complication of the plot.

The construction of the objects of the imperative is also unique. Three direct

object markers identify the object of the imperative verbal phrase ‫ַקח־נָא‬. Presupposing the

expulsion and the disinheritance of Ishmael in 21:8-14, an elaborative description of

Isaac has a unique nuance.89 Hamilton notes, “The stacking up of three direct objects

after the imperative ‘take,’ each of which is preceded by the accusative indicator ʾeṯ-,

slows down the reading of the verse and accentuates the solemnity of the divine

imperative.”90 The elaborate description “drives home the enormity of God’s request.”91

It was noted earlier that the initial situation of the narrative is described with a

“vague note of time.”92 In the complication of the plot, while God’s request of Abraham

is specifically described, why God tested Abraham is not mentioned and the location

where Abraham should go is vaguely described as one of the mountains in Moriah. The

specific location of the mountain is never indeed revealed in the narrative, except for

Abraham naming it ‫י ְהָוה י ְִרֶאה‬. The reason for the test could be found only in the

89ScottHahn and Curtis Mitch, Genesis: With Introduction, Commentary, and Notes, Revised
standard version and second Catholic ed., Ignatius Catholic Study Bible (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius,
2010), 44.
90Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, 102.
91Sidney Greidanus, Preaching Christ From Genesis: Foundations for Expository Sermons (Grand

Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 196. Sidney also noted that “this character description of ‘your son, your
only son’ is repeated at the climax of the narrative (v. 12) as well as at its conclusion (v. 16).” Ibid. Waltke
and Fredricks also share similar idea as they stated, “The word son is repeated throughout the account
(22:2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16). The emphasis is inescapable. Abraham faces a monumental test.”
Waltke and Fredricks, Genesis, 305. Emphasis in original. Robert Alden comments, “The expression
‘mourning as for an only son’ (Jer. 6:26; Amos 8:10; Zech. 12:10 [cf. Judg. 11:34]) relates death and the
end of the family line, therefore the death of the son signifies a terrible catastrophe.” R. Alden, “yāḥîd,”
New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, ed. Willem VanGemeren (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997), 2:435.
92Ryle, The Book of Genesis, 185.

73
denouement of the plot, and it was for Abraham to demonstrate that he fears God. The

crux of the complication is the quest for someone to know the heart of Abraham (v. 12).

It falls on Abraham to decide between sacrificing his only son Isaac, whom he loves, as a

burnt offering to God or turning down God’s request.

Transforming action. Without further elaboration of the complication of the plot,

the narrative immediately moves on to the transforming action starting from scene II. The

transforming dynamic consists of a long process of change which goes on untill scene IV.

The transforming action of the plot shows how Abraham fulfills the command to take, go,

and offer.

In response to the verbal request ‫ַקח־נָא‬, “please take” found in the complication of

the plot, there are five ‫( ַויּ ִַקּח‬consecutive imperfect) verbs that describe Abraham’s actions

in the narrative.93 Four of them appear in the transforming action of the plot. Abraham

“took two of his servants with him, and Isaac his son” (v. 3); “he took the wood for the

burnt offering and put upon Isaac, his son, and he took in his hand the fire and the knife

in his hand” (v. 6); and finally, he “took the knife to slaughter his son” (v. 10). Outside of

the transforming action of the plot section, the verb took is used again in v. 13 when

Abraham took the ram that was caught in the thicket and sacrificed it in place of his son.

In response to the verbal request ‫ֶלְך‬, “go” found in the complication of the plot,

the root word ‫ הלכ‬occurs six times that describes Abraham’s actions in the narrative. Four

of them appear in the transforming action of the plot. After Abraham took two of his

servants and his son Isaac, he ‫( ַויּ ָָקם‬consecutive imperfect), “arose” and ‫( ַויּ ֵֶלְך‬consecutive

93“In the context of Hebrew narrative, the consecutive Imperfect is normally used for the past

tense narrative sequence. In other words, when an author wanted to write about a series of actions in the
past, he would use the Imperfect with Waw Consecutive.” Gary D. Pratico and Miles V. Van Pelt, Basics of
Biblical Hebrew Grammar, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007), 198.
74
imperfect), “went” “to the place God had told to him” (v. 3). In v. 5, Abraham told his

servants that he and the boy (Isaac) would ‫( נְֵלָכה‬qal imperfect), “return” after they

worship God. In vv. 6 and 8, the verb ‫( ַויּ ְֵלכוּ‬consecutive imperfect), “went” occurs

describing Abraham and Isaac walking together. Outside of the transforming action of the

plot section, the verb go occurs again when Abraham went to get the ram caught in the

thicket (v. 13) and when they went home to Beersheba (v. 19).

In response to the verbal request ‫ְוַהֲעֵלהוּ‬, “offer him” found in the complication of

the plot, the verb ‫העל‬, “the ram” occurs only once in the narrative but it appears outside of

the transforming action of the plot section (v. 13). While the request of God is for

Abraham to offer Isaac as the burnt offering, Abraham offers the ram in place of Isaac.

There are, however, seven complementary actions that directly connect with the request

to offer. Abraham ‫ַוי ְַבַקּע‬, “split” the wood for the burnt offering in v. 3. When they

reached the mountain in v. 9, Abraham ‫ַו ֙יּ ִֶבן‬, “built” an altar there and ‫ ַֽויּ ֲַע ֖ר ְֹך‬, “arranged”

the wood. He ‫ ַו ֽיּ ֲַעק ֹד‬, “binds” Isaac and ‫שׂם‬

ֶ ֤‫ַוָיּ‬, “sets” him on top of the wood. In v. 10, he

‫שׁ ַ ֤לח‬
ְ ִ ‫ַויּ‬, “stretches out” his hand to ‫שׁ ֖ח ֹט‬
ְ ‫ִל‬, “slaughter” his son Isaac. Abraham finally offers

the ram that was caught in the thicket in place of Isaac in v. 13, and the angel of YHWH

declares Abraham as ‫שְׂכָתּ ֶאת־ִבּנְָך‬

ַ ‫וֹלא ָח‬, “not withheld your son” in v. 12.

In addition to Abraham’s response to the verbal request of God through his

actions, Abraham said things in the transforming action of the plot that appears to deviate

from the complication of the plot. The root word ‫ אמר‬occurs sixteen times in the

narrative; in the form of ‫ַויּא ֶֹמר‬, the verb occurs thirteen times. Out of these occurrences, it

75
is used five times in reference to Abraham.94 It is used three times before Abraham

responds with the word ‫ ִהנֵּנִי‬to God (v. 1), to Isaac (v. 7), and the angel of YHWH (v. 11).

Two other times, the verb ‫ ַויּא ֶֹמר‬introduces Abraham’s speeches which seem to

digress from the complication of the plot. The first occurs in v. 5 when Abraham said to

his servant, “Stay here by yourself with the donkey while I and the lad will go yonder and

worship, and we will return to you.” While Abraham was supposed to offer Isaac as a

burnt offering (v. 2), Abraham said that both he and Isaac would worship God on the

mountain and come back (v. 5). The sense of Abraham’s words is different from what

God told him in v. 2 because if Abraham sacrificed Isaac as a burnt offering (v 2), he

would return alone at the end of the worship. Thus, telling his servants that they would

return to them after they worship God in v. 5 is a digression from the request of God in v.

2. The second occurrence is in v. 8 when Abraham answers Isaac. Abraham said, “God

will see for himself the lamb for burn offering my son,” which is another digression from

what God requested him in v. 2.95 It is difficult to say at this stage whether Abraham’s

94The other times, it is used with God twice (vv. 1, 2), with Isaac three times (v. 7), and also three
times with the Angel of YHWH (vv. 11, 12, 16). God calls and command Abraham, Isaac calls Abraham
and asks question, the Angel of YHWH calls Abraham, commands, and then pronounce blessings later.
95Some scholars noted that the word/phrase my son in v. 8 could be translated as either an
appositional (identifying Isaac as the lamb) or vocative (a customary use). See K. Matthews, Genesis
11:27-50:26, 294; see also, Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, 110. I prefer the vocative use of the word for
the following reasons. To interpret the word/phrase my son in v. 8 as an appositional to the phrase the lamb
for burnt offering is force because the grammar and the context does not support such interpretation. The
used of the simple/basic imperfect verb without the conversive vav prefix in v. 8 indicates that Abraham is
talking about a lamb that God has not yet provided to him at the time of his speaking, meaning, he is not
referring to Isaac who is already been given to Abraham. Contextually, the close relationship between
Abraham and Isaac is elaboratively described in v. 2, and the frequent used of the vocatives (‘abi, beni) in
vv. 7-8 carries the mood of v. 2 strongly suggests that the beni at the end of Abraham’s answer in v. 8 is
used as a vocative. The fact that Isaac is a gift from God does not necessarily warrant the interpretation that
the beni in v. 8 is used as an appositional to the lamb. It may be best considered as an expression of his
belief. The analysis of the point of views on the transforming action of the plot and the analysis of the gaps
in the transforming action of the plot both support the vocative use of the word/phrase beni in v. 8. For a
detailed discussion, see the analysis of the point of view (scene IV to VI) and the analysis of the gaps in
chapter 2.

76
words should be trusted without the direct comments about either the motives of God (v.

2) or Abraham (vv. 5, 8) from the narrator. It may, however, be noted that what Abraham

said in vv. 5 and 8 are coherent.

Abraham, however, continues to act in vv. 9-10 just as God requested him (v. 2)

despite all the things he said in vv. 5 and 8. Apart from the first verb (‫ )ַויּ ָב ֹאוּ‬that reports

the arrival of Abraham and Isaac on the mountain and one Qal infinitive verb (‫שׁח ֹט‬
ְ ‫ )ִל‬that

describes Abraham’s intention, all the other action verbs in vv. 9-10 are in the third

masculine singular form of verbs referring to Abraham’s actions.96 In v. 9, Abraham

reached the mountain God had told him, prepared the altar and bound Isaac; the only

thing that remained was to offer him as a burnt offering. Considering the situation at this

moment, Abraham was all alone on the mountain with Isaac bound and without any help

in sight. In v. 10, he took the knife with an intention, as the Qal infinitive construct ‫שׁח ֹט‬
ְ ‫ִל‬

suggests, to kill Isaac.97 Based on the abovementioned observations, the actions of

Abraham in the transforming action of the plot then triggers the turning point in the story

that leads to the denouement of the plot.98 However, the narrator still keeps the tension

between Abraham’s words (vv. 5, 8) and his actions (vv. 9-10) which seem to be in

96Itmay be noted that all the action verbs that are in vv. 3, 4, and 6 are also in the third masculine
singular verbs. The same may not be expected in vv. 5, 7, and 8 because they recorded the conversation
between Abraham and his servant (v. 5) and Isaac (vv. 7-8).
97TheQal Infinitive Construct verb with ‫ ְל‬preposition function as the purpose clause. Pratico and
Van Pelt noted, “Purpose, Intention, or Result. When prefixed with the preposition ‫ְל‬, the Infinitive
Construct may denote purpose, intention or result.” Pratico and Van Pelt, Basics of Biblical Hebrew
Grammar, 243. See also Bruce K. Waltke and Michael P. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew
Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 606.
98Concerning the transforming action, Marguerat and Bourquin state, “Classically, the turning
point of the story is situated here.” Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 44.

77
contradiction. The denouement sheds more light as it contains the closures for Abraham’s

enigmatic words.

Denouement. Abraham’s deeds in the transforming action of the plot lead to the

resolution of the plot in scenes V and VI.99 The angel of YHWH intervenes and calls

Abraham’s name twice in scene V.100 God calls Abraham just once in the complication of

the plot. Considering the situation of Abraham, the repetition connotes urgency of the call

with an intention to interrupt Abraham who is at the verge of killing his son.101 After

Abraham answers in his usual way (‫)ִה ֵנּ ֽנִי‬, the angel of YHWH gives command that

negates (‫שַׁלח‬
ְ ‫ אַל־ִתּ‬and ‫ )אַל־ַתַּעשׂ‬Abraham’s immanent action in v. 10 (‫שׁ ֖ח ֹט‬
ְ ‫ )ִל‬that is in

accordance with God’s request to offer Isaac as a burnt offering (‫שׁ֙ם ְלע ָֹ֔לה‬
ָ ‫ )ְוַהֲע ֵ ֤להוּ‬in the

complication of the plot in v. 2. The use of the negative particle ‫ אַל‬in this context denotes

immediate prohibition.102

99The denouement is “symmetrical with the complication” of the plot. Ibid. In the case of the
narrative of Gen 22:1-19, the denouement is more emphatic than the complication of the plot, and it has
additional details.
100The identity of the angel of YHWH will be dealt with in the analysis of the character. For now,

it may suffice to say that Abraham listens and obeys him just as he obeys God. The narrator supports this
idea.
101Hamilton also states, “The urgency with which the messenger speaks is indicated by the

repetition of the name: Abraham! Abraham! Cf. ‘Moses, Moses’ (Exod. 3:4),53 ‘Samuel, Samuel’ (1 Sam.
3:4), ‘Saul, Saul’ (Acts 9:4). In three of these instances either Yahweh’s messenger (Gen. 22:11), or God
(Exod. 3:4), or simply a voice (Acts 9:4; cf. 22:7; 26:14) speaks in order to stop an action the person is
about to do (plunge a knife into a son, profane sacred ground with shoes, arrest Christians in Damascus).
The messenger’s words are clearly intended to make Abraham desist from what God had earlier
commanded.” Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, 111-112. “The repetitive ‘Abraham, Abraham!’ marks this
as the turning point of the story; now that the test has accomplished its purpose, the story line reverses the
threat to the boy. The fervency of the heavenly command is expressed by the emphatic ‘Abraham!’ twice
and the interruptive ‘do not lay a hand’ (v. 12); the latter reverses the lethal action ‘he reached out his hand’
(v. 10a). The urgency of the interdiction is magnified by its inclusiveness: do not do ‘anything’ against the
lad.” K. Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, 296. “The angel of the LORD once again speaks for God at a
crucial moment. The repetition and the differences with the original commission to sacrifice Isaac are
instructive.” Paul Kissling, “Genesis,” The College Press NIV Commentary (Joplin, MO: College, 2009),
2:195. Sarna, Be-Reshit, 153.
102“Prohibition—typically negates imperatival forms to denote a specific or immediate
prohibition: ‫שָׂרֵאל‬
ְ ִ ‫שַׂמח י‬
ְ ‫אַל־ִתּ‬, “Do not rejoice, O Israel” (Hos 9:1).” Bill T. Arnold and John H. Choi, A
78
 The reason for the prohibition immediately follows the prohibitive commands

using ‫ ִכּי‬particle to introduce the causal clause “for now I know” in Gen 22:12.103 An

evidential clause complements the causal clause by presenting the motivation behind the

causal clause using another ‫ ִכּי‬particle to introduce the evidential clause: that you fear

God.104 Finally, a further clarification follows the evidential clause using an epexegetical

or explicative ‫ ו‬to introduce the epexegetical clause: since “you did not withhold your

son, yours only from me” (v. 12).105

The causal clause provides the closure for the motivation of the test that was

missing in the complication of the plot. The reason for the test, according to the words of

the angel of YHWH, is for Abraham to show that he fears God. The intervention of the

angel of YHWH also makes it clear that God’s request to offer Isaac as a burnt offering is

only a means through which Abraham may show that he fears God.106 Since Abraham

has shown enough evidence that he obeys God through his actions in the transforming

Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 130. Emphasis in
original. See also Ronald J. Williams and John C. Beckman, Williams’ Hebrew Syntax (Toronto, Canada:
University of Toronto Press, 2007), 79.
103Emphasis mine. Arnold and Choi identify one of the uses of the ‫ ִכּי‬particle as a causal clause
where it “forms a causal link between two clauses, introducing the reason an action or situation takes place,
or providing the motivation for why something should be done.” Arnold and Choi, Biblical Hebrew Syntax,
149; Williams and Beckman, Williams’ Hebrew Syntax, 156.
104The evidential clause is one of the uses of the ‫ ִכּי‬particle. Arnold and Choi stated, “Although
translated similarly to the causal, the evidential use of ‫ ִכּי‬presents the evidence or motivation that lies
behind a statement, rather than presenting the cause of an action or situation.” Arnold and Choi, Biblical
Hebrew Syntax, 143. Using Gen 22:12 as an example, Williams and Beckman identify the used of the ‫ִכּי‬
particle as nominalizing, which should be translated as “that.” Williams and Beckman, Williams’ Hebrew
Syntax, 159.
105Arnold and Choi, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 147. Williams and Beckman, Williams’ Hebrew
Syntax, 154.
106“Abraham is the incontestable paradigm of the truly “God-fearing” man, one who is
wholehearted in his self-determined, disinterested, self-surrender to God’s will. It is not important that the
act was unfulfilled, for the value of the act may lie as much in the inward intention of the doer as in the
final execution.” Sarna, Be-Reshit, 153.

79
action of the plot, as the epexegetical clause suggests, the angel of YHWH declares that

Abraham passes the test.

In scene VI, Abraham discovered a ram caught in the thickets by its horn. He

went (‫)הלך‬, took (‫ )לקה‬the ram, and offered (‫ )עלה‬it as a burnt offering in place of his son.

The intervention of the angel of YHWH in scene V made it possible for Isaac to worship

with Abraham, not as the one being sacrificed. Abraham’s naming of the place as the

Lord will provide (‫ )י ְהָוה י ְִרֶאה‬denotes that he “interprets the fortuitous presence of the

ram”107 as the provision of God. Just as Abraham said in v. 5, he now worships with

Isaac, and that is possible because the Lord provides for Himself the burnt offering just as

Abraham told Isaac in v. 8. Scene VI provides closure for the words of Abraham in the

transforming action of the plot (vv. 5, 8).

The intervention of the angel of YHWH in scene V states the resolution of the

problem indicated in the complication of the plot because Abraham has shown that he

fears God through his actions in the transforming action of the plot. Scene VI provides

closure for the enigmatic words of Abraham in the transforming action of the plot (vv. 5,

8). The denouement of the plot then leads to the final situation of the plot.

Final situation. The angel of YHWH appears for the second time in scene VII to

declare the new state of Abraham. The narrative emphasizes the role that Abraham’s

obedience plays to bring about the new state by using the causal clauses to encapsulate

the blessings of Abraham. Three particles which could be translated as “because”108

107Ibid.

108Williams and Beckman noted that the three participles together can begin a causal clause. In this
case, the translation suggested is “because.” Williams and Beckman, Williams’ Hebrew Syntax, 189.

80
emphatically introduces the first causal clause in v. 16: a particle conjunction ‫ִכּי‬,109 a

particle adverb ‫י ַַען‬,110 and a relative particle ‫שׁר‬

ֶ ‫ ֲא‬which is often used to introduce a causal

clause.111 The angel of YHWH declares the new state of Abraham in vv. 17-18a. Two

ֶ ‫)ֵעֶקב ֲא‬112 then introduce the causal clause that closes the scene
successive participles (‫שׁר‬

in v. 18b. The first causal clause states what Abraham did in the transforming action of

the plot and the last causal clause interprets Abraham’s deeds as obedience to God’s

voice. The narrative gives great emphasis on the obedience of Abraham.

The style of pronouncing the blessings of Abraham is unique. The angel of

YHWH delivers the message with what is later known as the formula of prophetic oracle

which is introduced with a solemn oath by YHWH Himself.113 While the request of God

in the complication of the plot threatens the progeny of Abraham through Isaac, the final

situation reestablishes with a divine oath as the consequence of Abraham’s obedience in

the transforming action of the plot.

In scene VIII, Abraham and Isaac returned to the servant just as he said in v. 5,

and they went back to Beersheba where Abraham settled. The word ‫וישב‬, in its singular

form, seems to apply only to Abraham; but considering the narrative style of Gen 22:1-

19, the word also refers to Isaac who accompanied him.114 The same stylistic feature is

109Arnold and Choi, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 143. Williams and Beckman, Williams’ Hebrew
Syntax, 156.
110Williams and Beckman, Williams’ Hebrew Syntax, 189.
111Ibid., 166.
112Ibid., 189.
113Sarna, Be-Reshit, 154.
114Isaac Kalimi noted, “There are numerous examples in the Hebrew Bible of this phenomenon,

that is, the use of singular language when the intention is plural (e.g., Deut. 4: 9-10, 19, 21, 25; 22:15a; 2

81
present in vv. 3, 4, 6, and 9. Thus, scenes VII and VIII form the final situation of the plot

of the narrative.

Plot type and plot pattern. Genesis 22:1-19 consists of a revelation plot type

where the pragmatic actions are extensively used to serve the cognitive quest.115 As

highlighted in the analysis of the complication of the plot, the crux of the complication of

the prop is God’s quest for the knowledge of the inner motive of Abraham. When

Abraham demonstrates that He is up for anything God asks of him in the transforming

action of the plot, the tension, which is built up in the complication of the plot, is then

removed in the denouement through the words of the angel of YHWH. The knowledge

that God acquires through the transforming action of the plot then brings about a new

situation for Abraham where the blessings that are promised to him are reconfirmed.

Abraham goes home to settle in Beersheba in the final situation. While God gains new

knowledge about Abraham, on a secondary level, Abraham also learns that God is

trustworthy and dependable. Therefore, as the actions of both Abraham and God bring

about an increase in knowledge, Gen 22:1-19 has a revelation plot type.116

In terms of plot pattern, Gen 22:1-19 falls under the category of a U-shaped plot

pattern.117 The analysis of the initial situation of the plot suggests that Abraham must

have enjoyed at least a few peaceful years, which the narrative summarize with a vague

Sam. 6:2).” Isaac Kalimi, “‘Go, I Beg You, Take Your Beloved Son and Slay Him!’: The Binding Of Isaac
in Rabbinic Literature and Thought,” The Review of Rabbinic Judaism 13 (2010): 23.
115Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 56. Resseguie also states, “A recognition
plot, for instance, posits characters that are initially unseeing and unknowing but eventually awaken to an
important discovery.” Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 204.
116When “the doing becomes the instrument of an increase in knowledge,” it becomes a revelation
plot. Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 56.
117Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 204.

82
phrase “after these things” in v. 1. The initial situation is then disrupted by the request of

God that propels the plot downwards to the bottom of the U shape. Ironically, the bottom

of the U of the narrative is found in vv. 9-10, where Abraham finally reaches the

mountain, sets up the altar, and stretches out his hand to slay his son Isaac. When the

angel of YHWH stops the action of Abraham, it triggers a reversal of the downward

curve that eventually results in an upward turn.118 Abraham found the ram in the thickets

and offers it in place of his son Isaac (v. 13). God confirms his blessings for the last time,

and at the end, Abraham went home where the U-shaped curve is completed.119

Summary of the Analysis of the Plot

The plot of the narrative is the main organizing principle in the story. Following

the quinary scheme, five stages of the plot are identified in the narrative of Gen 22:1-19.

The initial situation of the plot situated in the abstract of the narrative and the

corresponding final situation of the plot is found in scenes VII (the final blessing in vv.

15-18) and VIII (Abraham’s return to Beersheba in v. 19). The complication of the plot

that triggers the actions of the narrative is found in scene I where Abraham has to

demonstrate that he fears God by obeying His request. In like manner, Abraham

demonstrates well that he fears God by his actions and words in the transforming action

of the plot in scenes II-IV. His actions in the transforming action of the plot removes the

problem in the complication of the plot, and that leads to the denouement of the plot in

scenes V and VI. In the final situation of the plot, the promised of progeny that was

118Ibid.

119Resseguie added, “The final state is characterized by happiness and prosperity or, in biblical
terms, peace, salvation, and wholeness.” Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 204.

83
threatened is restored by reaffirming it with the divine oath. Genesis 22:1-19 has a

revelation plot type where the angel of YHWH gains new knowledge about Abraham’s

obedience in the end. The story is presented in a U-shaped plot pattern where the story

ends happily.

Narrator

One of the ways “the implied author guides the reader [through the story] is [with]

. . . the voice”120 of a narrator. The narrator is distinguished from the author as the voice

through which the author tells the story.121 The narrator is a rhetorical device created by

the implied author as a part of the discourse.122 The narrator is a pose, an attitude, an

offshoot, or a sub-personality of the implied author.123

Poetics of the Narrator

The narrator resides inside the narrative in which the story happens and he tells

the story, but the author resides outside the story world and writes the narrative text for

the reader who inhabits the primary world.124 Through the narrator, the author provides

120M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 25; see also Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible
Stories, 102.
121Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 97. “This is not the voice of the historical and unique

individual that was the writer, that one person who around 800 or 500 BCE wrote about Moses or Solomon.
What we hear is the voice of his persona (a Latin word that amongst other things means ‘mask’), the
narrator.” Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Narrative, 55.
122M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 27.
123Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 100. Fokkelman states, “The people from ancient Israel who

are responsible for the texts that, in translation, we now have in front of us have systematically omitted all
references to their identity then and there. The prose writers have remained anonymous, and wanted to
remain anonymous.” Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Narrative, 55.
124Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 101.

84
all kinds of clarification necessary to understand the text.125 The narrator is endowed with

perspectives on the characters and events in the story, and he uses various strategies to

persuade the implied reader to accept his perspective.126 For these reasons, the awareness

of the narrator’s role and the strategies the narrator employs in a narrative is crucial in

order to understand the narrative clearly.

The narrator is also distinguished from the characters. Hierarchically, they move

on an entirely different communication level.127 In the description of the role of the

narrator in the delivery of the story, Jan P. Fokkelman states that the author uses the

narrator to draw

those lines and selects those details, right down to the smallest, that suits him. He
is the boss of a complete circus. He is like a juggler who keeps a lot of balls in the
air at a same time. He structures time, sketches space, brings characters on and
takes them off again, misleads the reader at times, and enforces his point of view
through thick and thin.128
125Marguerat states, “It is a voice which strives to guide readers by providing them with all kinds
of clarifications that they need to understand the texts.” Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible
Stories, 102.
126Walsh states, “His purpose—whether it be moral exhortation, ideological propaganda, or even
simple entertainment—shapes the way he tells the story. Even when the narrator presents his story as a
straightforward telling of history, it will be (as is all recounting of history) colored by the subjectivity of the
historian, who makes moral judgments about the characters and their deeds, understands the cause-and-
effect connections between events in a particular way, and deems certain people and events more
significant than others.” Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 99.
127In differentiating the narrator from the characters, Fokkelman defined the character as a
“language signs. Characters communicate with each other, but cannot escape from that level and address
the narrator or us.” Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Narrative, 63.
128Ibid.,
55. Walsh also states, “The narrator presents characters in their various roles and varying
depths, shapes the narratee’s spatial and temporal relationships to the events of the story, and leaves gaps to
be filled and ambiguities to be resolved.” Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 97.

85
He practices the art of rhetoric by trying to convince the implied reader with his words.129

At the same time, he tries to remain attractive and convincing.130

Classification of the narrator. Based on the narrator’s level of participation in

the story, he may be classified as the first or third-person narrator. When the author uses a

character in the story as the narrator, or if the narrator acts as a narrative character, it is

called the first-person narrator.131 The identity of the narrator in this case is usually clear

and it significantly shapes the story.132 However, when an anonymous narrator who is not

identified among the narrative characters tells the story, that voice is called the third-

person narrator.133 The third-person narrator is virtually transparent without any obtrusive

character trait.134

M. Powell states that the “narrators also vary with regard to how much they know

and how much they choose to tell.”135 He is not obliged to tell all that he knows. Even

129Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Narrative, 56.

130The narrator tries to remain attractive and convincing to retain public attention while presenting
“the great diversity of data (people, acts, words, motives, points of view, intentions and everything else) in
such a way that his view of what is narrated remains plausible and probable.” Ibid., 55-56.
131M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 25. Walsh also said that the first-person narrator “narrates a
story in which he himself participated, and so he can say things like ‘I said such-and-such,’ ‘I did thus-and-
so.’” Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 98.
132Walsh further states, “It privileges the point of view (both physical and moral) of one particular
character; and it limits what the narrator can recount to information available to that character.” Walsh, Old
Testament Narrative, 98.
133Ibid.The third-person narrator is also called as an impersonal narrator, but Walsh points that it
could be misleading. He states, “Many narratives, ancient and modern—and, indeed, almost all biblical
narrative—are not first-person narratives. The voice that narrates them does not belong to one of the
characters and, in fact, it is often not identified at all.” Ibid.
134Ibid., 100-101.
135Some narrators are “able to report not only public events, but also private ones in which a

character is supposedly alone (e.g., Mark 14:32-42). They are able to tell us what happened in two different
places at the same time (e.g., John 18:12-27). They even know the inner thoughts and motivations of the
characters they describe (e.g., Matt. 2:3). Still, their knowledge may have limits.” M. Powell, Narrative
Criticism, 26.
86
though he knows the entire story he intended to write, “He can withhold relevant

information from the narratee and thereby, perhaps, mislead by omission.”136 Walsh

states,

When the author creates a third-person narrative voice, he or she can endow that
narrator with omniscience. But the author can also choose to limit the knowledge
even of a third-person narrator. In that case, the story as the narrator tells it may
be skewed or incomplete. Generally speaking, the clearest sign in the biblical text
of the presence of a limited narrator is seen when the narratorial voice imparts
conflicting information in different places.137

In other words, the narrator’s point of view is said to be omniscient when he has super

knowledge.138

Types of narration. A narrative uses narration to “communicate the value system

of the implicit author.”139 There are two types of commentaries: explicit (narrative voice)

and implicit (narrative whisperings). They are discussed in the following subsections.

Explicit commentaries. The commentaries the narrator provides in the course of

the story to aid the readers’ understanding is called explicit commentaries.140 In this case,

the narrator speaks directly and the reader hears his voice.141 By inserting his comment

directly in the narrative, the narrator can directly appeal to the readers or provide

explanatory gloss to them.142

136Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 98.

137Ibid., 99.
138Ibid., 98.
139Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 102.
140Ibid.

141Ibid., 106.
142Ibid., 102.

87
 There are a few ways the narrator supplies explicit commentaries in the narrative.

The narrator can use what is called breaking frame to establish a link between the story in

the past with the reader’s present, giving “new dimensions of concrete realism and of

present and personal relevance to the narratee.”143 In this case, the narrator sums up the

situation with a temporal shift where he connects the story world with that of the reader’s

time.144 The narrator can also use explanatory gloss by way of providing scriptural

arguments, explanation, translation, inside view, and view from the back evaluation.145

On occasion, the translation explains the meaning of certain words in connection with a

custom which is unknown to the readers.146

Implicit commentaries. The narrator can tacitly communicate his perception

indirectly either through the plot or the words and actions of the characters. Through

implicit commentaries, the narrator “insinuates a hidden sense, counting on the

competence of the reader to perceive it.”147 It can take numerous forms, such as

“intertextual or transcultural allusions, symbolism, polysemy sometimes leading to

misunderstanding, to irony, to humor.”148

143Walsh points out that biblical narrators often employed this technique. He also states, “In other
cases, the narrator will break frame to comment on something in the story, often with an implied or explicit
evaluation.” Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 100.
144Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 102.
145Ibid., 104.
146Ibid., 105.
147Ibid., 106; see also Herman and Vervaeck, Handbook of Narrative Analysis, 92.
148Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 106.

88
Analysis of the Narrator

The narrator of Gen 22:1-19 does not participate in the story as one of the

characters but stays anonymous. The narrator presented the story in a third-person

narrator angle of vision where the characters are referred to by names.149 However, it is

very important to note that the characteristic of being omniscient is not very much

prominent in the narrator of Gen 22:1-19. Unlike a third-person omniscient narrator, he

rarely shares the thought and motivation of the characters with the implied reader.150

The narrator has only three intrusions in the story where he makes explicit

commentaries (vv. 1a, 10, and 14). For the most part, he either summarizes the events and

the actions of the characters151 or lets the characters speak for themselves.152 Apart from

what the characters tell the readers, the narrator provides the internal view of the

characters only once in the narrative when he mentions that Abraham raised the knife to

slaughter his son (v. 10).

Since the narrator refrains from sharing the motives of the characters in the

narrative,153 what the characters utter within the narrative become the window to the

thought world of the characters and the narrative. For example, while the narrator tells the

readers that Abraham was tested by God, the reason God tested Abraham nor Abraham’s

149Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 168.

150See Terence E. Fretheim, “‘God Was With the Boy’ (Genesis 21:20): Children in the Book of
Genesis,” in The Child in the Bible, ed. Marcia J. Bunge, Terence E. Fretheim, and Beverly Roberts
Gaventa (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), 15.
151See Gen 22:3-4, 6, 9-11a, 13, 15a, and 19.
152See Gen 22:1b-2, 5, 7-8, 11b-12, and 16-18.
153Except in Gen 22:10 where Abraham’s intention to kill Isaac is mentioned.

89
understanding of God’s request is not articulated in the text. Other clues in the narrative

should be discovered.

The first intrusion of the narrator is at the beginning of the story in v. 1a. In the

narrative norms, when the narrator stepped out of the narrative to tell the narratee

something, it is important to the plot.154 Other times there is a need to “compare words

with actions, and have to reach an interpretation or a conclusion by way of often

laborious combination and deduction.”155 Yet, there are times when the narrator “leaves

his role, does not partake any longer as a narrator in the stream of the sub-actions and

tells us himself, in the voice of the narrator, that something is a lie.”156 Thus, when the

narrator tells the readers right at the beginning of the story that “God tested Abraham”

(v. 1), it should influence how they read the narrative. Failure to read the narrative in the

context of a test would cause the reader to see the narrative differently.

The significance of the first narrator’s intrusion is evident in the way the test is

carried out. Since God did not tell Abraham directly that he was testing him, it is not

possible to know the context of the narrative for Abraham or the readers. With the help of

the narrative intrusion, at least the readers are now aware of the narrative context.

However, since the narrator refrains from sharing the inside view of the character, the

implied reader has no knowledge of the reaction and the perception of Abraham to the

154“The description of people, thoughts, landscapes and buildings can take up many pages in
modern narrative. In the Bible it is extremely scarce. If the narrator leaves the action for a moment and tells
us of a woman that she is ‘fair of face,’ this is never just because of this quality in its own right. He will
only mention something like that if it is going to be a factor in a plot.” Fokkelman, Reading Biblical
Narrative, 71. The narrator can “make things easy for us and tell us in so many words about any deceit
going on.” Ibid., 65.
155Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Narrative, 66.
156Ibid.

90
demand of the test. He only shows the readers the action of Abraham in response to the

demand of the test. Abraham’s actions show his obedience to God. In the absence of

comments from the omniscient narrator, what the character expresses becomes very

significant in order to know the thoughts and the motivation of the characters.157 It is the

only way of grasping Abraham’s way of understanding the whole matter of the narrative

for the readers.

Apart from the implied reader having the knowledge that what Abraham is going

through is a test, the character knows more than the narrator and the implied reader. The

narrator uses character elevating style to entice the implied readers into the story.158 For

example, “the place” is ambiguous because the narrator does not specify it in v. 2. It is

presented in an imperfect verb form which conceals the location from the implied

reader.159 However, in v. 4, the verb used reveals that Abraham knows the place while the

implied readers are not informed. To the implied readers, the place remains as just “one

of the mountains” that is not yet identified. It is “there” (v. 5) that he should worship and

offer his son as a burnt offering.

157There are two instances where Abraham expressed his thought in the narrative, apart from the
few responsive answers hineni. The first is what he said to his servants and the second is what he answers
his son Isaac. These words may seem simple and insignificant, but when one considered that these two
instances are the only time the readers get to know the inside view of the character, one will realize that
their significance is paramount in the narrative.
158While the main character is not aware of the demand of God as a test, the narrator told the
implied readers that God was testing Abraham. From this perspective, one may argue that the reader knows
more than the character. However, apart from this instance, it is not difficult to realized that Abraham
knows a lot of things that the reader did not. Fretheim also notes that the author never reveals the emotion
of Abraham. Fretheim, “God Was With the Boy,” 15.
159When God called Abraham to leave his country, He had used the same form in chap. 12.

91
 Until the end of the narrative, the geographical location of “the place” was never

specified, apart from Abraham naming it “the mountain of the Lord.”160 The narrator

continues to ignore to specify the place but shifts the focus of the narrative from “the

place” to the phraseological realm, which must be a well-known phrase to the implied

readers (v. 4). It is interesting to note that the development of the point of view can be

seen in the spatial settings,161 previously the narrative talks about one of the mountains in

the land of Moriah, and the narrator often refers to it as just “the place.” Then in v. 14,

that place becomes “the mountain of the Lord.” The mountain was identified with the

Lord, and a well-known phrase was coined which was well-known even during the time

of the implied readers. Since the character of Abraham knows something that the readers

are not aware of, he should be trusted when he expresses himself.

The other intrusion of the narrator is in v. 14. Here, the narrator moves out of the

story world and connects with the world of the reader using a temporal shift. Walsh notes

that beyond telling the story, the narrator often steps out of the story world to the present

time of the narrator and the reader by directly saying things which may be related, but not

precisely part of the narrative, to the reader. This is technically called “breaking frame,”

where the narrator breaks out of the box called story.162

Summary of the Narrator Analysis

The narrator is a rhetorical device created by the author who practices the art of

rhetoric by trying to convince the implied reader with his words, which should be

160Gen 22:14.
161For the definition of the use of the words “spatial settings,” refer to the section on “settings.”
162Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 99.

92
enticing. The narrator of Gen 22:1-19 is a third-person omniscient narrator but who does

not share his omniscient knowledge about the motives of the characters to the implied

reader. Consequently, the reader has to carefully observe the important intrusions the

narrator makes in the story.

Point of View

A point of view is one of the several strategies of narrating a story with which the

narrator influences “the reader’s experience of the narrative.”163 By establishing a point

of view in the narrative, the narrator “manages the narratee’s (and therefore the reader’s)

sense of space by creating a feeling of presence and a vantage point within the scene of

the action.”164 It can be compared to the position of the camera in the movie where “the

director (read ‘narrator’) positions the camera (read ‘establishes the point of view’) from

which you view the action.”165 In literature, the narrator can tell what he sees to the

reader or he can adopt “the perspective of one of the characters, and see ‘through his or

her eyes.’”166 According to Ska, a point of view is “a question of angle of vision, of

‘focalization.’”167

163Ibid., 43.
164Ibid., 43. Emphasis in original. “This vantage point, or in technical terms ‘point of view,” is a

constitutive element of meaning, since it gives the narratee (and reader) the experience of being here rather
than there and of looking in this direction rather than that.” Ibid. Emphasis in original.
165Ibid., 44. Ska also have similar way of explaining point of view with that of Walsh. He states,

“The question of ‘point of view’ is a question of perspective, namely, ‘who is the character whose point of
view orients the narrative perspective?’, ‘who sees?’, or better: ‘who perceives?’, ‘where is the center of
perception?’ In a film, the question would be, ‘where is the eye of the camera?’, ‘from where does the
camera film the scene?’” Ska, “Our Fathers Have Told Us,” 64.
166Ska, “Our Fathers Have Told Us,” 64.
167Ibid.

93
 Angle and distance are two aspects of the point of view that have a profound

impact on the way readers respond to the story.168 The angle of people’s view

“determines what appears central and what appears peripheral to us; perhaps, more

importantly, it decides what we can see and what we cannot.”169 Apart from the angle of

vision, “the distance between us and what we see affects the intensity with which we

respond to it.”170 The closer to the scene, the more intense the reaction rises.171

Poetics of the Point of View

In a narrative, the narrator controls the angle of the reader’s view.172 The point of

view is also referred to as focalization, vision, or angle.173 There are three different points

of view: omniscient, neutral external, and involved point of view.174 It may be noted

earlier that “the narrator can shift the reader’s point of view almost instantaneously.”175

168Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 44.

169Ibid.

170Ibid., 47.
171“If the camera shows us two people across the room shouting at one another and gesturing

angrily, we way, ‘Wow! Those two are really upset!’ But if the camera zooms in on them, so that we hear
their angry exchange and see their enraged expressions in close-up, we are likely to react viscerally: our
own adrenaline level will begin to rise, our muscles will tighten, we may feel ourselves shrink back from a
threat of violence. The intensity of our reaction is, at least in part, a function of how close we are to the
action.” Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 47.
172Ibid., 44.
173Genette used focalization, Pouillon used vision, and Lubbock and Sternberg used point of view.

Genette’s zero focalization is the same as Pouillon’s vision from behind, and Lubbock and Sternberg’s
narrator’s point of view. Genette’s internal focalization is the same as Pouillon’s vision with, and Lubbock
and Sternberg’s character’s point of view. And Genette’s external focalization is the same as Pouillon’s
vision from without, and Lubbock and Sternberg’s reader’s point of view. Ska, “Our Fathers Have Told
Us,” 67. Walsh interchangeably uses point of view with vision of angle. Walsh, Old Testament Narrative,
43-46.
174Ska, “Our Fathers Have Told Us,” 66. Marguerat and Bourquin termed involved point of view
as internal focalization, neutral external point of view as external focalization, and omniscient point of view
as zero focalization. Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 72.
175Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 46. Emphasis in original. For example, see ibid.
94
Besides the points of view in terms of the angle of vision, there is also what is called an

evaluative point of view that is different from the angle of vision.176

Omniscient point of view. An omniscient point of view is “a narrative mode in

which the narrator says more than the characters in the story know, going beyond the

limits of the time and space of the scene.”177 When the narrator shares with the reader

information that the character does not have, “such as the inner thoughts of more than one

character, or events that happen simultaneously at different places, . . . [or] if the narrator

informs us in advance the way the current arc of tension will be resolved,”178 he endows

an omniscient point of view to the reader.

A narrative presented in an omniscient point of view is like seeing the story with a

bird’s eye view “where everything in the story world is visible and nothing is hidden.”179

However, in this mode of presentation, the reader cannot share the character’s limited

perspective because they are endowed with more information than the character.180 It is

176See Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 68. M. Powell, Narrative Criticism,
24. Ressegue also notes and states, “An ambiguous term, ‘point of view’ can refer to (1) the ‘angle of
vision’ from which the narrator tells the story, or (2) conceptual worldview of the narrator.” Resseguie,
Narrative Criticism, 167.
177Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 74. According to Ska, it is also called
vision from behind (vision par derrière), or as Genette calls it “zero focalization” or “non focalized
narrative.” Ska, “Our Fathers Have Told Us,” 66.
178Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 45. Ska states, “We would say that the narrator uses a ‘wide
angle’ or the widest angle that is at his disposal. This kind of ‘focalization’ is frequent in classical
narratives.” Ska, “Our Fathers Have Told Us,” 67.
179Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 45.
180Ibid.

95
also termed as zero focalization, or non-focalization, or vision from behind.181 In terms of

camera angle, it corresponds to an establishing shot called a wide shot.182

Neutral point of view. When the narrator associates the reader’s point of view

with among the characters without identifying with a particular character, it is called a

neutral external point of view.183 It is “a narrative mode coinciding with what readers

could observe themselves, but usually superior to what the character in the story

knows.”184 In terms of camera angle, it “corresponds to a fixed focus (it coincides with

what an observer would see).”185 It is also called an external point of view, or external

focalization, or vision from without (dudehors).186

In this mode of storytelling, the narrator may use a minor character in the

narrative to tell the story of the main character or an extradiegetic narrator may tell the

story as an observer.187 Direct showing is the primary mode of narrating in the neutral

point of view; therefore, it “invites us to ask questions about the unspecified motives of

characters and the future consequences of their actions and to read the text more closely

181Marguerat and Borquin termed it as zero focalization. Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read
Bible Stories, 74. Ska, it is called it vision from behind (vision par derrière), and Genette also called it “zero
focalization” or “non focalized narrative.” Ska, “Our Fathers Have Told Us,” 66.
182It
transcends “the framework of time and space in the scene,” according to Marguerat and
Borquin. Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 72. Ska also states, “The narrator says more
than what any of the characters can know.” Ska, “Our Fathers Have Told Us,” 67.
183Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 45.
184Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 74. Ska states, “The narrator says less than

what the character knows.” Ska, “Our Fathers Have Told Us,” 67.
185Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 72.
186Ska,
“Our Fathers Have Told Us,” 66. See also Genette, Figures III, 205-207; Marguerat and
Borquin termed it as external focalization. Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 74.
187Ska, “Our Fathers Have Told Us,” 66.

96
to find any clues that might point to answer.”188 In this situation, “the reader sees and

hears only what any neutral observer would see and hear. . . . Sharing with the reader

nothing of the characters’ inner life or motivations, the narrator tends to focus our

attention on the action that is unfolding before our eyes.”189

Involved point of view. When the narrator identifies the reader’s point of view

with that of one of the characters, it is called an involved point of view.190 In this mode of

presentation, either the main character may tell his or her own story or an omniscient

narrator tells a story in such a way that the readers are provided with the internal analysis

of events.191 It is also termed as a vision with (vision avec), internal point of view,192 or

internal focalization.193

Involved point of view “corresponds to a close-up shot (it gives access to the

interiority of a character.”194 In this case, “we accompany a character, see, hear and feel

188Walsh,
Old Testament Narrative, 46. Walsh notes that neutral external point of view “is an
extremely common manipulation of the reader’s point of view in biblical narrative.” Ibid.
189Ibid., 45. Emphasis in original.
190Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 46.
191Ska, “Our Fathers Have Told Us,” 66. See also Genette, Figure III, 204 [English, 186].
Marguerat and Bourquin defines internal focalization as “a narrative mode by which the narrator associates
the reader with the inner feelings of a character (a narrative with a limited scope).” Marguerat and
Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 74.
192Ska, “Our Fathers Have Told Us,” 66.
193Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 74.
194Ibid., 72.

97
what he or she perceives.”195 The reader’s focus is “on whatever that character is

attending to at the moment.”196

Evaluative point of view. While the omniscient, neutral, and involved points of

view are the channels “chosen by the narrator to convey the information,”197 the

evaluative point of view “corresponds to the implicit author’s conception of the world, by

virtue of which he shapes his narrative.”198 It is “the idea that the judgment of the narrator

is constantly present in the text, that the presentation of the characters, of the world,

things or ideas, is his. There is not a bit of text that has not been shaped by the particular

perspective of the author.”199 It “refers to the norms, values, and general worldview that

the implied author establishes as an operative for the story.”200 It is “the standards of

judgment by which the reader is led to evaluate the events, characters, and settings that

comprise the story.”201

195Ska,“Our Fathers Have Told Us,” 66. In other words, “The reader sees and hears things as that
character does and may have some insight into that character’s inner life (though not that of other
characters).” Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 46. Ska states, “The narrator says only what the character
knows.” Ska, “Our Fathers Have Told Us,” 67. See also Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible
Stories, 72-73.
196Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 46.
197Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 68. Point of view “designates the choice

of a perspective by which the action is perceived.” Ibid.

198Ibid.

199Ibid.

200M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 24.

201Ibid.He explains, “As readers, we must accept the implied author’s evaluative point of view
even if it means suspending our own judgments during the act of reading. We may have to accept the
notion that cowboys are good and Indians are bad. We may have to believe in talking animals or flying
spaceships. And even if we are atheists, we will have to become Christians for a while if we are to read
Bunyan or Dante.” Ibid.

98
 Marguerat and Bourquin state that while

the readers have considerable initiative in their choices of identification. We must

now add that the narrator tries to influence for his own ends this interaction which
will not fail to take place between the reader and the network of characters. To
this end, the narrator counts on a permanent mechanism of reading which is partly
unconscious: the evaluation of the characters.202

The narrator saturated the text with the implicit author’s value-system and his view of the

world through the ideological plane (the system of thought), the phraseological plane (the

type of discourse attributed to the characters), the psychological plane (the presentation

of the characters), and the spatio-temporal plane (the geographical or chronological).203

Analysis of the Point of View

The analysis of the point of view follows the structure of the scenes for better

organization purposes. Accordingly, including the abstract of the scenes, the analysis of

the point of view of Gen 22:1-19 has nine divisions. However, the divisions are not static

as there is a need to look back and forth across the scenes as part of the method.

The abstract (verse 1a). The narrator begins the narrative with an omniscient

point of view in v. 1a and with his explicit comment: “After these things God tested

Abraham.” Only God and the narrator know the information that the narrator shares with

the reader. Abraham is ignorant about the test that he is put through. The analysis of the

point of view shows that he has a different idea about the whole scenario altogether.204

202Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 68.

203Ibid.

204Abraham’s perception of his situation is not revealed in the text. It may be noted that this is the

only incident where the reader knows more than Abraham.

99
However, while the reader knows things that Abraham did not know, the reader did not

know his perception of the test because the narrator shifted to the neutral point of view.

The brief use of the omniscient point of view creates distance between the readers and the

characters that sets them on a different level in terms of knowledge.205 The narrator

influences the reader’s perception and sets up unexpected twists and turns in the narrative

for the readers.206

Scene I (verses 1b-2). The narrator quickly shifts the mode of telling the story to

the neutral point of view from v. 1b onwards. The reader is positioned virtually among

the characters in the narrative as an observer without specifically identifying with any

particular character.207 Therefore, the reader needs to become very attentive to the

unspecified motives of the characters that may only be revealed as the story progresses in

order to know the true meaning behind the actions and words of the character.208

205Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 45.

206Walsh had similar observation. He states, “Sometimes, particularly if the narrator informs us in

advance the way the current arc of tension will be resolved, an omniscient point of view puts distance also
between the reader and the action of the scene. Instead of being gripped by the question, what happens
next? the reader can turn his or her attention to other aspects of the story, such as moral evaluation of
characters and their behavior. A classic example of this is the story of Abraham and Isaac in Genesis 22.
The narrator tells us right from the start that ‘God tested Abraham’ (22:1). Given that information which
only God, the narrator, and the reader are aware of, we read the story relatively certain that this will not be
a story of human sacrifice, but a story of measuring Abraham’s obedience. This gives us a perspective
somewhat removed from the arc of tension that marks the plot (will Abraham kill Isaac?) and enables us to
focus on the many facets of Abraham’s moral dilemma and his response to it—his complete silence in the
face of God’s command; his ambiguous and ironic words to Isaac (22:8), the truth of which even Abraham
himself realizes only in 22:14; and his continued silence in the face of the divine promises given him in
22:15-18.” Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 45.
207Ibid. The reader listens to the dialogues between the characters and witnesses the actions of

Abraham, but he did not know the inner motives of the characters because the narrator no longer shares his
omniscient knowledge. Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 74. Ska, “Our Fathers Have
Told Us,” 66, 67.
208Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 46. Walsh notes that neutral external point of view “is an

extremely common manipulation of the reader’s point of view in biblical narrative.” Ibid.

100
 As the point of view shifts to the neutral point of view in vv. 1b-2, the reader

hears God requesting Abraham to sacrifice Isaac as a burnt offering but with the narrator

revealing God’s real intention. Therefore, the request of God that is in conflict with the

promise of progeny He makes earlier with Abraham becomes even more disturbing for

the reader. Thus, the reader needs to look for closure where the narrator reveals God’s

motive for the test.209

The analysis of the point of view in scene I shows that the clue to the inner

motives of God in v. 2 is not found until the reader, along with Abraham, hears from God

again through the angel of YHWH from heaven in vv. 11-12 and 15-18. In v. 2, the

reader hears God asking Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac, as a burnt offering.

However, when Abraham is finally on the verge of completing the act, God’s agent in vv.

11-12 stops him from completing the act because what he has done is convincing enough

to show that he fears God. The unspecified motive and intention behind the test of God in

v. 2 according to the motives that emerge later is only to know whether Abraham will

obey him. When all is said and done, the request of God in v. 2 turns out to be an

instrument of the test as mentioned earlier in v. 1a. Concerning the progeny, the promise

is made even more secured at the end.

Scene II (verse 3). The narrator continues to use the neutral point of view where

the extradiegetic narrator tells the story as an observer.210 The narrator shows the actions

of Abraham to the reader as a direct response to God’s request but without sharing

209Ibid.

210Ska, “Our Fathers Have Told Us,” 66.

101
Abraham’s inner life or motives.211 Abraham responded with a prompt action which may

be described as an unprotested obedience.

The unprotested obedience of Abraham to God’s request has its own difficulty.212

It may be noted that the narrator did not explain how or why Abraham responded the way

he did. Thus, the characters now have information that the reader do not know. As the

narrator uses a neutral point of view in this scene, the reader needs to observe the

unfolding of the narrative in order to acquire the necessary information to evaluate

Abraham’s action.

Scene III (verses 4-5). The narrator uses multiple points of view in scene III.213

In v. 4, the narrator briefly shifts the point of view to an involved point of view where he

shares Abraham’s perception with the reader. Shifting the point of view from the neutral

to the involved point of view brings the reader closer to the character. Seeing the place

with the eyes of Abraham, the reader is allowed to stand in his place for a moment to feel

what he might feel. Considering what awaits Abraham on the place that is in sight, and

without the narrator sharing Abraham’s inside view, the reader is allowed to suffer along

with the character and, for a moment, be misled by his supposition.214 Consequently, the

reader is susceptible to develop an empathy for Abraham.

211Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 45. Emphasis in original.

212See Moltz, “God and Abraham,” 62; Fretheim, “God Was With the Boy,” 15.
213As noted earlier, “the narrator can shift the reader’s point of view almost instantaneously.”

Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 46. Emphasis in original.

214While the narrator shares the character’s perception for a moment, he did not share his
omniscient knowledge about the inner motivation of the character. A close reading may alert the reader that
there is something that the narrator hides from the reader. For example, when and how did Abraham knew
the place? In v. 2, God said that He would identify the place to Abraham, but the reader is not informed
when and how that complete information gets to Abraham. And now, the reader suddenly saw the place
from the perspective of Abraham.

102
 The narrator immediately shifts back to the neutral point of view in v. 5 as the

reader is relocated among the characters as an observer to hear for himself the words of

Abraham as he speaks to his servants. What Abraham said to his servants contradicts the

words the reader hears from God in v. 2. Whereas, the reader hears God requesting

Abraham to sacrifice Isaac as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of Moriah (v.

2), now he hears Abraham told his servants that he would go yonder to worship and

return to them (v. 5). The contradiction is so obvious that it seems, it has to be either he

misses something or someone is not telling the truth! However, the narrator’s used of the

neutral point of view requires a careful observation of the words and actions of the

characters as the narrative unfolds.215

Scene IV (verses 6-10). The narrator continues to use a neutral point of view in

v. 6b. The narrator focuses on the actions of Abraham as he leaves the servants and the

donkey behind, while he and Isaac continue the journey. The narrator is careful to show a

few significant details as Abraham pursues to fulfill God’s request. The reader has an

empathy with Abraham while sympathizing with Isaac who innocently carries the wood

that is meant to be used for the burnt offering. Since the reader is closed to the characters,

the intensity of his/her response is heightened.

The reader observes for himself the dialogue between Abraham and Isaac in vv.

6b-8, but the narrator refrains from sharing the character’s inner motivation. The

conversation possesses similar difficulties to the reader as encountered in v. 5. When the

reader recalls God’s request from Abraham to offer specifically Isaac as the burnt

215The closure for Abraham’s words is found in vv. 13 and 19. In v. 13, God provided a substitute

for Isaac through which Isaac could participate in the worship not as a sacrificed, but as worshipper. In v.
19, they came back to the servants just as Abraham said. For detailed discussion, see page 111.

103
offering in v. 2 and compare it with the answer he gave his son in v. 8, it seems like

Abraham is not really honest on this matter. It is interesting to hear twice that Abraham

said things that contradicted to what the reader directly heard from God in v. 2.216

In vv. 9-10a, the reader witnesses the actions of Abraham as the narrator

continues to use the neutral point of view as the storytelling mode. The narrator shifts the

storytelling mode to omniscient point of view in v. 10b and provides explicit comments

on the motive of Abraham’s action when he stretches out to take the knife. The actions of

Abraham in vv. 9-10a and his motive on v. 10b are not coherent with what he said in

vv. 5 and 8; he obediently follows what God requested him to do in v. 2. Based on his

actions and intention, his honesty with his servants (v. 5) and his son, Isaac (v. 8), could

be in question.

It may be noted that Isaac is strangely quiet. He did not ask any more questions.

He could have asked his father for an explanation but he did not. Whether Isaac was too

scared to ask or Abraham overpowered him is not clear in the text. The reader is allowed

to guess, but not answer. As neutral point of view is the main storytelling mode in this

section, the reader has to check if both Abraham and Isaac returned to the servants after

they worshipped God just as he said to his servants in v. 5; and also, if God really

provided the lamb for the burnt offering just as Abraham said to Isaac in v. 8. Abraham’s

actions are contrary to his words. Thus, the reader has to read through the narrative first

216However, since the narrator tells the story from the neutral point of view, the reader must

remember that the narrative “invites us to ask questions about the unspecified motives of characters and the
future consequences of their actions and to read the text more closely to find any clues that might point to
answer.” Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 46. Walsh notes that neutral external point of view “is an
extremely common manipulation of the reader’s point of view in biblical narrative.” Ibid.

104
and then analyze how the words, actions, and events in the narrative fit together as a

whole.

Scene V (verses 11-12). The narrator continues to use the neutral point of view as

the storytelling mode. The reader observes the dialogue between the angel of YHWH and

Abraham in vv. 11-12. At this moment, Abraham was on the verge of completing what

God had requested him to do in v. 2. It seems certain that Abraham could complete the

request of God because there was no one in sight to stop him; he was far away from home

and his servants were at a distance, with Isaac’s hands bind, with a knife on his hand, and

with an intention to slaughter Isaac (v. 9-10). At the right moment, the angel of YHWH

from the heavens stopped Abraham because he had clearly displayed that he feared God.

Scene VI (verses 13-14). The narrator uses mix points of view in this scene. He

shifted to the involved point of view in v. 13a, then to the neutral point of view in v. 13b,

and then to an omniscient point of view in v. 14. The shifts in the points of view is

significant for the interpretation of the narrative.

In v. 13a, the narrator uses the involved point of view to provide the reader with

the internal analysis of events from Abraham’s perspective and said, “And Abraham

lifted up his eyes and saw, and behold.”217 In his discussion about the use of the

interjection ‫ְוִהנֵּה‬, M. Powell specifically states that it “indicates a shift from the

omniscient narrator’s point of view to the perspective of one of the characters.”218 Ska

217Ska, “Our Fathers Have Told Us,” 66. See also Genette, Figure III, 204 [English, 186].

Marguerat and Bourquin defines internal focalization as “a narrative mode by which the narrator associates
the reader with the inner feelings of a character (a narrative with a limited scope).” Marguerat and
Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 74. The same word can be used “to draw attention to something.”
Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 46.
218Ska, “Our Fathers Have Told Us,” 68. Ska also states, “Of course, verbs of perception (‘to see’,

‘to hear’, ‘to know’), con be important indicators of specific ‘focalizations’. But here, as elsewhere in
biblical exegesis, the context is decisive.” Ibid.
105
also notes that “the interjection is the signal that the spectator’s discovery and amazement

are being introduced. What immediately follows is the observation by the character itself,

often in their own words.”219 The reader’s focus is “on whatever that character is

attending to at the moment.”220 Walsh also states,

There is a technique in Hebrew that rarely, if ever, survives translation in modern

versions of the Scriptures. It is a grammatical construction that almost forcibly
imposes a character’s point of view on the narratee/reader. The key word in
Hebrew is wehinnēh, translated in older English version (like the KJV) as ‘and
lo!’ or ‘and behold!’; more modern translation regularly paraphrases to avoid such
archaic language. The construction words this way. After an initial clause that
often, but not always, includes a verb of perceiving, the narrator uses wehinnēh to
indicate precisely what the character perceives. The effect is usually an intense
sense of present action, as though the narratee/reader were perceiving the object
through the character’s eyes in the same moment that the character does.
Although the construction is fairly common in Hebrew, if it is translated literally
it appears contrived and artificial in English.221

The shift on the point of view in v. 13a is significant because it provides closure to what

Abraham said to Isaac in v. 8. Through this technique, the narrator leads the reader to

focus on what Abraham saw.

The narrator then shifted to the neutral point of view in vv. 13b-14, positioning

the reader besides the characters in the narrative as Abraham catches the ram and offers it

in place of Isaac. He names the place, “God will provide,” echoing his answer to Isaac’s

question in v. 8. The ram in v. 13, in place of the lamb that was expected in v. 8, suggests

that Abraham believes or expects God to intervene. The provision of the ram in vv. 13-

14a also make it possible for Abraham and Isaac to worship together and ensures their

return to their servants just as he said in v. 5. Since Abraham’s words in vv. 5 and 8 have

219M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 140.

220Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 46.
221Ibid., 49. Emphasis in original.

106
proper closure in vv. 13-14a, the analysis shows that Abraham is honest with his servants

and his son Isaac. At the same time, considering his intention to kill Isaac when he got

the knife in v. 10b, Abraham’s obedience to God was emphasized while believing that

God would surely intervene. Thus, the incident in v. 13-14a serves as the lynchpin

between Abraham’s action and words in the transforming action of the plot.

The storytelling mode is then shifted to the omniscient point of view in v. 14b.

The narrator even moves out of the story realm and makes connection with the present

world of the implied reader. It serves as a rhetorical device to establish the credibility of

the story.

Scene VII (verses 15-18). The narrator then shifted the storytelling mode to the

neutral point of view again in vv. 15-18. The reader could observe for himself the words

of the angel of YHWH to Abraham as the voice of an extradiegetic narrator tells the story

as an observer. The angel of YHWH affirms that Abraham did the right thing. He did not

accuse of lying to his servants nor his son but blessed Abraham as a consequence of his

actions.

Scene VIII (verse 19). The narrator tells the story from the neutral point of view

as Abraham returned to his lad and went home to Beersheba. Looking back on what

Abraham said to his servant in v. 5, this scene affirms that Abraham was actually very

honest to his servant. It was the way the narrator told the story, by shifting between

different points of view, that he could make it look like the way it appeared. Looking

back on the narrative from the end, it can be clearly observed that Abraham is very

honest.

107
Analysis of the evaluative point of view

God put Abraham into action by testing him and disturbing the equilibrium of the

narrative in in the complication of the plot in v. 2. He also stopped Abraham when he was

at the verge of slaughtering Isaac in vv. 10-11. God set the rule and announces the verdict

on Abraham’s conduct based on His evaluation (vv. 11-12).222 God’s point of view is

adopted as the evaluative point of view. It is used as the norms or worldview that governs

the narrative.223

Summary of the Point of View

The narrator of Gen 22:1-19, to a large extent, shapes and influences “the reader’s

experience of the narrative”224 by manipulating the point of view in the narrative. The

creative manipulation of the point of view created unexpected twists and turns in the

narrative. It makes the narrative interesting, captivating, and suspense-filled for the

reader. At the same time, it also adds complexity to the narrative.

The narrator uses the omniscient point of view only twice (at the beginning in

v. 1a and towards the end in v. 14) and the involved point of view also twice (vv. 4 and

13a) in the narrative of Gen 22:1-19. The rest of the story is presented with the neutral

point of view. Most of the time, the narrator directly shows the events and the happenings

222In
the Gospels, “The evaluative point of view of God is by definition true and that of Satan
untrue.” Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 53.
223M. Powell states, “How is God’s evaluative point of view determined? In each narrative, God
must be regarded as a figure in the story world and God’s perspective must be defined in terms of how it is
depicted by the implied author. Occasionally, God speaks and acts directly, just like the characters in the
stories. At other times, God speaks through agents such as angels and prophets and is presumed to act
through dreams and the working of events that would otherwise be inexplicable.” M. Powell, Narrative
Criticism, 24.
224Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 43.

108
of the narrative to the reader without sharing his omniscient knowledge about the inner

motivations of the characters to the reader. The use of the neutral point of view requires

the reader “to read the text more closely to find any clues”225 that would set lights to the

inner motivations of the characters in the narrative. To find out the motives behind the

speeches and actions of the characters is key to the right reading of this story.

Time and Action

A narrative consists of story time (narrated) and narration time.226 In the story

time, the events of the plot unfold. In the narration time, the narrator recounts those

events from the story time.227 Story time is the external time which is “continuous and

flows evenly without interruptions, delays or accelerations.”228 Narration time, on the

other hand, is the internal time which is subjective and “subjected to gaps, delays and

jumps.”229

Poetics of the Time and Action

The different relationships between the story time and the narration time yield

significant implications, thereby supplying hints of connections and meaning for the

225Ibid., 46.
226“The narrative needs time which is outside it in order to unravel itself by stages before the

reader.” Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 141. “The narrative also requires internal time, because the
characters and the incidents exist within time.” Ibid. Christian Metz also states, “There is the time of the
thing told and the time of the narrative.” Genette, Narrative Discourse, 33. Quoted from Christian Metz,
Film Language: A Semiotics of the Cinema, trans. Michael Taylor (New York, NY: University of Chicago
Press, 1974), p. 18.
227Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 53.
228Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 142. Herman and Vervaeck, Handbook of Narrative

Analysis, 60.
229Bar-Efrat,Narrative Art in the Bible, 142. “Narrated time is not uniform or regular and its
directions and speed often change.” Ibid. See also Herman and Vervaeck, Handbook of Narrative Analysis,
60.
109
interpretation.230 Time in narrative functions as an emphasis or implying connections

which creates suspense or determines attitudes. The shaping of the internal time

considerably determines the nature, structure, and meaning of the narrative.231

The tempo of the narration and the order of its events by the narrator “effects and

affects the way the narratee experiences story time.”232 For example, a rapid action urges

unconsciously the reader to read the text faster. Other time, a high ration of nominal

clauses to stories seems to drag the narrative. Therefore, “the ration of verbs of actions to

other words”233 significantly impact the narrative. There are three criteria to systematize

“the various aspects of time: duration, order, and frequency.”234

Duration. Duration refers to the length of time it takes “to read the account of an

event to the time an event takes on the level of the story.”235 It could range “from total

immobility to mercurial speed.”236 It has significant impact on the reader’s experience of

the narrative as it “determines the rhythm of the narrative and contributes to suspense or

230Bar-Efrat,
Narrative Art in the Bible, 143. “The speed of narrated time varies frequently, as
compared with narration time, whose progress is steady and fixed. Narrated time is sometimes faster,
sometimes slower than narration time, and sometimes the two are virtually coterminous.” Ibid., 146.
231Ibid., 142.
232Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 53. Tempo is “the speed or pace at which the story unfolds.”
Ibid.
233Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 53. On the effects of time on the narrative, Herman and
Vervaeck also state, “Narrative texts with continuous acceleration or deceleration create much more
dynamic impression than texts that always opt for the same type of duration.” Herman and Vervaeck,
Handbook of Narrative Analysis, 63.
234Herman and Vervaeck, Handbook of Narrative Analysis, 60.
235Ibid.

236Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 146.

110
monotony.”237 It consists of the combination of ellipse, acceleration, tableau,

deceleration, and pause.238

Ellipsis. The story time “passes fastest in the empty spaces of time when nothing

happens.”239 Ellipsis refers to the absence of the story time from the narrative.240 Life in

the story world naturally goes on; however, “nothing is reported about it since the daily

routine is of no interest or significant as far as the author is concerned.”241 Ellipsis can

become an important element through which suspense effect are created in the

narrative.242

Acceleration. In acceleration, Walsh explains that “an event that takes a long time

can be summarized in one sentence, so that the time of narration is shorter than story

time.”243 Walsh discusses how acceleration affects the reading and points out that the

tempo could be

relatively more rapidly or more slowly. When the story moves relatively quickly,
it tends to rivet our attention on the action (it is a ‘page-turner’). The more slowly
it moves, the more leisure we have to reflect on what is happening, to imagine
scenes in detail, to evaluate characters, to wonder about unspoken motivations, to
make moral judgments, and so on.”244

237Herman and Vervaeck, Handbook of Narrative Analysis, 62-63.

238Ibid.

239Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 152.

240Herman and Vervaeck, Handbook of Narrative Analysis, 61. “Instead of weaving a continuous

and extensive fabric of life in its entirely, the author prefers to select the most important pints and omit
whatever is trivial or commonplace.” Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 152.
241Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 152.
242Herman and Vervaeck, Handbook of Narrative Analysis, 61. “In psychological novel, things
that remain unsaid can be essential because they may point to repressed or dismissed traumas.” Ibid.
243Ibid. Walsh also states, “It takes events longer to happen than it does to read about them.”

Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 54. This is the ordinary case. Ibid.
244Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 54.

111
Because acceleration is frequently used in the narratives, it is an ordinary case. Likewise,

it does not have “particularly noteworthy effect on the reader.”245

Tableau. Tableau “indicates an almost perfect overlap of the duration of an event

with that of its representation or reading.”246 In tableau, “Event and recital take

approximately equal length of time.”247 This includes dialogue that appears word for

word in the text even though pauses in real time may not be correctly represented.248

However, dialogues are usually short and “the characters generally express themselves in

a succinct style and the dialogues usually contain no more than two or three rounds.”249

They “contains only what is necessary, after careful selection, for the purpose of the

narrative, rigorously excluding all the rest.”250 Since it focuses on the characters and their

doings, “any sort of reflection and evaluation”251 becomes more difficult.

245Ibid. When the narrator simply skips “over a period of time with a summary word or phrase, . . .

though time moves very quickly, it has no overt effect on our sense of tempo since the elapsed period is
narratively empty.” Ibid., 55.
246Herman and Vervaeck, Handbook of Narrative Analysis, 61. Walsh termed tableau as scene. As

the term scene is also used as a unit of a narrative earlier, the term tableau is employed here. Walsh notes,
“The narrator recounts events by portraying a scene with characters speaking acting, the duration of the
events approaches the time it takes to read about them.” Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 55.
247Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 55. According to Bar-Efrat, it gives an “impression that the

events are taking place before the reader’s very eyes, as if he or she is seeing and hearing what is happening
at that precise instant and consequently becomes emotionally involved. Because scenes portray events in a
clear and detailed way, they illuminate the crucial incidents, the crises, climaxes, vital decisions and central
activities.” Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 150.
248Herman and Vervaeck, Handbook of Narrative Analysis, 61. Walsh, Old Testament Narrative,

55. Bar-Efrat also states, “Conversation is the principal, often the sole component of biblical scenes, which
present a specific event occurring at a defined time and place.” Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 149.
249Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 147. He also states that “conversation in biblical narrative

are never precise and naturalistic imitations of real-life conversations. They are highly concentrated and
stylized, carefully calculated to fulfill a clear function.” Ibid., 148.
250Ibid., 149.
251Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 56.

112
 Tableau tends “to enhance verisimilitude (that is, our experience of the scene as

real).”252 Conversation in a biblical narrative function “as a vehicle for the development

of the plot”253 and helps for the characterization.254 As a means of characterization, it is

used “to illuminate the human aspect, revealing such psychological features as motives

and intentions, points of view and approaches, attitudes and reactions.”255

Deceleration. In deceleration, “The time to read the description of an event turns

out to be longer than the event itself.”256 The narrator supplies “material that gives the

narratee/reader information without advancing the action. That information can be of

several sorts and can have differing effects on the reader.”257 An extensive list, “the piling

up of examples, perhaps with comments, can slow the movement of the text

considerably.”258 Deceleration “is useful to create or decrease suspense.”259 If the focus is

on the action, deceleration can frustrate the reader because of the delay.260 If, on the other

252Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 56. Emphasis in original. “Dialogue brings us close to the
character (close enough to hear them, at least), and the correlation of the time it takes to read the scene with
the time it would take to experience the scene in reality strengthens this sense of verisimilitude.” Ibid.
253Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 147.
254They are concern “with plans and aspirations or with attempts to persuade and influence,” Ibid.
255Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 147.
256Herman and Vervaeck, Handbook of Narrative Analysis, 62; Walsh, Old Testament Narrative,
56.
257Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 56.
258Ibid.

259Herman and Vervaeck, Handbook of Narrative Analysis, 62.

260According to Walsh, “This will increase our tension, build up a bit of suspense, and push us to
read faster to get to ‘what happens next?’” Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 56.

113
hand, the focus is on the text, “then this pause gives us a chance to pursue and deepen our

reflection.”261

Pause. When deceleration becomes extreme, “nothing happens anymore, the story

comes to a standstill.”262 This is called pause.263 It can be observed “in two situations: a.

when interpretations, explanations, conclusions or evaluations are given by the narrator;

b. when depictions are given within the narrative.”264

Order. The narration time often does not “recount the events in the same order in

which they occurred.”265 When it does, the consecutive waw (translated ‘and’) is usually

used by the biblical Hebrew narrators to express sequential order of events.266 The order

of events can be classified into three categories: direction, distance, and reach.267

Direction. Direction can be further divided into three groups: anachrony,

analepsis, and prolepsis. When there are many analepsis and prolepsis, the narrative

becomes more complex because it “leads to all sorts of new relationships between the

261Ibid.,57. One could reflect on the text when the narrator is “portraying surprising behavior
without revealing a character’s motivation, or intensifying our emotional involvement with a particular
character, or posing a moral dilemma that impels us to evaluate and judge the action.” Ibid., 56-57.
262Herman and Vervaeck, Handbook of Narrative Analysis, 62.
263In another words, “Time is reduced to space.” Ibid., 63. However, structuralist definition of

duration does not apply to work such as manuals, cookbooks, and reference works. Ibid.
264Bar-Efrat,
Narrative Art in the Bible, 146. Quantitatively, “Forty pages to describe one minute
means deceleration, while one page to describe a year comes down to acceleration.” Herman and Vervaeck,
Handbook of Narrative Analysis, 63.
265Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 58. Bar-Efrat states, “The order of narrated time need not
necessarily correspond with that of narration time.” Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 166. Herman and
Vervaeck also said that “if it is possible to order events nicely on the story level, for instance in a sequence
from one to five, then one can see how the narrative complicates that order.” Herman and Vervaeck,
Handbook of Narrative Analysis, 64.
266Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 166.
267Herman and Vervaeck, Handbook of Narrative Analysis, 64.

114
various periods.”268 On the other hand, “themes may emerge more clearly or suspense

may increase.”269

Anachrony. Passage that cannot be dated are called anachrony. It is “a departure

from the chronology in the primary narrative.”270 It could refers to the past or the future.

Analepsis. Also called flashback, analepsis occurs “when the narrator informs us

about some events that transpired prior to the story he is currently telling.”271 An example

of analepsis is memory.272 Analepsis functions as a reminder when people are told about

the event when it actually took place.273 If the event took place outside of the story or a

long time ago, “the flashback is simply supplying us with background information

necessary for us to understand what is going on now.”274 On the other hand, “if the

narrator, or a reliable character, tells us something new about a past event, it can force us

to reconstrue the past event and, perhaps, everything that has subsequently occurred as a

result of it.”275 Bar-Efrat remarks, “Glimpses into the past often serve to explain the

268Herman and Vervaeck, Handbook of Narrative Analysis, 65. They add, “If, on the same page,
the text refers to three or four periods from the life of the protagonist, chances are that one will start to see
connections between these periods.” Ibid.
269Ibid., 66.
270Ibid., 65.
271Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 58. Bar-Efrat also notes, “On occasions the function of the
flashback is to recount what has happened meanwhile somewhere else or to someone other than the
characters with which the narrative has been dealing (this does not refer to a synchronic narrative but to one
with one story-line).” Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 177.
272Herman and Vervaeck, Handbook of Narrative Analysis, 64.
273At the same time, “It also urges the narratee (and reader) to consider the earlier account along

with the present one as parts of a single story. In this way it broadens the reader’s horizon and points to the
possibility of a wider context of understanding.” Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 58.
274Ibid., 58.
275Ibid., 59.

115
actions or utterances of people or the origin of situations.”276 However, “when a character

of uncertain reliability supplies us with a flashback, the situation gets even more

dubious.”277

Prolepsis. Prolepsis, also termed as foreshadowing or flashforward, “refers to

remarks, usually by the narrator, that reveal in advance to the narratee and the reader

something about what will happen later in the story. In most cases, foreshadowing gives

the narratee and the reader information that characters do not have.”278 An example of

prolepsis is anticipation.279 Since the reader knows more than the character, it distances

the reader from the characters, and since the reader already knows to some degree what

happens next, it also distances him somewhat from the action.280

Prolepsis can either reduce or increase tension. When the development seems

likely, there is “room to reflect on motivations and characters, or to make moral

judgment.”281 However, if it seems unlikely, the tension may be shifted from what will

happen to how will it happen, focusing on the action rather than on reflection. In the case

276Bar-Efrat,Narrative Art in the Bible, 177. “Flashbacks are sometimes inserted by the narrator
when a new character enters the narrative, providing details about background and past. This is not
customary, however, and most of the characters are introduced into the narrative without accompanying
information concerning their previous vicissitudes.” Ibid., 175.
277Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 59.
278Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 59. Herman and Vervaeck call it flashforward. Herman and

Vervaeck, Handbook of Narrative Analysis, 64.

279Herman and Vervaeck, Handbook of Narrative Analysis, 64.
280Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 59.
281Ibid., 59-60.

116
of prophecy, which is the most common form of prolepsis in the HB, since God’s power

is unquestioned, it is assumed to be reliable and the focus is on how it will come about.282

Distance. When the period (analepsis or prolepsis) falls within the primary

narrative (within the plot), it is called internal. When the period falls outside of the

primary narrative, it is called external. When there is a mixture of periods, “which covers

a memory starting before the primary narrative but ending within it, or an anticipation

beginning within the primary narrative and ending outside it,”283 it is called mixed.

Reach. Reach “refers to the stretch of time covered by the analepsis or

prolepsis.”284 In the words of Herman and Vervaeck, “If the memory concerns one

particular event, then the analepsis is punctual. . . . If it comprises an entire period, the

flashback is durative or complete.”285

Frequency. Frequency “refers to the relation between the number of times an

event occurs in the story and the number of times it occurs in the narrative.”286 It is

categorized into singulative, iterative, and repetition. An event is said to be singulative

“when the event occurs just as often in the story as it does in the narrative.”287 When “a

recurrence in the story is described just as often in the text,” 288 it is a plural singulative.

282Ibid., 61.
283Herman and Vervaeck, Handbook of Narrative Analysis, 65.
284Ibid.

285Ibid.

286Ibid., 66. Resseguie stated, “When repetition is employed intentionally, it ‘adds force and clarity

to a statement’ or motif.” Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 42.

287Herman and Vervaeck, Handbook of Narrative Analysis, 66.
288Ibid.

117
An event is said to be iterative when the story events “happen repeatedly but are only

presented once in the text.”289 It is “prevalent in the description of habits.”290

An event that takes place only once but repeatedly described in the text is called

repetition.291 Repetition slows down the pace of the narrative but always provide

emphasis and characterization.292 Whenever differences from the original appears in the

repetition, special attention should be paid to the difference “such as addition, omission,

expansion, summarization, changed order and substitution (the replacement of one

expression by another). In most instances[,] these differences reflect the viewpoint or

intention of the speaker, serving to avoid hurting the interlocutor, persuade, impel to

action or advance the speaker’s interests in some other way.”293

Analysis of the Time and Action

The analysis follows the division of scenes—the abstract and the other ten scenes.

The presentation discusses the duration, the order, and the frequency of the narrative time

with the purpose to provide hints of connections and meaning for interpretation.294

289Ibid.
“‘For a long time, I go to bed early.’ The formulation, ‘for a long time,’ probably covers
thousands of days on which the protagonist went to bed early.” Ibid.
290Ibid.

291Bar-Efrat states, “A command, suggestion, prophecy, etc. is often cited at one point, only to be
repeated when we are informed of its implementation. Similarly, an event, action or speech is conveyed,
and at a later stage one of the characters reports on that same event, action or speech. What is more, these
repetitions are often communicated in identical or almost identical terms.” Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the
Bible, 161.It often “embody various standpoints, that is to say, the same event is considered by various
characters.” Herman and Vervaeck, Handbook of Narrative Analysis, 67.
292Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 161. “The speed of narrated time varies frequently, as

compared with narration time, whose progress is steady and fixed. Narrated time is sometimes faster,
sometimes slower than narration time, and sometimes the two are virtually coterminous.” Ibid., 146.
293Ibid., 162.
294Ibid., 143.

118
 The abstract. Genesis 22:1a is the abstract of the narrative: “After these things,

God tested Abraham.” The narrative begins with acceleration and prolepsis. The narrator

summarizes the time between the previous narrative and the current narrative with the

phrase “after these things.” The acceleration implies that during this period, nothing that

interest the narrator happens in the story world even though daily routine of life goes

on.295 While it prepares the reader to focus on the things that will follow, it also links the

narrative with the one that precedes it.

The prolepsis immediately follows the acceleration, and the narrator gives

information to the reader that one of the protagonists, Abraham, does not know.296 The

information distances the reader from Abraham and turns the attention on the motivation

of Abraham.297 Since the prolepsis falls within the primary narrative, the distance is

internal.298 In terms of reach, it is durative or complete because it covers an entire period

of time.299

Scene I: The requirement of the test. The first scene of the narrative is found in

Gen 22:1b-2: “And He said to him, ‘Abraham,’ and he said, ‘Here I am.’ And he said,

‘Please take your son, yours only, which you love, Isaac, and go by yourself to the land

of Moriah, and offer him there for burn offering upon one of the mountains which I will

tell you.’” The speed of the narrative slows down as it takes the form of a tableau. A short

295Herman and Vervaeck, Handbook of Narrative Analysis, 61. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the
Bible, 152.
296Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 59; Herman and Vervaeck, Handbook of Narrative Analysis,
64.
297Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 59-60.
298Herman and Vervaeck, Handbook of Narrative Analysis, 65.
299Ibid., 65.

119
dialogue is selectively presented in a succinct style.300 Since it focuses on the characters

and their doings, “any sort of reflection and evaluation”301 becomes more difficult. The

tableau function here as a vehicle for the development of the plot.302 The order of the

direction is chronological and its frequency is singulative.

Scene II: Abraham prepares and goes for the journey. The second scene of the

narrative is found in Gen 22:3: “And Abraham rose early/eagerly in the morning and he

saddled his donkey, and he took two of his lads with him, and Isaac his son. And he

chopped wood of/for burn offering, and he arose and went to the place which God told to

him.” As a response to the complication of the plot, Abraham gets into action. There are

six action verbs, increasing the pace of the story.303 Coupled with an expression denoting

points of time, ‘early in the morning,’ the actions of Abraham give a sense of urgency

and set the tempo of the narrative.304 The duration of the narrative time is acceleration.

The order of the event is chronological for the most part, except for the analepsis

in the subordinate clause “which God told him.”305 The analepsis is internal in distance

and punctual in reach. Since the analepsis contains new information, it forces “to

300Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 147-149. It “contains only what is necessary, after careful
selection, for the purpose of the narrative, rigorously excluding all the rest.” Ibid. 149.
301Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 56.
302They are concerned “with plans and aspirations or with attempts to persuade and influence.”

Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 147.

303“Verbs of action make story move, and the greater their frequency in the text the faster the pace
of the story.” Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 54. For example, see Ibid.
304When the story moves relatively quickly, it tends to rivet our attention on the action (it is a
‘page-turner’). Ibid., 54.
305“If the narrator, or a reliable character, tells us something new about a past event, it can force us

to reconstrue the past event and, perhaps, everything that has subsequently occurred as a result of it.” Ibid.,
59.

120
reconstrue the past event.”306 It subtly indicates that there is an ellipsis which the narrator

fails to report. Characterization wise, it indicates that Abraham knows more than the

reader, which is character elevating. This will later prove vital for the development of the

plot.

Scene III: Abraham is nearing mount Moriah. The third scene is found in Gen

22:4-5: “On the third day, Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place from a distance.

And Abraham said to his lads, ‘Stay here by yourself with the donkey while I and the lad

will go yonder and worship, and we will return to you.’” The journey is succinctly

summarized with an expression denoting duration, “on the third day.” In terms of

narrative duration, the scene begins with an acceleration, but immediately turns into a

tableau. The narrator is not interested in the journey but in the destination because what

will happen there is substantial for the plot. The narrator slows down the pace of the

narrative by using two action verbs to describe Abraham’s sighting of the mountain,

which invites the reader to precisely see what Abraham saw and emotionally involve with

Abraham’s experience.307

Abraham, then, briefly speaks to his servants, with the duration still in tableau.

Since his words does not directly contribute to the development of the plot, it can be

considered as a means “to illuminate the human aspect, revealing such psychological

306Ibid., 59.
307Bar-Efrat states that tableau portrays “events in a clear and detailed way, they illuminate the
crucial incidents, the crises, climaxes, vital decisions and central activities.” Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the
Bible, 150.

121
features as motives and intentions, points of view and approaches, attitudes and

reactions.”308 The event has chronological order.

Scene IV: Abraham and Isaac worship God. The fourth scene of the narrative

if found in Gen 22:6-10:

And Abraham took the woods for burned offering and put upon Isaac, his son, and
he took in his hand the fire and the knife, and both of them walk together. And
Isaac said to Abraham his father, and said, ‘My father,’ and he said, ‘Here I am,
my son.’ And he said, ‘Behold, the fire and the woods, but where [is]the lamb for
burn offering?’ And Abraham said, ‘God will see for himself the lamb for burn
offering my son,’ and both of them walk together. And they come to the place
which God told to him, and Abraham build there the alter and set in order the
woods. And he binds Isaac his son and he put him upon the alter from above to
the woods. And Abraham stretch out his hand and took the knife to slaughter his
son.

Abraham’s actions in v. 6a are described with three action verbs, and the pace of

the narrative accelerates. The duration of the narrative resumes acceleration which is a

normal narrative case, regaining the tempo. The event is chronological in order and the

frequency of the actions are singularity.

The short dialogue between Isaac and Abraham in vv. 6b-8 is framed with the

phrase “and both of them walk together.” The inclusio also functions as a means to

indicate simultaneity of the conversation with the walking. While the phrase “and both of

them walk together” denotes acceleration, having a chronological order with repetition as

its frequency, the dialogue is presented in the form of tableau. The mixture of duration in

this matter tents to prioritize the focus of the narrative in the dialogue. As shown in scene

III, the dialogue here does not directly contribute to the development of the plot, but

function as a means to illuminate the human aspect of Abraham.309

308Ibid., 147.
309Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 147.
122
 The narrative gains pace in v. 9 by using many action verbs which is an

acceleration.310 The order of the narration is chronological. However, the pace slows

down in v. 10 and gets into tableau. Bar-Efrat states,

The action of taking the knife is divided into two operations—putting forth his
hand and taking the knife—and is supplemented by the intention of the actor, sot
that altogether[,] the time it takes to read the verse (narration time) is longer than
the duration of the action (narrated time). The reader’s complete attention is
focused on that action, which constitutes the climax of the narrative.311

The intention of the actor, “to slaughter his son,” conveys information without

advancing the action. Thus, the pace of the narrative become even slower than tableau,

which is deceleration.312 The pace of the narrative time in this scene shows the emphasis

of the narrator as the climax is presented with suspense.313

Scene V: The angel of YHWH intervenes. The fifth scene of the narrative is

found in Gen 22:11-12:

And the angel of YHWH called to him from the heavens and said, ‘Abraham!
Abraham!’ And he said, ‘Here I am.’ And he said to him, ‘Do not stretch your
hand to the lad, do not do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God
because you did not withhold your son, yours only from me.’

The narrator continues with deceleration to describe the location of the angel of

YHWH before he gets back into tableau to report the dialogue. The deceleration here

310Bar-Efrat states, “Despite the considerable detail with which Abraham’s actions are recounted,

there can be no doubt that building the altar, laying the wood, binding Isaac and laying him on the wood
took far longer than the time required to read the verse.” Ibid., 150.
311Ibid.

312Deceleration “is useful to create or decrease suspense.” Herman and Vervaeck, Handbook of
Narrative Analysis, 62.
313Duration has significant impact on the reader’s experience of the narrative as it “determines the
rhythm of the narrative and contributes to suspense or monotony.” Ibid., 62-63.

123
“gives us a chance to pursue and deepen our reflection.”314 In terms of order, the scene is

chronological. The tableau here functions as characterization for Abraham where the

angel of YHWH describes him as fearing God because he did not withhold his son.315

Scene VI: God provides. The sixth scene of the narrative is found in Gen 22:13-

14:

And Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw, and behold a ram behind, being caught
in the thicket by its horn. And he went and took the ram and offer it for burnt
offering instead of his son. And Abraham called the name of the place ‘YHWH
himself will see,’ which is called today, ‘In the mountain of YHWH, it will be
seen.’

The pace of the narrative is still slow as the scene is presented in tableau. The

narrator uses two action verbs to describe Abraham’s action of discovering the ram,

followed by an emphasis marker ‫ְוִהנֵּה‬. In this case, it become the vehicle of the

development of the plot as well as characterization.316 It serves as a reminder of what

Abraham told Isaac in scene V, that God would provide for himself.

The narrative pace accelerates as Abraham went, took, and offered the ram for the

burnt offering. However, it slows down as Abraham names the mountain. Finally, it

comes to a pause and the direction changes from chronology to anachrony317 as the

314Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 57. One could reflect on the text when the narrator is

“portraying surprising behavior without revealing a character’s motivation, or intensifying our emotional
involvement with a particular character, or posing a moral dilemma that impels us to evaluate and judge the
action.” Ibid., 56-57.
315As a means of characterization, it is use “to illuminate the human aspect, revealing such

psychological features as motives and intentions, points of view and approaches, attitudes and reactions.”
Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 147.
316They are concerned “with plans and aspirations or with attempts to persuade and influence.”
Ibid.
317Herman and Vervaeck, Handbook of Narrative Analysis, 65.

124
narrator connects the well-known phrase of his time with the incident at hand.318 This

becomes the defining moment in the narrative.

Scene VII: Blessings of Abraham. The seventh scene of the narrative is found in

Gen 22:15-18:

And the angel of YHWH called to Abraham second time from the heavens. And
he said, ‘By Myself I sworn declared YHWH, for because since you have done
this thing, and you did not withhold your son, yours only. I will greatly bless you,
and greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is
upon the seashore. And your seed shall possess the gate of his enemies. And in
your seed, all the people of the earth will be blessed because you have heed
with/in/at my voice.’

The pace of the scene notch to a tableau as the angel of YHWH blesses Abraham.

There is mixture of directions in the order. The scene begins in a chronological order

when the narrator informs the reader that the angel of YHWH appears for the second

time. The angel’s speech begins in chronological order when he said, “By Myself I

sworn, declared the Lord.” Then, changing the direction of the order to analepsis, the

reason YHWH swears is link to the previous actions of Abraham. The distance is internal

and the reach is durative because it refers to the whole events from his preparation till he

offers the ram in place of his son. In terms of frequency, it is repetition.

To describes the blessings of Abraham, the direction changes to prolepsis. Since

prolepsis is likely to happen, it reduces the tension and sheds light on the characterization

of Abraham.319 As the prolepsis begins with “an anticipation . . . within the primary

318Ibid., 63. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 146.

319In the case of prophecy, which is the most common form of prolepsis in the Hebrew Bible,

since God’s power is unquestioned, it is assumed to be reliable and the focus is on how it will come about.
See Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 561.

125
narrative . . . [but] ends outside of it,”320 the distance is mixed. The direction changes to

analepsis again in the final word of the angel, reminding the reader that the blessing was

the result of Abraham’s obedience. The distance is internal, the reach is durative, and the

frequency is repetition.

Scene VIII: Abraham returns to Beersheba. The last scene of the narrative is

found in Gen 22:19: “And Abraham returned to his lads and they arose and walk together

to Beersheba. And Abraham dwelled in Beersheba.” As the narrative comes to an end,

the pace is accelerated and have a chronological order. A three days journey back to

Beersheba from the mountain is summarized in one sentence. The narrative closes with

the information that Abraham dwelled in Beersheba. There is no more suspense or

surprises as the narrative enters the final situation of the plot.

Characters

The people that inhabit the story, the dramatis personae, are called characters.321

They can be an individual or a collective figure, assuming a role in the plot.322 In

literature, characters are not necessarily people, they may be “animals, robots, or other

320Herman and Vervaeck, Handbook of Narrative Analysis, 65.

321Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 121. Walsh puts it, “If the ‘story world’ is a world, ‘characters’

are the people who inhabit it. Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 23.
322 Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 60. M. Powell states that the interaction

of the character and events make the plot work. They “carry out the various activities that comprise the
plot.” M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 51.

126
nonhuman entities.”323 In other words, narrative characters are part of the literary

conventions.324

Poetics of the Characters

Characters are constructed by the implied author for a certain purpose in the

story.325 They are the manifested dimension of the narratives, the fabric that makes the

narrative attractive.326 Their actions and conducts determine the genre of the narrative.327

In other words, a character is a topic or logical participant of a narrative with “a set of

propositions predicating of it at least some characteristics generally associated with

human beings: the logical participant may be endowed with certain human physical

attributes, for instance, and think, will, speak, laugh, etc.”328

Types of characters. Characters are generally classified in different character

types based on to their prominence in the narrative in terms of their actions, words, or

323M.Powell, Narrative Criticism, 51. M. Powell adds, “Angels and demons make various
appearances as nonhuman characters in the Gospels.” Ibid.
324Resseguie argues that “biblical characters are functional any more than Mary of Magdala or

Jesus would be considered fictional characters. Rather it implies that an author is selective in what he or she
writes in a narrative, for only some events and speeches can be narrated. No author can give a complete
record of everything that happens in a person’s life, and no autobiographer can record everything about
himself or herself. Thus, to a certain extent, literary characters, whether real life or fictional, are given life
by an author and re-created in the reader’s imagination.” Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 121.
325M.Powell states, “They are best regarded, however, as open constructs, whose existence
sometimes transcends the purpose for which they are crated.” M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 52.
326Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 47. Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories,

58. Walsh states, “To read a narrative is to enter the story world as an observer of its people and events;
that is, it is to treat the story world as real.” Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 23.
327Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 58.
328Gerald
Prince, Narratology: The Form and Functioning of Narrative, Janua Linguarum Series
Maior (New York, NY: Mouton, 1982), 71.

127
feelings. The different character types are: protagonist, foil, walk-on, and agent.329 The

following list consists of character types that can be identified in the narrative of Gen

22:1-19.

Protagonist. Protagonist is the main character in the narrative, whether simple or

complex, “playing an important role in the development of the plot.”330 The protagonist

usually appears the most number of times and he is distinct qualitatively from the other

characters in the narrative as well.331 Functionally, he is superior to others in that, “if

there is a difficult task, he is the one who performs it; if there is a lack, he is the one who

liquidates it.”332 The protagonist usually appears in strategically important points such as

“the beginning or the end of various sequences.”333

Foil. A minor character in the narrative that provides a contrasting background

for the other characters is called a foil character. Their role in the narrative is to

“underscores the distinctive characteristics of another.”334 Their importance in the

narrative is for the cause of another, namely the protagonist.335

329Ibid., 72. Prince adds, “More fundamentally, we may classify them in terms of the functions
they fulfill.” Ibid.
330Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 60.
331Prince states that the main character has a “distinctive ways of expressing himself; he has a
name whereas everybody else is anonymous; he is the only one to be associated with certain moral
attitudes.” Prince, Narratology, 72.
332Ibid.

333Ibid.

334William Harmon and C. Hugh Holman, A Handbook to Literature, 8th ed. (Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999), 216. Quoted in Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 124.
335According to Resseguie, “The foil character ‘may focus the protagonist’s dilemma more clearly’
or may ‘illuminate the protagonist’s blindness and folly.’” Resseguie, Narrative Criticism of the New
Testament, 123. See also Walter J. Harvey, Character and the Novel (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,
1965), 63.

128
 Walk-on. A walk-on character is a “simple character, playing a passive or quasi-

passive (background) role in the narrative.”336 Seymour Chatman defines walk-on

characters as “characters that are not fully delineated and individualized; rather they are

part of the background or setting of the narrative.”337 Though they are not prominent as

the protagonist, walk-on characters “have an important function in the plot design.”338

Agent. The last type of characters is called agent. Agent is “a simple character,

playing a minor (or single) role in the development of the plot.”339 They are not

prominent like the protagonist.

Character traits. Narrative critics usually distinguished characters in terms of

their traits.340 Edward. M. Forster proposes the distinction of characters between a flat

and a round character.341 Flatness and roundness are not two distinct categories of

characters, but “two points on a continuum of complexity from highly developed, many-

sided characters down to those who simply drawn as to be little more than animated

props.”342 The traits of the round characters and the flat characters are presented below.

336Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 60.

337Chatman, Story and Discourse, 139.
338Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 125.
339Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 60.
340M. Powell describes the use of the term traits in narrative studies as follows: “For narrative

purposes, traits are considered to be persistent personal qualities that describe the character involved.” M.
Powell, Narrative Criticism, 54. M. Powell also states that “sometimes, the adjectives that define a
character’s traits are found explicitly in the text.” Ibid.
341Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 24. Cf. Forster, Aspects of the Novel, 103-118.78 See also

Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 123. and M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 55.

342Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 24.

129
 Round characters. Round characters possess complex or multiple traits “that

develop and might, at times, be in tension with one another.”343 The unpredictable nature

makes them a “three-dimensional, . . . and shows depth that ‘cannot be summed up in a

single phrase.’”344 They often resemble real people as they convincingly surprise the

reader.345 Characters who play a major role in the plot tends to be more complex while

supporting actors are simpler, yet they can be with various degrees of roundness.346 The

simplest characters may be more functional than a person.347

Flat character. In contrast to the round character, “a flat character lacks a hidden

complexity or depth and is incapable of surprising the reader.”348 Flat characters are

“consistent and predictable.”349 Since flat characters are “constructed around a single idea

or quality”350 they are easy to comprehend. They may be described as “one-dimensional,

characterized by one or two traits that change little or not at all in the course of the

narrative.”351 In other words, if the character “never surprises, it is flat. If it does not

343Ibid.Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 60. Berlin, Poetics and
Interpretation, 23. Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 123. M. Powell also states that round characters
“possess a variety of potentially conflicting traits.” M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 55.
344Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 123.
345Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 23. Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 123.
346Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 24. According to Margeurat and Borquin, a round character
“frequently assumes the role of protagonist in the narrative.” Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible
Stories, 60. Berlin also states, “The round character is the full-fledged character.” Berlin, Poetics and
Interpretation, 23.
347Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 24.
348Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 123.
349M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 55.
350Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 123. Berlin describes them as a “types, . . . built around a single
quality or trait. They do not stand out as individuals.” Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 23.
351Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 24. Marguerat and Bourquin also define flat character as

having “a single trait.” Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 60.
130
convince, it is a flat pretending to be round.”352 It is possible that a round character in one

story may take the role of a type or agent in another story.353 In most cases, minor

characters in a narrative are flat.354

Analysis of the Characters

The analysis of the character includes identifying the characters, their character

types, and traits. The narrative of Gen 22:1-19 consists of five characters with four

distinct character types. The characters are God, Abraham, Isaac, the two servants, and

the angel of YHWH.

God. The first character mentioned in the narrative is God (‫)ֲאֹלִהים‬. He upsets the

equilibrium by the test (‫ )נִָסּה‬he put Abraham through (vv. 1-2).355 His influences in the

other parts of the narrative can be felt in the words of the narrator (v. 3) and other

characters’ consciousness of Him in their speeches (vv. 8, 12) and actions (vv. 3, 9).

Through the angel of YHWH, He also pronounces the final blessing to Abraham (vv. 15-

18). The name YHWH (‫ )י ְהָוה‬appears twice in v. 14 and once in v. 16 as the angel of

YHWH speaks on his behalf. In v. 8, Abraham told Isaac that God would provide the

lamb for the burnt offering, and in v. 14, Abraham ascribed YHWH as the one who sees.

352Forster,Aspects of the Novel, 78. Cited by Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 123. Forster add,
“When there is more than one factor [in a flat character], we get the beginning of the curve towards the
round.” Forster, Aspects of the Novel, 67. Cf. Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 123. Emphasis in original.
353Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 24. According to Berlin, “The flat character is the type; and
the functionary is the agent.” Ibid., 23.
354Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 123.
355The analysis of the initial situation shows that at least a decade must have passed between Gen

22:1 and when Isaac was weaned (Gen 21:8).

131
 While it was ‫ ֲאֹלִהים‬who requests Abraham to offer his son in v. 2, ‫ י ְהָוה‬claims

through the angel of YHWH that Abraham obeys His voice (‫)ְבּק ִֹלי‬. The narrative did not

differentiate between ‫ ֲאֹלִהים‬from ‫י ְהָוה‬. The narrator uses the name God and YHWH

interchangeably. As a narrative character, His role in the development of the plot

underlines His prominence in the narrative as one of the protagonists.

Regarding character traits, God possesses a complex character trait. He requests

Abraham to offer his son as a burnt offering (v. 2) but stops Abraham at the eleventh hour

through the angel of YHWH (vv. 11-12). He then blessed Abraham through the angel of

YHWH for the deeds that he had done (vv. 14-18). The complexity and unpredictability

of God made him round character. Thus, God as a character in this narrative is a

protagonist having a round character trait.

Abraham. The second character mentioned in the narrative is Abraham (v. 1). He

appears more frequently than the rest of the characters in the narrative. The name

Abraham appears seventeen times; except in vv. 2, 12, and 15-18, his name appears in

every verse of the pericope. Like God, he appears in the strategically important points in

the narrative. He is one of the two characters introduced in the abstract (v. 1), and the last

person mentioned in the narrative as well (v. 19). The spotlight is on him throughout the

narrative of Gen 22:1-19.

As he is tasked with the requirements of the test (v. 2), his function in the

narrative is more prominent than the others.356 Abraham’s presence in the narrative can

be felt throughout the narrative because even when he is not the subject of the event in a

given scene, he is always the second person that receives the action. In v. 2, God spoke

356Prince, Narratology, 72.

132
and the words were directed to Abraham. In v. 12, the angel of YHWH spoke, and the

command was directed to Abraham. Likewise, In vv. 15-18, the blessings that the angel

of YHWH uttered were for the benefits of Abraham because of his deeds (vv. 12, 16). It

is not difficult to identify him as one of the protagonists in the narrative.

Since the narrator does not directly reveal the motives and feelings of Abraham,

he is unpredictable. He responds to God’s request, which is difficult, by rising early in the

morning and prepares for the journey without any resistance.357 He seems eager to fulfill

the request. On the other hand, his enigmatic words to his servants (v. 5) and his son

Isaac (v. 8) is not reflected in the request God made to him in v. 2. Once they reached the

mountain (vv. 9-10), he acted just as he was requested as opposed to what he said to his

servants and Isaac. His unpredictable nature “shows depth that ‘cannot be summed up in

a single phrase.’”358 In terms of character traits, Abraham is a round character.

Isaac. The name Isaac is mentioned five times in the narrative (vv. 2, 3, 6, 7, and

9). Isaac features as playing a secondary role to Abraham. His existence in the narrative

depends on his father. This is well reflected in the way the narrator addresses him in the

narrative. Three times in the narrative he is referred to as ‫( ִבּנְָ֨ך‬vv. 2, 12, 16) with

Abraham as the recipient. He is referred to as ‫ ְבּ ֑נוֹ‬five times (vv. 3, 6, 9, 10, 13). In his

conversation with his father, Abraham addresses him as ‫( ְב ִ ֑ני‬vv. 7, 8). Thus, the role of

Isaac as a character in the narrative plot is subordinate to God and Abraham.

357The phrase ‫קר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫שֵׁ֥כּם אְַבָר ָ ֖הם ַבּ ֑בּ‬ ְ ַ ‫ַויּ‬, with Abraham as the subject of the verb, occurs in Gen 19:27 and
21:8. The phrase ‫שֵׁ֨כּם ֲאִביֶ֜מֶלְך ַבּ ֗בּ ֶֹקר‬ ְ ַ ‫ַויּ‬, with Abimelech as the subject of the verb, occurs in Gen 20:8. In all
these narratives, there is a sense of an eager anticipation to act. Mathews also states “‘Early the next
morning’ (v. 3) occurs in settings of urgency in the Abraham narrative (19:27; 20:8; 21:14; also 28:18;
32:1; Exod 24:4). This remark indicates the patriarch’s prompt obedience as in the prior divine instruction
regarding Ishmael (21:14).” K. Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, 291.
358Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 123.

133
 Isaac’s role in the narrative is to underscore “the distinctive characteristics”359 of

the protagonist Abraham. As the only beloved son of Abraham (vv. 2, 12), to be offered

as a burnt offering to God by his father Abraham would certainly provide “perspectives

of depth”360 about Abraham. His obedience and cooperation (vv. 9-10) portray

Abraham’s devotion to his God (vv. 11-12, 16-18). The question he put forth to his father

concerning the lamb for the burnt offering in v. 7 also sets up Abraham to subtly voice

his motives in v. 8 which will otherwise be unknown since the narrator never reveals. As

Isaac plays a significant role in providing a contrasting background for Abraham, he has

a foil character type.

Isaac, as a character, “lacks hidden complexity or depth.”361 Except for the

clarifying questions that he asked his father in v. 7, Isaac did not speak nor initiated

events. He is passive, cooperative, and submissive to his father all throughout.362 Since he

is easy to comprehend and never surprises,363 Isaac has a flat character trait.

The two servants. The two servants are “the nameless, faceless, actionless

‘young men’”364 in the narrative. Their role is rather limited in the narrative. They feature

the least among the characters (vv. 3, 5, 19). They are subject to the protagonist

Abraham; as such, they are not “fully delineated and individualized.”365 He took them

359Ibid., 123-124.
360Ibid., 124.
361Ibid., 123.
362M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 55.
363Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 23.
364Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 24.
365Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 125. Quoted in Chatman, Story and Discours, 139.

134
along in the journey (v. 3); he commanded them to stay by the donkey and waited for

them to return (v. 5); and they accompany Abraham back to Beersheba (v. 19). They

never expressed their thoughts nor initiated any incident. They are “simple character,

playing a passive or quasi-passive (background) role in the narrative.”366

The two servants, do have other function in the development of the plot. Since,

apart from telling that God tests Abraham in v. 1, the narrator does not comment on

Abraham’s perception of the events. The two servants provide Abraham occasion to

reveal his thoughts concerning the test. As a narrative character, they are walk-on

character type.367 They are “constructed around a single idea or quality.”368 They lack

hidden complexity and they are consistent and predictable. They respond to Abraham’s

command without any reaction; they are inanimate and lack dynamism. Thus, in terms of

character traits, they are flat characters.

The angel of YHWH. Until the second part of the narrative, the angel of YHWH

does not appear. He is only featured twice in the narrative. First, he intervened when

Abraham was about to slay his son in vv. 11-12. Second, he called Abraham for the

second time to bless him in vv. 15-18. In both instances, he did not speak for himself but

on behalf of God. As a narrative character, he is an agent. Since he appears only in the

denouement of the plot, he does not develop further in the narrative. Thus, he is an agent

character type with the flat character trait.

366Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 60.

367Skauses the two servants of Abraham in Gen 22:3, 5, 19 as an examples of walk-on characters.
Ska, “Our Fathers Have Told Us,” 87.
368Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 123. Berlin describes them as a “types, . . . built around a single
quality or trait. They do not stand out as individuals.” Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 23.

135
Summary of the Character Analysis

There are two protagonists in the narrative, namely God and Abraham. Both the

protagonists are round characters. Isaac is the foil character with a flat character trait. The

two servants are walk-on characters with a flat character trait. The angel of YHWH is an

agent character type with a flat character trait as well.

Characterization

Characterization is more of a narrating strategy than just a component of the

story.369 It is a technique by which the qualities of a character which are important to the

narrative are revealed.370 It is “the process through which the implied author provides the

implied reader with what is necessary to reconstruct a character from the narrative.”371

The quality of the character may be reconstructed from “the statements and evaluations

of the narrator and other characters,”372 and what the implied reader could infer “from the

speech and action of the character himself.”373 Characterization is an important process in

the narrative analysis.

369Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 43.

370Concerning the techniques of characterization, Berlin notes, “In general, they are the same

techniques that are found in non-biblical narrative.” Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 33-34.
371M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 52. Referring to the various ways of characterization the
narrator employs, Walsh also states that each of these techniques “contributes to the construction of a
character in the reader’s imagination, but their effects on the intensity of the reader’s engagement with that
character differ considerably.” Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 34.
372Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 34.
373Ibid., 34.

136
 Characterization is important because “many of the views embody in the narrative

are expressed through the characters, and more specifically, through their speech and

fate.”374 Tremper Longman III states,

Characterization has significant consequences for interpretation. It means that we

generally have only indirect description of characters and motivations for their
actions. The interpreter must sometimes read between the lines to round out the
picture. . . . Without indulging in wholesale speculation and eisegesis, the reader
must make inferences from the text about characters and in fact is encouraged to
do so by the text.375

The significance of characterization becomes clear when one realizes that a

literary character is “merely the sum of the means used in the description.”376 Bar-Efrat

suggests that characterization should be emphasized because biblical characters are

known “only as they are presented in the narratives, and it is to this alone that we can

refer.”377 In other words, biblical narrative “accounts are shaped—that is, we have in the

Bible selective, emphasized, and interpreted accounts of historical events.”378

374Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 48. Resseguie states, “Characters reveal themselves in
their speech (what they say and how they say it), in their actions (what they do), by their clothing (what
they wear), in their gestures and posture (how they present themselves). Characters are known by what
others say about them.” Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 121. Resseguie adds that the environment or
setting in which the characters work and play, as well as through “their position within society,” characters
are also known. Ibid., 121-122.
375Longman, Literary Approaches, 90.
376Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 48. Berlin also states, “I have spoken here of biblical

narrative as a representation—a realistic representation in many ways. Because it is often so convincingly

realistic, many are caught short when its realism fails—e.g. when it speaks of impossible acts or incredible
numbers.” Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 139.
377Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 47. Emphasis mine. He also states, “Although we can

judge whether a particular character is convincing as a human being, we cannot know whether he or she is
an accurate representation of a specific historical person.” Ibid., 48.
378Longman, Literary Approaches, 88. Longman illustrates this and states, “We do not get a full

report of the events of the life of Jesus, as John explicitly admits for his gospel: ‘Jesus did many other
things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not
have room for the books that would be written’ (21:25). The immediately preceding verse indicates that the
selective nature of his account did not impinge on its truthfulness: ‘This is the disciple who testifies to these
things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. (v. 24).” Ibid., 89.

137
 It is not possible to recount every detail of an event or a person’s life in a

literature; therefore, a process of selectivity is always involved in the shaping of a

character in a narrative.379 It is this selection of what is and is not recorded that “reveal

the values and norms within the narrative.”380 Therefore, understanding “the conventional

means of characterization in Hebrew narrative”381 becomes a significant task for the

readers.

Poetics of Characterization

For the purpose of analysis, it is helpful to classify the ways the narrator presents

the characters of the narrative. There are overlapping in the use of terms among scholars

in the way they categorize and explain characterization.382 Significant elements that are

deemed valuable to the analysis of the narrative in Gen 22:1-19 are presented.

379What is said and how it is said, what is done, the costumes used, the character’s gestures and

postures, what one said about others, the environment or setting of their work and play, the function of the
settings in their action and speech, and the question of symbolism also provide additional details about the
characters. Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 121. According to Alter, “In reliable third-person narrations,
such as in the Bible, there is a scale of means, in ascending order of explicitness and certainty, for
conveying information about the motives, the attitudes, the moral nature of characters. Character can be
revealed through the report of actions; through appearance, gestures, posture, costume; through one
character’s comments on another; through direct speech by the character; through inward speech, either
summarized or quoted as interior monologue; or through statements by the narrator about the attitudes and
intentions of the personages, which may come either as flat assertions or motivated explanations.” Alter,
The Art of Biblical Narrative, 116-117.
380Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 48.
381Longman, Literary Approaches, 89.
382For example, when the narrator explicitly describes the character of a person, some scholars
refer to it as telling. Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 34-35; Ska, “Our Fathers Have Told Us,” 53-54.
However, other scholars would categorize narrator’s explicit descriptions about a character under the
termed direct characterization or direct shaping of the characters. For details about direct
characterization, see Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 48-63. Yet, when another character describes
the character of another person in the narrative, it is termed as indirect showing by those scholars who
favors the term telling. For details about indirect showing, see Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 37-39. The
same is also considered as direct characterization by other scholars. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible,
53.

138
 Telling and showing are the two generally “recognized narrative techniques of

characterization.”383 Following Walsh’s category of characterization, showing is further

divided into direct showing and indirect showing.384 The presentation of the poetic of

characterization in the following discussion thus includes telling and showing, in which

the latter is further divided into direct showing and indirect showing.

Telling. Telling is a characterization technique through which “the narrator

explicitly tells us that the character has such-and-such a quality.”385 The narrator

comments directly by “singling out a trait for us to notice or making an evaluation of a

character and his or her motives and disposition.”386 In other words, “the more present the

narrator is in his account, the closer we get to the narrative mode proper (diegesis or

telling).”387 As such, telling is also called direct presentation.388

383Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 126. Walsh also recognized telling and showing as the

technique of characterization, but he further divided showing into direct showing and indirect showing.
Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 34-39. However, Bar-Efrat categorized it as the direct shaping of the
characters and the indirect shaping of the characters. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 47-92.
384See Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 35-39.
385Ibid.,34. Emphasis in original. Ska called it “direct description or ‘direct narrative statement’
by the narrator.” Ska, “Our Fathers Have Told Us,” 88. Walsh states, “If the writer considers it important
that we should not be misled by pretty talk, he may decide not to play hide-and-seek any longer; he leaves
his role, does not partake any longer as narrator in the stream of the sub-actions and tells us himself, in the
voice of the narrator, that something is a lie.” Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 35.
386Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 127. In other words, Walsh states in telling, the implied author

“supplies the reader with information useful for understanding the story, but does not engage him or her in
the process of actively drawing implications out of what is said,” but rather stated it out for the reader.
Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 35.
387Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 70.
388Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 127; Herman and Vervaeck, Handbook of Narrative Analysis,
67-68.

139
 In the scale of evaluation, Walsh states that telling is “the simplest, the least

common, and the least powerful technique of characterization”389 because it does not

require the involvement of the reader. However, being the simplest does not necessarily

imply that it is less significant because “what the narrator tells us influences how we read

the narrative. There is a need to rely on the narrator to express the norms and values of

the narrative and how readers should respond to individual characters.”390 In spite of its

straightforward strategies, “they can be easily (ab)used to send the reader in the wrong

direction.”391

There are a few ways a narrator may execute the technique of telling. The narrator

can directly describe the quality of a character392 or the inside views of the character by

disclosing “the inner motivations, intentions, or states of mind of the character.”393 These

could be done using predications394 or using “descriptive terms (technically, nouns in

389Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 34-35. Fokkelman also states, “The simplest option is for the
narrator to make things easy for us and tell us in so many words about any deceit going on. He lets us share
in his omniscience or prior knowledge.” Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Narrative, 65.
390Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 127. Resseguie states, “If the narrator is unreliable, as may

happen in modern literature, we question the narrator’s assessment. If the narrator is reliable, as is the case
with biblical literature, we accept the narrator’s assessment at face value.” Ibid., 131-132. See also Alter,
The Art of Biblical Narrative, 117.
391Herman and Vervaeck, Handbook of Narrative Analysis, 68.
392For example, in Gen 6:8, the narrator tells the readers that “Noah was a righteous man,
blameless in his generation; with God Noah constantly walked.” Ska, “Our Fathers Have Told Us,” 88. See
also Herman and Vervaeck, Handbook of Narrative Analysis, 67.
393Ska,“Our Fathers Have Told Us,” 89. In Exod 3:6, the narrator mentions that “Moses hid his
face, because he was afraid to look at God.” Ibid. See also Herman and Vervaeck, Handbook of Narrative
Analysis, 67.
394For example, in 1 Kgs 7:14 the narrator tells the readers that Hiram of Tyre was “full of skill,
intelligence, and knowledge in working bronze.” Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 34.

140
apposition and, and less commonly, attributive adjectives).”395 Bar-Efrat, however, notes

that instances of telling by the narrator in biblical narrative are not frequent.396

Showing. In contrast to telling, where the aspects of character’s personality arise

from the voice of the narrator inscribes in the text itself, in showing the reader has to

infers and shapes the aspects of the character through his “unique understanding and

appropriation of the text.”397 It is a powerful technique of characterization which invites

the reader to engage with the character. In showing, the narrator restricts his intervention

in the narrative and get closer to dramatic mode (mimesis), in a way the reader felt his

presence less than in telling.398 Therefore, it is also called “dramatic method or indirect

presentation.”399

In showing, “the author simply presents the characters talking and acting and

leaves the reader to infer the motives and dispositions that lie behind what they say or

do.”400 In order for the reader to construct the character in the imagination, the reader

needs to actively collaborate with the narrator by thinking and drawing out “the

395Ibid.
For example, Hiram of Tyre in 1 Kgs 7:14 tells readers that Hiram is from Tyre. “To speak
of ‘King David’ tells us that David is a ‘king.’” Ibid.
396Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 53. It may however be noted that “the trait noted by the

narrator is always extremely important in the development of the plot. Furthermore, the quality denoted
through direct characterization almost always emerges indirectly, too, through either the actions or speech
or the character involved or through both of them.” Ibid. See also Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 34-37.
397Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 37.
398Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 70.
399Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 126.
400A Glossary of Literary Terms, 9th ed., s.v. “Showing.” Quoted in Resseguie, Narrative

Criticism, 127. Berlin states, “The way a character is ‘shown’ is through his own words—his speech—and
his actions. . . . Biblical narrative makes extensive use of the speech and actions of characters to further the
plot and to create characterization. “ Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 38.

141
implications from the character’s speech or action.”401 In a way, the reader becomes the

coauthor of the narrative.402 Showing may be further divided into direct showing and

indirect showing.

Direct showing. The narrator can choose to show the character speaking or acting

instead of telling us a particular quality that the character possesses.403 When the narrator

leaves the readers “to infer from the character’s behavior what that behavior reveals

about the character,”404 the narrator is employing a technique of characterization called

direct showing. It is analogous with people’s everyday experiences where they have to

constantly make judgments about the other person on what they observe.405 Thus, direct

showing gives “a sense of the ‘reality’ of the secondary world”406 as it deeply engages the

reader with the characters of the narrative.

401Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 37. Walsh suggests, “Not telling the reader about the

character’s qualities makes it necessary for the reader to think about and draw out the implications of the
character’s speech or action.” Ibid.
402Walsh likens the author in this instance to “the ancient real author, [who] puts something of

himself or herself into the text.” Ibid.

403Ibid.,,
35. This technique of characterization is also called indirect characterization. Herman and
Vervaeck, Handbook of Narrative Analysis, 68.
404Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 35. Emphasis in original. Apart from the list of characteristics
the narrator presented about the character in telling, “The way in which a character is presented” and
“woven into the text” is the central question in characterization. Herman and Vervaeck, Handbook of
Narrative Analysis, 67.
405In
everyday life, “We watch person A or person B as they interact with others, and we make
judgments about them based on what we observe.” Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 37.
406Ibid. Fokkelman elaborates the reality feeling showing offers to the readers and states, “Often,
we do not immediately discover whether we can take characters at face value, or whether they mean what
they say. This takes us into the situation we often experience in our own life: unable to gauge another
person, we are forced to compare words with actions, and have to reach an interpretation or a conclusion by
way of often laborious combination and deduction. It is exactly the same with the characters in the biblical
story. If they speak pretty words while committing atrocities, we take our cue from the latter.” Fokkelman,
Reading Biblical Narrative, 66.

142
 In the process of reconstructing the character through characterization using direct

showing technique, the context of the speech and the action must be considered.407

Herman and Vervaeck briefly elaborate the importance of the context in direct showing

as follows:

Actions, for instance, often follow naturally from a character’s identity. Discourse
too says a lot, literally and figuratively. The words and style used by a character
betray his social position, his ideology, and his psychology. The character’s
physical appearance and his environment can be telling too.408

Thus, the words and actions of the characters in a narrative should be carefully observed

in its context in order to correctly understand the characters of the narrative.

Indirect showing. Indirect showing occurs when one character in a narrative

speaks about another character in the narrative.409 In indirect showing, “we must draw

our inferences about one character through the mediation of another character’s

behavior.”410 It is similar to a real-world situation where what people “learn about others

from third parties” shapes their opinion about others.411 Indirect showing is “the most

complex of the characterization techniques”412 since it demands the greatest involvement

of the reader.

407The
context for consideration includes the following questions: “To whom is the character
speaking? Who knows about the character’s actions?” Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 35.
408Herman and Vervaeck, Handbook of Narrative Analysis, 68. In other words, direct showing
“says something about the claustrophobic and paranoid world-view of this character.” Ibid.
409Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 37.
410Ibid., 38. Emphasis in original. Walsh states, “We can only infer things about this character [the
character we are interested in] indirectly, by watching the way the speaking character addresses the other
character.” Ibid., 37.
411Ibid.

412Ibid., 37. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 64.

143
 In order to interpret indirect showing, the reader must first make judgments about

the character of the intermediate such as his/her reliability and the motives behind the

speech and actions.413 The reader then must “discern and evaluate the intermediate

character’s apparent view of the other character”414 such as his/her depth of knowledge

about the other character, whether his/her judgment about the other character is

“consistent with what we have inferred (or been told) elsewhere.”415 The reader, then, has

“to interpret these details and construct the character’s mental and emotional make-up

accordingly.”416 Therefore, analysis of the indirect showing must be done with care.

Analysis of the Characterization

The analysis of the characterization includes identifying important qualities of the

characters of Gen 22:1-19. These qualities are revealed by the narrator using the

techniques of telling, direct showing, and indirect showing. The following presentation

discusses the characterization of God, Abraham, Isaac, and the two servants.

God. There is only one action that the narrator ascribes directly to God in Gen

22:1-19. It is found in the abstract of the narrative (v. 1a) where the narrator tells the

reader that “God tested Abraham.” The requirement of the test is found in v. 2, but the

narrator did not immediately tell the reader why God tested Abraham. In v. 12, through

the angel of YHWH, the readers were informed about the test meant for Abraham to

show that he feared God. It was mentioned in the analysis of the plot that God triggered

413Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 38.

414Ibid. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 64.
415Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 38.
416Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 64.

144
the action of the narrative (v. 2) and brought an end to the actions (v. 12).417 Thus, the

action characterized God as someone who wanted Abraham to show that he feared Him.

Direct showing. Genesis 22:2 records the only direct speeches of God in the

narrative. Though the angel of YHWH spoke on behalf of God towards the end (vv. 12,

15-18), God did not feature as a narrative character any more. As the speech is introduced

immediately after the abstract (v. 1), the reader has a limited knowledge about the context

of the speech except that it is a test. The reason for the test, however, is not immediately

evident either. Therefore, the words of God in Gen 22:2 should be understood in the

context of a test. The use of particle na at the beginning of the verse suggests that God’s

words in this situation have a connotation of a request rather than a forceful command.

As such, God is characterized here as being tactful, without necessarily being arrogant.

Perceived understanding through indirect showing. Indirect speeches contribute

towards the characterization of God in Gen 22:1-19. The reader learns a great deal about

God through the words of Abraham (vv. 8, 14) and the angel of YHWH (vv. 15-18). In

response to his son Isaac’s question about the lamb for the sacrifice (Gen 22:7), Abraham

told him that God would see for himself the lamb for a burnt offering (v. 8). Abraham

here revealed what he thought about God. It had a tone of expectation from God.

Abraham perceived God as having an ability, as well as a will, to provide the lamb for the

sacrifice. This is indeed a bold claim about God.

In the words of Bar-Efrat, “when characterization derives from human beings[,]

the question arises whether it reflects the author’s ‘objective’ view or only the character’s

417Streit, “The God of Abraham,” 192-193.

145
subjective one.”418 Abraham is a human being having a round character trait in the

narrative; what he said can be deceiving. Since the narrator used a neutral point of view

as the storytelling mode in Gen 22:8, as the analysis shows, it has been noted that there is

no way the reader could tell whether Abraham voiced his expectation, lied to his son, or

knew God as he presented here at this point for a simple reason that the narrator did not

share his omniscient knowledge; revealing the inner motives of the character.

The subsequent actions and events of the narrative confirm Abraham’s bold claim

about God to be true: God is able and willing to provide. In summary, the speech of

Abraham reveals that God is able and willing to provide while the speech of the angel of

YHWH informs that God blesses those who obey Him. Abraham’s claim about God is

confirmed further by his act of naming the place in v. 14. Herman and Vervaeck note that

“the name is an example of characterization through analogy. To the extent that the name

points to an aspect of the character or to a contiguous element pertaining to it, we believe

it still belongs to metonymic characterization.”419 By naming the mountain, Abraham

reaffirms his perception about God which indirectly characterized God as a character who

is able and willing to provide.

Another indirect characterization for God is found in vv. 16-18 when the angel of

YHWH speaks on behalf of God to Abraham. The speaker, identified as the angel of

YHWH who speaks from the heavens, commands authenticity and authority to the words

he is about to deliver. The narrator probably expects the reader to accept what this

418Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 54. Bar-Efrat explains that “the author can portray any one

character by putting a description in the mouth of any other, but this does not mean that whenever this
occurs it necessarily reflects the author’s opinion. It will not always be easy to decide whether or not the
author identifies with what the characters say in describing each other.” Ibid.
419Herman and Vervaeck, Handbook of Narrative Analysis, 68-69.

146
character is about to say without question. Even more, his words in v. 16 are not his own

but the very words of YHWH Himself.

The used of the Hebrew phrase ‫שׁר‬

ֶ ‫ ִ֗כּי י ַַען ֲא‬is unique in a sense that all the three

particles have the connotation of purpose or reason, and they are arranged in a

consecutive sequential order. The phrase here is used to introduce the purpose or reason

that made the Lord swear by “Myself.” The used of the phrase emphasize the significance

of Abraham’s action in the transforming action of the plot, as such, it aids in the

characterization of God indirectly. God had promised progeny to Abraham prior to this

incident for reason that is not specified.420 However, after the incident in Gen 22,

Abraham’s action in the transforming action of the plot become the new reason for him to

receive the blessings of God pronounced in vv. 17-18. Thus, through the speech of the

angel of YHWH, the reader learns that God blessed those who obey Him.

Abraham. There are ample ways the narrator directly shows the quality of

Abraham in the narrative.421 The narrator uses the speeches and actions of Abraham, as

well as other’s speech about him, to characterize him. The following discussion presents

the characterization of Abraham through his actions, direct showing, and indirect

showing.

Actions. The transforming action of the plot is filled with series of Abraham’s

actions in his attempt to satiate the request of God. The way Abraham responded (v. 3) to

the request of God (v. 2) could excite mixed reception. Considering the fact that at the

420See Gen 12:7; 15:1-6; and 17:7-8.

421It has been noted earlier that dialogue is one of the technique of characterization through which
the inner life and the disposition of a character is dramatized. Ska, “Our Fathers Have Told Us,” 89.

147
heart of the request lie the fate of the innocent promised son, a son of an old age, one may

either be appalled for such disturbing actions or admire such an obedience of Abraham.

An analysis of the narrative provides glimpses of Abraham’s motivation for his

actions. Berlin comments on the actions of Abraham as a narrative character in v. 3 to

demonstrate one of the functions of series of actions. As stated by Berlin,

Sometimes[,] there are actions without words. When Abraham is told to sacrifice
his son, he says nothing at all, but ‘he rose early in the morning, saddled his
donkey, took his two servants with him, and Isaac his son, split the wood for the
offering, got up, and went . . .’ (Gen 22:3). This string of short clauses of similar
syntax, in which the verbs predominate, conveys the feeling that Abraham is
deliberately and obediently carrying out his order.422

Compliance to the request that Abraham manifested through the series of actions conveys

the notion that he deliberately obeys God’s voice.

There are two instances where Abraham lifted his eyes and looked (vv. 4, 13). In

v. 2, God asks Abraham to go to one of the mountains in Moriah but did not tell him the

exact location. However, “on the third day[, when] Abraham lifted his eyes and [look, he]

saw the place afar off” in v. 4. When did he know the place is not mentioned, the readers

are only informed that God had told him the place. When “Abraham lifted up his eyes

and look” in v. 13, what he saw is introduced with an interjection ‘behold!’ Abraham saw

a ram caught in the thickets by its horn. Again, when and how did the ram got stuck in

the thicket are not explained! However, by naming the mountain in v. 14, it can be

deduced that Abraham accepts it as provided by the YHWH. Thus, both the instances

characterize Abraham’s dependence on God. It also implies that Abraham had a

relationship with God which is not made known to the reader.

422Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 39.

148
 Direct showing. Every time Abraham is called, his answer is always “here I am!”

(vv. 1b, 7, 11). To each call, he exhibits a fitting response. The first time he responded

was when God made a request (v. 2), to which he responded with a series of actions that

met the request (vv. 3-10). The second time, it was his son who called him, and he

replied, “Here I am, my son,” (v. 7). The addition of the phrase, ‘my son,’ to his usual

reply, “here I am,” only shows his affection for his son because the other time someone

called him (vv. 1, 11), no such appositional phrase was commended. Then, he shared his

belief with his son (v. 8). The third time, it was an urgent call from the angel of YHWH

from heaven (v. 11), to which he gave a consistent response and followed what the angel

of YHWH said. Indeed, to each question or request, Abraham gave a prompt answer. To

the one who asked him to act, he acted accordingly. To the one who asked a question, he

gave a prompt answer. The consistent reply and response Abraham gave characterized

him as someone who is attentive, obedient, and ready to respond to the request or

command from God.

The words of Abraham in v. 5 is the first time he verbally expresses his version of

what God said to him in v. 2. As shown in the analysis of the point of view, the reader is

positioned among the characters without the narrator sharing his omniscient knowledge

about Abraham’s inner thought since v. 1a. Therefore, the reader has to evaluate

Abraham’s words in v. 5 against the events that unfold as the story progresses. In v. 13,

Abraham discovered the ram, took it, and offered it in place of his son. Abraham and

Isaac really worshipped God just as he said in v. 5. After the angel of YHWH pronounced

the blessings upon Abraham in vv. 15-18, and that included Isaac as the seed, they

returned to the servants and went together to Beersheba at the end of the story in v. 19.

149
Thus, what Abraham said to his servants turned out to be true, which implies that

Abraham actually expressed his inner motivation to his servants.

Based on the evaluation of the narrative, what Abraham said to his servants in v. 5

characterized him as one who completely trusts God with outrageous faith. The dramatic

monologue revealed that Abraham perceived his mission as an act of worship, not as a

test that the reader knows through sharing the omniscient knowledge of the narrator. This

act of worship would not fatally affect the life of Isaac because he expected to return to

the servants together. This agrees with the evaluation of the angel of YHWH who

characterized Abraham as God-fearing.

What Abraham said to his son in v. 8 is also another revelation of his inner

motivation. It enables him to follow God’s words to the letter. Thus, Abraham’s words in

v. 5 and 8 characterized him as having an outrageous faith with a total dependence and

trust in God.

Indirect showing. The first indirect speech that characterized Abraham is found in

v. 2. The narrator here uses indirect characterization through God and presents the inside

view of Abraham through descriptive terms (technically using nouns in apposition). The

way God describes Abraham’s relationship with Isaac characterized him as a caring

father who dearly loved his son Isaac. Characterization by one of the characters is

doubtful, but if it is by God who is also described as having the evaluative point of view,

the characterization is trustworthy.423 It indirectly shows that Abraham is an affectionate

father.

423See Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 54.

150
 This indirect characterization seems to play a significant role in the plot as God

uses this quality of Abraham to evaluate his “fear” of God. It creates a big tension and

suspense in the narrative and forms the catalyst of the complication of the plot. To

sacrifice the one who is very endeared to him is the task set before Abraham.

The second indirect speech that presents the inside view of Abraham is found in

v. 7. The question Isaac raised indicates that this is not the first time Abraham and Isaac

offered a sacrifice because Isaac could tell that the lamb for the burnt offering was

missing. It indicates that Abraham has not shared in depth to Isaac about the nature of

their journey.

Abraham’s obedience is shown through his actions over and over again in vv. 3,

6, 9, and 10. In each of these verses, Abraham moved towards the designated mountain

and did what was necessary to complete his mission. In v. 3, he prepared early in the

morning, which shows his eagerness to fulfill the requirement, and left immediately. In

v. 6, leaving the servants and the donkey behind, Abraham and Isaac approached the

mountain. In v. 9 and 10, Abraham set up the altar, bound Isaac, and was on the verge of

committing the last act. These verses are filled with action verbs and clearly show that

Abraham completely followed what God asked of him. His obedience to God’s voice is

clearly depicted in these verses.

Obedience is one of the qualities characterized by Abraham within the narrative

through direct showing. The narrator employs both speeches and actions to show the

obedience of Abraham. In the narrative of Gen 22:1-19, whenever Abraham is called, he

151
always answers, “Here I am.”424 Abraham’s ever readiness to reply shows his obedience

and attentiveness to God’s call.

Isaac. Characterization for Isaac becomes limited in comparison to the

protagonists God and Abraham. The limitation is partly because of his role in the

narrative as a foil character. Therefore, the presentation of the characterization for Isaac

is divided into direct showing and indirect showing.

Direct showing. There are two brief instances of direct showing about Isaac in

v. 7 when the narrator recorded a brief dialogue between Isaac and his father,

Abraham.425 Dialogue is one of the techniques of characterization through which the

inner life and the disposition of a character are dramatized.426 Situating the dialogue

within an inclusio of the phrase “and both of them walk together” (vv. 6, 8) and

observing the way Isaac addresses his father and the way Abraham affectionately

responds, it seems that there is no problem in their relationship. The childlike dependence

Isaac has towards his father shows the spirit of closeness.

The scene also directly shows the ignorance of Isaac regarding the real reason

behind their expedition by asking his father about the lamb. On the other hand, the

question that Isaac asked his father clearly shows that Isaac has a certain knowledge

about what worship is and what it entails. His question shows that he knows about the

system of sacrifice because he brings to his father’s notice that a lamb is missing. The

424See Gen 22:1, 7, and 11.

425This is the only record of Isaac conversing with his father. This does not necessarily mean that
Isaac never talk to his father before this or after this, and just because other conversations are not recorded
does not imply a shattered relationship before, nor even after, Gen 22:7.
426Ska, “Our Fathers Have Told Us,” 89.

152
analysis shows the aspects of Isaac’s relationship with his father and his knowledge about

the sacrifice. It is interesting to note that the dialogue found in vv. 7 and 8 are the only

record of a conversation between the promised child Isaac and his father Abraham.

Indirect showing. There are two important characteristics that the narrator

indirectly shows about Isaac in v. 2. In the way God describes Isaac to Abraham, the

narrator shows that Isaac is being loved in a unique way by Abraham. As God requests

Abraham to take Isaac to the mountain for a sacrificial offering, Isaac is placed in a lower

social status than Abraham. Concerning characterization raised by the protagonist God,

Bar-Efrat suggests that it “has absolute validity, like that pronounced by the narrator, or

perhaps even more so.”427 Since the characterization is voiced by God, it has absolute

validity.428

The significance of this character trait in the plot is clear as God uses this very

quality of Abraham as the catalyst of the test. It creates a big tension and suspense in the

narrative and serves as the complication of the plot. For Abraham, to take, to go, and to

sacrifice the one with so many qualifications directly attached to him is what unsettles the

reader.

The two servants. Characterization for the two servants is very limited in this

narrative as their role in the plot is limited. The narrative does not contain any telling

about them, not from the narrator nor another character in the narrative. Walsh labelled

them as “the nameless, faceless, actionless ‘young men.’”429 The narrator does not

427Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 54.

428Ibid.

429Walsh,
Old Testament Narrative, 24. He states, “They are more like hitching posts than people,
but somebody has to guard the donkeys!” Ibid.

153
ascribe any unique action to them. They seem to tag along Abraham and obediently listen

to him (vv. 3, 5, 19).

Summary of Characterization

Characterization through telling is infrequent in the narrative of Gen 22:1-19. It

has been noted that since the narrator avoids characterizing Abraham through telling, the

narrative becomes complicated for the reader. By means of showing, God is characterized

as testing his people, as someone who could be trusted, as tactful without necessarily

being arrogant or cruel, as the One who is able and willing to provide and bless those

who obey Him. Abraham is characterized as obedient and deliberately willing to obey

God’s words, has superior knowledge over the reader, believes that obeying God’s words

is equivalent to worship, satisfactorily fulfills God’s request, and most of all, fears God.

Isaac is characterized as very close with his father and as the one who knows what

worship is and what it entails. Characterization for the two servants is very limited. They

seem to exists for the sake of Abraham.

Settings

Narrative events and actions take place in a specific time, place, and social

environment.430 This “spatio-temporal indication”431 of the narrative is called settings in a

narrative study. Speaking in the context of the English grammatical components,

According to Marguerat and Bourquin, “Settings are adverbs of literary structure: they

430“Events takes place not only in conjunction with certain roles but also in specific time and

place.” Herman and Vervaeck, Handbook of Narrative Analysis, 56. “The action of the characters within
the story takes place in a certain setting: in a time, a place, a social environment.” Marguerat and Bourquin,
How to Read Bible Stories, 77.
431Herman and Vervaeck, Handbook of Narrative Analysis, 56.

154
designate when, where, and how the action occurs.”432 For M. Powell, settings provide

“context for the actions of the character.”433 Thus, settings are an integral component of

the narrative.434

Poetics of the Settings

Settings function in a variety of ways in narratives. Malbon points out that unlike

historical critics, “literary critics, especially narrative critics, interpret these spatial and

temporal references internally rather than externally.”435 According to Chatman, the chief

function of settings is “to contribute to the mood of the narrative.”436 Settings also

delineate the traits or various values of the characters and sometimes, they contribute to

the development of the plot conflicts.437

432Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 77. Prior to the referred statement,

referring to the component of narrative, Powel states, “These basic elements of a story may also be
compared to the grammatical components of English sentence structure. Events correspond roughly to
verbs, for in them the story’s action is expressed. Characters are like nouns, for they perform these actions
or, perhaps, are acted upon. Character traits may be likened to adjectives since they describe the characters
involved in the action.” M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 69.
433M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 69. “Setting is the background against which the narrative
action takes place.” Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 87. “Actions cannot be separated from the setting.”
Herman and Vervaeck, Handbook of Narrative Analysis, 57. Herman and Vervaeck state, “An account of a
chase requires the description of the scenery as it passes by at high speed.” Ibid. “characters are the ‘who’
of the narrative; settings are the ‘where and ‘when.’” Malbon, “Narrative Criticism,” 36.
434M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 69.
435Malbon, “Narrative Criticism,” 37. She states, “Places and times are rich in connotational, or

associative, values, and these values contribute to the meaning of the narrative for the implied reader.” Ibid.
Malbon illustrates, “For example, the Markan narrator says that Jesus ‘went up the mountain’ (3:13) to
appoint the Twelve. Historical critics have searched in vain for a mountain in Galilee. But for the implied
author and implied reader, who know their Bible, ‘the mountain’ is where God comes to meet leaders of the
people of God. Similarly, ‘the sea’ is where God manifests divine power, and ‘the wilderness’ is where
God manifests divine care in miraculously feeding the people of God. Thus the implied reader is shown
(not told) that Jesus’ power over the sea (4:35-41; 6:45-52) and miraculous feedings in the wilderness
(6:31-44; 8:1-10) are divine manifestations.” Ibid.
436Chatman, Story and Discourse, 141. See also M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 70.
437“Setting contributes to the mood of the narrative, or delineates the traits of a character, or
contributes to the development of plot conflicts. Settings may highlight the religious, moral, social,
emotional, and spiritual values of the characters.” Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 88. “Setting may develop
155
 Settings seldom “merely fill in background detail.”438 They may sometimes

convey factual value that “performs the role of the adverbs in the structure of the phrase,

indicating when, where[,] and how the action takes place.”439 At another time,

“Alongside or beyond these factual indications[,] the setting can have metaphorical

value.”440 When the settings are inclined to metaphorical uses, they become “part of the

symbolic understanding of the action.”441 As such, settings really contribute “towards

building up the atmosphere of the story.”442 Since it is not obvious whether the settings

have a factual or metaphorical inclination, “The reader must evaluate the level of

meaning at which the narrator invites them to put themselves.”443

The narrator can lay out the details of the settings either “at the beginning of the

narrative or spread through”444 the narrative. Malbon notes that “spatial and temporal

settings need to be mapped out in correlation with the plot of the narrative, just as

a character’s mental, emotional, or spiritual landscape; it may be symbolic of choices to be made; it

provides structure to the story and may develop the central conflict in a narrative.” Ibid. Settings can also
function as an index for the actants.” Herman and Vervaeck, Handbook of Narrative Analysis, 58. The term
actants, following Greimas, “Does not refer to the actual manifestation of a character in the text but rather
to the specific role a character plays as an abstract agent in a network of roles on the level of the story.”
Ibid., 52. M. Powell also states, “They may help to revel characters, determine conflict, or provide structure
for the story.” M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 70.
438Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 88; M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 70.
439Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 77.
440Ibid. “The story takes place at down (the moment of the promise of creation) or in a synagogue

(the place of the encounter between God and his people); it can involve a Pharisee, implying a
confrontation with the law.” Ibid. Malbon also states that “some temporal references are clearly allusive or
symbolic. Jesus’ testing in the wilderness for forty days (1:13) is an allusion to Israel’s forty years of
testing in the wilderness during the Exodus. The twelve years of age of Jairus’s daughter and the twelve
years of suffering of the hemorrhaging woman intensify the Jewish flavor of the interwoven stories (5:21-
43). Twelve is a number symbolic of Israel, with its twelve tribes.” Malbon, “Narrative Criticism,” 37.
441Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 77.
442Ibid.

443Ibid., 79.

156
characters need to be interpreted in terms of their roles in the plot.”445 Not all settings

have the same significance in the narrative as “some are irrelevant to the plot of the story

while others are highly charged with meaning and importance.”446 Temporal and spatial

settings are specified in the narrative by way of chronological or geographical notes, but

social settings need a careful observation as they are seen “both from a place, or from the

characters or their words.”447

Temporal settings. Physical objective time flows continuously and evenly from

the past to the future via the present “without interruptions, delays or accelerations.”448 In

contrast, a time within a narrative is “subjective and expands or contracts according to the

circumstances; it is never continuous, being subject to gaps, delays and jumps, nor does it

display the meticulous division into past, present and future.”449 Temporal settings in a

narrative study “applies exclusively to the story.”450

Settings in a narrative deal with the chronological reference of “the internal time

of the story.”451 For Marguerat and Bourquin, temporal settings

444Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 77.

445Malbon, “Narrative Criticism,” 38. Marguerat and Bourquin state, “Sometimes the setting

indicates the character’s quest: immersed in a crowd, alone in the wilderness or as part of a group.”
Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 79.
446M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 70. For Marguerat and Bourquin, the spatial, temporal, and

social settings of the story “do not always have the same value.” Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read
Bible Stories, 77.
447Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 79.
448Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 142.
449Ibid.

450Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 79.

451Ibid.

157
 tell us about the moment when the action took place or about the duration of a
process; but they can also denote the kind of time within which the action takes
place (night, winter, the sabbath, etc.).452

The implied author can also use temporal settings to manipulate the pace of the unfolding

of the narrative.453 When the narrator provides more details, it is a plea to the implied

reader to slow down and take a careful note of what is being told.454

Temporal settings can be broadly classified into a chronological and a typological

setting. Chronological temporal settings can be further divided into locative or durative.

When chronological references “specify the particular point in time in which a given

action takes place,”455 it is termed as locative. M. Powell explains that the “location in

time may be broad (the year or the century) or narrow (the day or the hour).”456 When

chronological references “denote an interval of time,”457 it is termed as durative. The

typological reference indicates “the kind of time within which an action transpires.”458 In

typological temporal settings, the specified reference would contrast “one kind of time as

452Ibid.

453Malbon, “Narrative Criticism,” 37.

454Ibid., 38.
455M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 72. For example, “The Gospel of Luke locates a now famous
decree that went out from Caesar Augustus in the time ‘when Quirinius was governor of Syria’ (2:1-2).
Similarly, in Mark’s passion narrative, we are told that ‘it was the third hour’ when Jesus was crucified
(15:25).” Ibid.
456Ibid. For example, “The Gospel of Luke locates a now famous decree that went out from Caesar
Augustus in the time ‘when Quirinius was governor of Syria’ (2:1-2). Similarly, in Mark’s passion
narrative, “‘it was the third hour’ when Jesus was crucified (15:25).” Ibid.
457Ibid. For example, “In John’s Gospel, Jesus’ opponents tell him that the Jerusalem temple was
built over a period of 46 years (2:20). The temporal reference does not indicate the point in time when the
temple was constructed but the amount of time that transpired during its building.” Ibid.
458Ibid., 73. For example, “When the narrator of John’s Gospel says that Nicodemus came to Jesus
‘by night’ (3:2), he does not mean to indicate when the meeting occurred (which night?) but rather to
inform us that it was night at the time.” Ibid. “With regards to Nicodemus, ‘nighttime’ suggests a desire for
secrecy, but also, perhaps, a need to be enlightened (John 3:2, 19-21).” Ibid.

158
opposed to another (night, not day).”459 It may be noted that while certain temporal

settings invite closer examination, “narrative critics cannot assume that all temporal

references and settings possess meaning beyond their literal function in the story.”460

Spatial settings. Spatial settings refer to the geographical or political references

in the narrative.461 Sometimes spatial settings “appears to become an end in itself.”462 At

another time, it may overtone deeper meaning. It could be an opposition such as Jewish

homeland versus foreign lands, or between Galilee and Judea.463 It could also be “an

opposition relating to topography (sea/land; inhabited land/desert stretches;

town/countryside).”464 It could yet be an “oppositions of an architectural kind

(internal/external), whether this is a particular house or the temple.”465 In such cases, the

reader has to reason for the deeper meaning it may convey.466

Social settings. Unlike temporal and geographical settings which are gleaned

from the narrative, social settings have to be gleaned from historical criticism because

459Ibid.

460Ibid.

461Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 80.

462M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 71. M. Powell further explains how spatial settings are an end it
itself and states, “Narratives sometimes expend a great many words depicting environs in detail not
required for the story itself. Thus, the implied author hopes to create a literary equivalent of a landscape
painting, a work that engenders images that have an evocative power all their own.” Ibid.
463Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 80.
464Ibid.

465Ibid.

466M. Powell explains the significance of the architectural opposites and states, “Inside settings

sometimes carry the connotation of protection or security, but they may also suggest confinement.
Likewise, outside settings may connote danger in one narrative and freedom in another. This possibility for
different connotations opens the door for paradox, and many stories have seized upon the notion of
equating security with confinement or danger with freedom.” M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 70-71. Cf.
Meiki Bal, Narratology: Introduction to the Theology of Narrative (Toronto, Canada: University of
Toronto Press, 1985), 45-46, 94.
159
“the social setting of the story cannot be studied without a knowledge of social

history.”467 As Marguerat and Bourquin point out, “It goes without saying that historical

culture, which narrative criticism cannot pass over, relates both to the world of the story,

at any rate partially, in the image of his own world.”468 Narrative poetics of the social

settings is presented below.

Social settings include “the political institutions, class structures, economic

systems, social customs, and general cultural context assumed to be operative in the

work.”469 Moreover, M. Powell states, “Identification of social settings is especially

important in ancient literature, because so much of the context is not immediately

accessible to the understanding of real readers today.”470 However, there is a difference

between “using knowledge of the history and culture of the first century as an aid in

understanding a particular Gospel’s story world is quite a different matter from using

story elements to reconstruct historical events.”471 It is the first that narrative criticism

pursues.

Analysis of the Settings

Settings in the narrative of Gen 22:1-19 plays important part. The presentation of

the setting analysis follows the order of the spatial, temporal, and sphere settings. A

summary is presented at the end of the analysis.

467Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 82.

468Ibid.

469M. Powell, Narrative Criticism, 74.

470Ibid.

471Ibid. See also Rhoads, Narrative Criticism, 413.

160
 Spatial settings. There are different spatial settings in the narrative. Some special

settings inform the reader about the events that happen near the mountain and other

settings explain the scene that took place on the mountain. There is also another set of

spatial settings that describe the rewards promised to Abraham by God.

In the spatial settings concerning the location of the place, there is a pattern that

develops from uncertainty to certainty. While we did not find clear information about the

place where Abraham was when God commanded him to offer his son as a sacrifice,

there are more descriptions of the destination. It could be seen that Abraham’s journey

was towards the mountainous region of the land of Moriah (v. 2). It was referred to as

just “one of the mountains” (v. 2). It was also described as “there” (‫שׁם‬
ָ ) (vv. 2, 9) as

opposed to “here” (v. 5),472 “the place” (vv. 3, 4, 9, 14), or “yonder” (v. 5). However, it

later became “the mountain of the Lord” (v. 14).

At first, the destination of Abraham was to the ‘place’ (vv. 3, 4, 9, 14). It was

broad and it may be considered as a larger setting that would accommodate the altar upon

which the woods for burnt offering would be placed to carry out the action required in the

command of God (v. 9). However, the narrator deliberately avoids specifying the exact

location of the ‘place’ and ambiguously referred to it as “there” (vv. 2, 9), “one of the

mountains” that is located in the land of Moriah (v. 2), and “yonder” as opposed to “here”

(v. 5). Later, Abraham named the place “The Lord himself will see to it” or “Jehovah-

Jire,” which finally becomes “the mountain of the Lord” (v. 14). There is a movement or

development from uncertainty to a level of certainty.

472 The spatial meaning is ‘there.’ W. L. Holladay, L. Köhler, and L. Köhler, A Concise Hebrew

and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1971), s.v. “‫שׁם‬
ָ ”

161
 Furthermore, considering the locations, it can be noted that while the author did

not mention the place from where Abraham started out his journey (v. 1), the narrator is

specific in telling that Abraham returned to Beersheba and dwelt there (v. 19). The

pattern of the narrative clearly conformed itself to the nature of ‘test,’ which has the

concept of uncertainty in the beginning and sought to find certainty in the end. In his

discussion to the naming of Bethel by Jacob, Bar-Efrat points out that

emphasis is laid on that spot because God reveled himself to Jacob there before he
left the land of Canaan promising him the blessing given to Abraham and Isaac,
that God would guard him wherever he went and bring him back there. As he
leaves for another country Jacob knows that God will be with him and that he will
return in peace to his father’s house.473

Similarly, the mountain in Gen 22:1-19 is important because of the One who owns it and

what He did there. “The mountain of the Lord” is the information that is emphasized.

Another important spatial setting emphasized by the narrator is “the heavens”

which is mentioned twice (vv. 11, 15). The narrator used it as a means of qualifying the

authenticity of the words that came to Abraham by identifying the source of the voice.

Whereas in vv. 1 and 2, the narrator presented a clear request but avoided to specify the

spatial setting of the place of the encounter when God commanded Abraham, leaving a

blank in the narrative. After Abraham satisfactorily fulfilled the requirement of the test,

the narrator informs the readers that the concluding remark specifically comes from

heaven. Again, the pattern of uncertainty to certainty is observed here.

The spatial settings that involved the reward of Abraham are very comprehensive.

The settings include the heavens (v. 17), the seashore (v. 17), the gate (v. 17), and the

earth (v. 18). These descriptions are hyperbole because no one can really count the stars

473Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 188.

162
of the heavens and the sand of the seashore. It implies that the generations of Abraham

will really be countlessly numerous. The reward accentuates the importance of the test.

Temporal settings. The narrative begins with a vague temporal phrase “after

these things.”474 There is a gap in the narrative as the narrator leaves the readers with the

question, after what? This is an indication that the narrative should not be seen as being

in a vacuum. The temporal setting provides hints to the readers that the narrative is

subsequent to the previous narratives.

The reason God tested Abraham and asked Abraham to sacrifice his son is one of

the gaps in the narrative, and the temporal setting can be considered as a hint to the

answer. It had been noted that in chap. 15, Abraham was more concerned with the

promise of God than the One who made those promises to him, so much so that in chap.

16, they even devised their own fulfillment. Now, “after these things,” when Abraham

had received from God the eagerly awaited promised child, God tested him.

There is another interesting feature that is noteworthy. Chapter 21:8-21 builds a

good foundation for the narrative of chap. 22, providing the background where God can

specifically ask for Isaac. A process of stripping away all the blessings that He had given

to Abraham began. God instructed Abraham to send Ishmael and Hagar away from the

house even though his heart was not willing (21:12). The narrative highlights that any

words that come from the Lord, Abraham obediently follows without question, even if it

means giving up the ones he dearly loves.

Reading chap. 22 alone leaves the readers wondering why God said Isaac as

Abraham’s only son! However, chap. 21 tells the readers that since Ishmael had been

474Ryle, The Book of Genesis, 185.

163
driven out of Abraham’s house (Gen 21:12), the only son that was left of Abraham was

Isaac475 and Abraham was very old, too. With this knowledge, the test in chap. 22

becomes intensified to the readers. What about the promise that God made to Abraham

about becoming numerous? God’s promise to Abraham was to make him into a great

nation (12:2), and it was through Isaac that the promise would be fulfilled (17:19), and

Abraham never asked for that in the first place but it was God who started all these

things. Sending Ishmael was hard for Abraham, and how much more would it be to

sacrifice Isaac. All these features help the reader understands the critical situation of the

test Abraham is facing in chap. 22.

In the temporal settings, there is a trace of a motif from uncertainty to certainty as

it is the very nature of the test itself. The first temporal setting in the narrative is located

at the very beginning of the narrative. The phrase “and it was after these things” has the

sense of uncertainty. This phrase placed the narrative upon other narratives that are prior

to it and tells the readers that the narrative is not in a vacuum. It is an indication that there

is another incident prior to this narrative that will contribute towards the understanding of

the current narrative that is about to unfold. It can be seen that the preceding chapters do

contribute towards the understanding of this narrative; however, the phrase “and it was

after these things” by itself is uncertain and ambiguous.

Another important temporal setting is found in v. 3 where Abraham arose early in

the morning and prepared himself to set out in response to the command that he received

475It is also interesting to note when Abraham tries to present Ishmael to God as his heir, God

denied (Gen 17:18-21). God agrees with Sarah when she refused to share Ishmael the rights of a heir to
Abraham which is rightfully Isaac’s (Gen 21:10-13). It seems that from God’s perspective, there is just one
promised son.

164
from God in v. 2. This is a kind of “type scene.”476 The word ‫ שׁכם‬is used here, and when

this word is followed by ‫ַבּ ֗בּ ֶֹקר‬, it is often an indication that a good start on a long journey

is anticipated.477 The earliness of the action is often emphasized by adding an adverbial

expression such as ‫ַבּבּ ֶֹקר‬.478

Verse 4 compliments the idea that indeed the journey was long by stating that

they reached the vicinity of the place only “on the third day.” The temporal settings made

it clear that Abraham did not obey the command of God in the heat of blood. On the

contrary, he had all the time to rethink every aspect of his actions all throughout the

journey, but this time even after a long and tiring three days of walking, he decided to

obey God. The preparation and length of the journey show the readers how diligent and

persistent Abraham was in his determination to fulfill the requirement of the test.

In v. 12, there is a temporal element “now” which often marks a conclusive

remark, denoting satisfaction which is a level of certainty. The temporal setting now is

often used to tell the readers that at that point, there is a change or development of a new

level of achievement in the narrative. This is an indication that the One who tested

476This
phrase is used in 19:27 and with expulsion of Hagar and Ismael in Gen 21:14. Peter T.
Vogt, “The Genres of the Pentateuch.” Interpreting the Pentateuch: An Exegetical Handbook, ed. David M.
Howard Jr. (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2009), 151.
477R.L. Harris, G. L. Archer, and B. K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament,
(Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999), s.v. ‫שׁכם‬.
478“The verb sh¹kam is related to sh®kem ‘shoulder,’ or vice-versa, is not clear. Pope (Job, in

AB, p. 8) gives the following suggestion. ‘The verb is apparently denominative, from the noun sikm,
shoulder, and perhaps originally had to do with the early morning activity of breaking camp which would
involve the use of the shoulders of both man and beast, and no small degree of exertion.’ So also BDB. In
this vein note that the root sh¹kam sometime has nothing to do with the idea of ‘earliness’ but rather
‘diligence, persistence, eagerness.’ When sh¹kam means ‘to rise early’ the rising is for several purposes,
one, obviously to get a good start on a long journey; but two, to get a good start on a good day by engaging
in some act of worship: Gen 22:3.” L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, M. E. J. Richardson, and J. J. Stamm, The
Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament (New York, NY: E. J. Brill, 1994-2000), s.v. ‫;שׁכם‬
Holladay, s.v. ‫שׁכם‬.

165
Abraham was finally satisfied with his effort. Just like in the spatial settings, there is also

uncertainty in the temporal settings, and it can be seen in the first part of the narrative. On

the other hand, many elements of certainty (i.e., “today” [v. 14] and hearing of the voice

of the angel of the Lord from “the heavens” not once but twice [v. 15]) can be seen in the

second part of the narrative.

The last temporal setting found in the narrative is the word “today” in v. 14.

Through this temporal setting, the author establishes the reliability of the narrative. The

temporal element connects the original readers directly with the narrative by informing

them of the origin of the familiar saying of the original readers’ world.

The temporal settings play different roles in this narrative. It informs the reader

that the narrative should not be seen as a vacuum, but rather in connection with the

preceding narratives. It also informs the readers that it took Abraham at least 3 days to

successfully fulfill the requirement of the test. It is also used as a part of the framing

phrase of an inclusio through which the author communicates the theme of the narrative.

In like manner, it is used as a means of establishing the reliability of the narrative by

connecting the world of the narrative with that of the original readers.

Sphere settings. All the sphere settings are related to religious element (i.e., God,

elements of worship, and sacrifice). The sphere settings attune the reader to seek spiritual

insights. While the narrator stated that God puts Abraham through a test (v. 1), Abraham

simply summarizes the whole act as worship or bowing down low in v. 5. It is an act of

humbling oneself and giving in oneself to their God.

The sphere setting concerning the element of worship offered by Abraham

includes the burnt offering (vv. 2, 3, 6, 8, 13), the sacrifice/offer (vv. 2, 13), and the altar

166
(v. 9), which are all part of religious rituals. These are part of the worship that Abraham

would render to the Lord. They tell the readers the kind of worship that Abraham would

render, how he and his son would be involved in the worship, and the kind of act he was

going to perform. The sphere settings provide the scenario of the actions of the narrative

and sets the mood of the narrative.

Summary of the Settings Analysis

Settings provide the when, where, and how of the narrative actions. They are the

adverbs of literary structure. Settings are broadly divided into spatial, temporal, and

sphere settings. In Gen 22:1-19, there are spatial settings that provide the context for the

events that took place in the narrative and there are also spatial settings that enhance the

rewards of Abraham. Temporal settings are used sparingly but effectively. At times, they

function as a hint for the background of the narrative plot (v. 1); at another time, they are

used for setting the mood and intensity of the narrative (vv. 3, 6, 8, 12, 14). The sphere

settings are related to ritual.

Props

The term props is “the usual abbreviation for stage ‘properties’, i.e. those objects

that are necessary to the action of a dramatic work (other than scenery, costumes, and

fixed furnishings): weapons, documents, cigarettes, items of food and drink, etc.”479

Props are subtle details whose significance are not always obvious in the narrative, “Yet

it is a puzzle to be solved, an enigma that the reader easily glosses over.”480

479The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms, 2nd ed., s.v. “Props.”
480Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 105. Resseguie states, “For example, the Samaritan woman’s
water jar that is left at the well is a prop, a puzzle to be solved. Why does the narrator mention the jar? Is it

167
 Props can take a variety of forms. As stated by Chatman, “We can think about

human MacGuffins too.”481 According to Resseguie, props could be “part of the

setting.”482 It has been noted that “some props are crucial to the plot.”483

Analysis of the Props

The props in the narrative of Gen 22:1-19 can be broadly classified into four sets:

props for the ritual, props for the journey, props for the intervention in the wilderness,

and props for the promise. Each set of props functions to help the readers visualize the

scenario of the narrative. The analysis of the props of the narrative is presented below.

Ritual props include woods (vv. 3, 6, 7, 9), fire (vv. 6, 7), knife (vv. 6, 10), lamb

(vv. 7, 9), altar (mentioned twice in v. 9), and ram (mentioned twice in v. 13), which are

essential elements of burnt offering. All these props help the reader visualize the kind of

worship Abraham was going to offer to God. Among these props, woods, fire, lamb, and

ram are parts of the burnt offering in the religious rites of the OT, which are offered in

the altar. The narrator strategically brings out the props at certain developmental stages of

symbolic? Is it important for the interpretation of the story?” Ibid., 88. See also Richard Bauckham, “The
Parable of the Royal Wedding Feast (Matthew 22:1-14) and the Parable of the Lame Man and the Blind
Man (Apocryphon of Ezekiel),” JBL 115 (1996): 485.
481Chatman, Story and Discourse, 140.
482Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 88. For example, “Garments of wealth not only announce a

high social status but also may reveal a self-absorbed and parsimonious spirituality. The quality of fabric,
the condition of the clothing, the length of the garment, the color, and the type of ornamentation are
markers of social status.” Ibid., 108.
483Ibid., 88. Chatman also states, “Objects can be absolutely crucial to a plot and yet clearly

remain props, even gimmicks. Hitchcock is the great master of such devices: he calls them ‘MacGuffins.’ A
MacGuffin is ‘something that the characters in the film care a lot about,’ a poisoned coffee-cup, a
winebottle filled with uranium ore, the plans for the forts, ‘an airplane engine or a bomb-bay door or
something.’ ‘Or something’: the author treats the MacGuffin’s substance with appropriate formalist
disdain. It is only a device for putting the characters in jeopardy. Only the jeopardy counts, a life-and- death
matter. But its importance hardly qualifies the MacGuffin for characterhood.” Chatman, Story and
Discourse, 140.

168
the narrative. When Abraham prepared to leave for the journey in v. 2, the narrator takes

time to tell the readers that Abraham spent some time in preparing the woods (the

heaviest among the ritual props) for burnt offering while he did not mention the knife and

the fire (v. 6), which are equally important element of the worship. The burden of

chopping or splitting the woods adds to the pain Abraham exposed himself in his

preparation for the journey.

Props for the journey include a donkey (vv. 3, 5) and the two servants (vv. 3, 5,

9). Donkeys are used to carry a heavy load, and servants attend to the needs of their

master. These props show the readers the kind of journey Abraham embarks. A journey

that requires an ass and an assistance of two servants is not a light and easy journey.

These props tell the readers that the test Abraham was put on was one that required a long

and heavy journey, which could be physical as well as mental. It is interesting to note that

the narrator did not care to mention about the ass in v. 19 on their returned journey.

Props for the intervention in the wilderness include the thicket (v. 13), a ram

(v. 13), and its horn (v. 13). The thicket provides the readers with the scenario of a

deserted place, uncultivated and unattended by man, a place that lies out of the reach of

man. Coupled with particle interjection ‫ִהנֵּה‬, the discovery of the ram caught in the thicket

by its horn dramatizes the scene with a supernatural intervention which departs from a

regular walk of life.

The intervention from the heavens is significant in the narrative. It conveys to the

readers that what happened on the mountain was something supernatural. There was an

interaction on the mountain between God and Abraham; Abraham went up to the

mountain and the angel of the Lord talked to him from the heavens. It can be seen later in

169
this study, just as the sphere settings defined the narrative as religious, one that provides a

favorable setting for God-man encounter, the spatial settings in part convey the same

sense of God-man encounter.

Mountain is an appropriate place for the divine-human encounter, spiritual

struggle, and epiphany or theophany.484 It is also “a natural place for a battle between

opposing supernatural powers.”485 There are two mountains mentioned in this passage.

The first refers to “one of the mountains in the land of Moriah” (v. 2) and the second is

the mountain of the Lord (v. 14). However, in this narrative, the two mountains are

actually one and the same, and it becomes a place where God and man encountered.

These props help the readers perceive the intervention as a divine act. In v. 5,

Abraham told his two servants to wait for them at the foot of the mountain with the

donkey. The last supplies of help that could be received from his fellow human beings

were left down below the mountain foot while the ram was the answer to the faith of

Abraham that the Lord would provide the lamb for the sacrifice. The props confirmed

that indeed, the God whom Abraham put his faith upon is trustworthy.

The last set of props are used stylistically in the declaration of the blessing of

Abraham. The seed (v. 17x2, 18), that has a reference to the hope for the lost humanity in

Gen 3:15, is used as an implied metaphor called hypocatastasis.486 It represents the

descendants of Abraham. His seed will become as numerous as the uncountable stars of

the heavens (v. 17) and sand of the seashore (v. 17). The seed will become very powerful

484Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 98-99.

485Ibid., 117.
486EthelbertW. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (London, UK: Eyre &
Spottiswoode, 1898), 744-747.

170
and possess the gate of his enemies (v. 17), giving the sense of dominion over his

enemies.487 The blessing here is specifically directed to Isaac, not to the other sons of

Abraham. It is a declaration from the heaven stating that through his son Isaac, Abraham

will have great and powerful generations that will last.

Summary of the Props Analysis

There are props that belong to ritual practices and the journey. Ritual props

include the woods, knife, lamb, alter, and ram. Props for the journey include a donkey

and the two servants. Props for the intervention of the angel of YHWH includes the

thicket, a ram, and its horn. Props for the blessing of Abraham include the seed, stars of

the heavens, and sands of the sea.

Gaps

It is not possible to include every detail of a story in a literature.488 Marguerat and

Bourquin note that in writing a narrative, “to aim at exhaustiveness in a description

487This
is the case where a part represents the whole, and this stylistic feature belong to
Synecdoche. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 640-656.
488Marguerat and Bourquin explains that it is impossible to provide complete details in a narrative

and they state, “The incompleteness of the text results from a simple observation: the text does not say
everything.” Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 122. In his discussion about the Marxists
concept of literature, Peck and Coyle state, “Recently, however, Marxists have had to take into account the
implications of structuralist thinking. Whereas traditional criticism has always stressed the fullness, honesty
and coherence of art, structuralism has tended to stress the limits of literature, that literature cannot really
make sense of reality. The two critics who have been most influential in remodeling the Marxist approach
to literature have been Louis Althusser and Pierre Macherey. Althusser stresses the gaps in a text, arguing
that the reader can see what the text is hiding from itself.” Peck and Coyle, Literary Terms and Criticism,
156.

171
would be tedious.”489 Omission or lacuna in the narrative could also be necessitated by

the ideology of the text itself.490 For instance, Abrams states,

Pierre Macherey, in A Theory of Literary Production (1966, trans. 1978), stressed

the supplementary claim that a literary text not only distances itself from its
ideology by its fiction and form, but also exposes the ‘contradictions’ that are
inherent in that ideology by its ‘silences’ or ‘gaps’—that is, by what the text fails
to say because its ideology makes it impossible to say it.491

The text, then, could speak “as much by what it does not say as what it does say.”492

The nature of the literary texts mentioned above is also true of biblical narratives.

Sternberg notes that “biblical narratives are notorious for their sparsity of detail.”493

Marguerat and Bourquin also agree with Sternberg when they state, “This partial aspect is

even more true in the biblical narratives. When the narrative builds a world (with its

actions and characters)[,] it is impossible for it to say everything about this world; it

mentions features and otherwise asks the reader to collaborate by filling in the empty

spaces.”494 Subsequently, reading becomes a collaboration between the author and the

reader, as there are “bits and fragments to be linked and pieced together in the process of

reading”495 on the part of the reader.

489Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 122.

490According to Peck and Coyle, “Macherey sees texts as incomplete and contradictory as the
ideology (the ideas, values and political beliefs inherent in a text) runs into difficulties.” Peck and Coyle,
Literary Terms and Criticism, 156.
491Abrams and Harpham, A Glossary of Literary Terms, 151.
492Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 129.
493MeirSternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of
Reading, Indiana Literary Biblical Series (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1985), 191.
494Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 122.
495Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 186.

172
 On the role of the reader’s reconstruction of a narrative, Chatman states that

whether it is in a performance act, in an art, or in the text, “the members of the audience

must respond with an interpretation: they cannot avoid participating in the transaction.

They must fill in gaps with essential or likely events, traits and objects which for various

reasons have gone unmentioned.”496 Therefore, the reading process requires the

involvement and cooperation of the reader in order to reconstruct the world of the story497

and establish “a system of gaps that must be filled in.”498

Poetics of the Gaps

There are four natural ways the reader collaborates to fill in the lacuna in the

narrative. They are “the probable, the logic of the actions, symbolic language, and the

general significance of the work.”499 The reader can fill in the lacuna in the narrative

using their imagination “by virtue of what seems to them to be probable.”500 What is

496Chatman, Story and Discourse, 28. Peck and Coyle state, “Wolfgang Iser holds that the text
largely determines the response, but suggests that the text is full of gaps which the reader fills in.” Peck and
Coyle, Literary Terms and Criticism, 160.
497“Without explicitly saying so, the text suggests to its readers a certain number of conventions

which make a kind of reading contract with them.” Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories,
123.
498Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 186. Sternberg further explains the significance of the

analysis of the gaps and states, “To emphasize the active role played by the reader in constructing the world
of a literary work is by no means to imply that gap-filling is an arbitrary process. On the contrary, in this as
in other operations of reading, gap-filling may nevertheless be performed in a wild or misguided or
tendentious fashion, and there is no lack of evidence for this in criticism ancient and modern. But to gain
cogency, a hypothesis must be legitimated by the text.” Ibid., 188.
499Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 122. Sternberg also states, “This gap-
filling ranges from simple linkages of elements, which the reader performs automatically, to intricate
networks that are figured out consciously, laboriously, hesitantly, and with constant modifications in the
light of additional information disclosed in later stages of the reading.” Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical
Narrative, 186.
500Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 122. Emphasis in original. Margeurat and
Bourquin illustrates, “‘A Pharisee invited (Jesus) to eat with him; he went into the Pharisee’s house and sat
at table. A woman of the town came who was a sinner’ (Luke 7.36-37a). Nothing is said about who was at
the table, how Jesus was dressed, what the woman looked like, the number and the reactions of the guests. .
173
probable here does not necessarily imply arbitrariness.501 For omitted details of the minor

actions, the reader could reconstruct it using “the logic of the actions.”502 However,

limitations could arise here because the reader is removed from the author in time.503 A

symbolic language used in the narrative “comes under the jurisdiction of what is not

said,”504 and the reader is then tasked to perceived what the symbolic dimension suggests.

Finally, by being aware of the narrative plot, the reader could “put each episode read

within the general significance of the work . . . which they progressively elaborate.”505

Blanks and gaps. For the interest of the narrative analysis, apart from the four

natural ways of filling the gaps mentioned earlier, the omissions or lacunae in the

narrative could be broadly classified into irrelevant omission or relevant omission.506 The

. The few features selected are enough for the narrator, who relies on the culture and imagination of the
reader to finish the picture.” Ibid.
501Sternberg proposed five factors that directed the process of hypothetical reconstructions that are
not arbitrary. They are the different materials explicitly communicated by the text: a. the different
materials—actional, thematic, normative, structuring—explicitly communicated by the test; b. the work’s
language and poetics; c. the perceptual set established by the work’s generic features; d. the special nature
and laws and regularities of the world it projects, as impressed on the reader starting from the first page;
[and] e. [the] basic assumptions or general canons of probability derived from ‘everyday life’ and prevalent
cultural conventions.” Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 189.
502Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 123. Marguerat and Bourquin explain,

“There is no need to spell out that to enter a house it is necessary to find the entrance, go through the door
and take several steps inside; ‘Jesus entered’ is sufficient description.” Ibid.
503Ibid.

504Ibid. Emphasis in original.

505Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 123. Emphasis in original. See also
Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 186.
506According to Sternberg, the division into relevancies and irrelevancies is a “universal or reading

that no one can escape for a moment, including those who shudder at the very mention of interpretation.”
Ibid., 236.

174
omission in the narrative is said to be irrelevant when it is for the “lack of interest,”507

and it is called blanks. The lacuna that is inherently contradictory to the narrative

ideology that goes without saying falls under this category.508 While relevant omission

demands closure, blanks “may be disregarded without loss, indeed[, it] must be

disregarded to keep the narrative in focus.”509 In other words, blanks are an omission that

is not relevant because it does not contribute to the plot of the narrative.

The omission, on the other hand, is said to be relevant when it is “for the sake of

interest,”510 and it is called gaps. It is “a very sure way of programming the effect of a

narrative.”511 The lacuna here consists of “the omission of a constitutive part of the

narration,”512 and as such, gaps become “a technique by which the narrator deprives the

reader of important information enjoyed, for example, by the characters of the story.”513

The missing information in gaps could include “the world—an event, motive, causal link,

character trait, plot structure, law of probability—contrived by a temporal

displacement.”514 Due to numerous possible reasons for the gaps, it is not easy to identify

507Ibid.

508Abrams and Harpham, A Glossary of Literary Terms, 151.

509Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 236. “The things a writer may wish to communicate
about the world, like the questions the audience may wish to ask about it, are limitless. But since the whole
of anything can never be told, the whole truth is always the contextually relevant truth—including the filled
gaps but exclusive of the innumerable blanks.” Ibid.
510Ibid.

511Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 129.

512Ibid., 130.
513Ibid.

514Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 235. In this case, the narrator “ask for cooperation of
the reader by leaving spaces which are indeterminate: he chooses elements that he leaves to the creativity of
the reader.” Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 129. For example, Sternberg illustrates

175
them.515 The means of closures for the gaps includes “directions (e.g., the narrator’s

filling of a temporary gap), half-direction (fillings voiced by characters, often unreliable),

indirections (like metonymy, analogy, verbal echo, generic frame).”516

Significance of the gaps. A gap is relevant because it contributes to the better

understanding of the narrative; thus, it calls for more attention.517 Gaps can heighten the

points the narrator is trying to make.518 The system of gaps could be fashioned to

establish a hierarchy of importance where anything that might disturb or distract the

reader’s concentration on the main point is held back while the most significant aspect of

the narrative is foregrounded.519

that concerning the affairs of David with Bathsheba, “Whether or not Uriah knew is a secret that he takes
with him to the grave.” Ibid., 235.
515To add to the difficulty, according to Sternberg, a biblical interpreter cannot “look for guidance
to literary theory in its present state.” Ibid.
516Ibid., 259.
517However, it may be noted that “one reader’s gap may prove another’s blank;” therefore, the

distinction, to some degree, becomes problematic as much as it is inescapable. Ibid., 236.

518For example, “In the episode of the selling of Joseph to the Midianites (Gen. 37), we are not
told of any reaction on the part of the brother who is sold. Joseph is an innocent and mute victim of the
violence of his brothers. That adds to the offensiveness of the situation and leads the reader to put into
words the injustice done to him.” Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 130.
519Sternberg states, “In the Isaac ordeal, the system of gaps is so fashioned as to play down

anything which might disturb concentration on the main point; it operates to foreground the father’s
admirable conduct at the expense of ‘all the rest,’ sacrificing thought to action just as the hero himself does.
Here, therefore, it is the essentials that are given, and the subsidiaries correspondingly held back in more
than one sense: the Binding of Isaac resorts to systematic omission in order to establish (and impress on the
reader) a hierarchy of importance.” Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 192.

176
 The gaps could also lead the reader to be astrayed purposefully.520 In this

situation,

The essentials are precisely what the narrator chooses to withhold. Crafty and
devious, he takes advantage of the fact that the reader himself will have to provide
whatever has been left out. And the system of gaps, developed primarily to direct
attention to what has not been communicated, becomes the central device
whereby the narrator gradually establishes his ironic framework. The incongruity
between the scale of importance and representation makes for ironic
understatement.521

Thus, gaps are an important rhetorical tool of a narrator with which he can guide the

reader to the main points he wants to emphasize. It could also be a device through which

he artfully makes his narrative enjoyable and captivating for his readers.

Kinds of gaps. Gaps causes, in some way or another, discontinuity in the

sequence of the story. They are the results of chronological twisting in the order of a

narrative and a temporal displacement. According to Walsh, gaps may be grouped into

three kinds: gaps of fact, gaps of motivation, and gaps of continuity.522

Gaps of fact. Gaps may be called gaps of fact when the narrator withholds “some

datum that is crucial to our understanding of the plot”523 from the reader. The narrator

“evades all explicit formulation of hidden thoughts and designs, thus creating the central

520Marguerat and Bourquin state, “In the parable of the workers at the eleventh hour, the owner of

the vineyard engages the workers at different hours, promising them ‘what is right’ (Matt.20.4); they
conclude (and the reader with them) that the wages will be proportionate to the duration of the work. The
parable functions at a narrative level to this ‘place of uncertainty’, which will serve to put in crisis the
notion of justice that the reader shares with the character of the story (20.13-15).” Marguerat and Bourquin,
How to Read Bible Stories, 130.
521Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 192-193.
522Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 66.
523Ibid. For illustration, see ibid., 66-67.

177
gaps in the plot sequence.”524 Since the gaps of fact deforms the plot of the narrative, it

affects the interpretation of the narrative.525 If “we recognize the gap, we test both

possibilities and extrapolate what each would mean for our understanding of the story.

Sometimes we will opt tentatively for one reading, sometimes for another; and sometimes

we will try to keep our options open for the time being.”526 As such, the reader is forced

to “struggle to form the mimetic basis for the adoption or rejection of the hypothesis.”527

According to Walsh, “The narrator may or may not supply us with the

information we lack at some later point in the narrative.”528 If the narrator supplies the

missing information, “it will either confirm our tentative understanding or force us to

reconstrue what we thought we had understood.”529 However, “If the narrator does not,

then we might retain our understanding, but we can never forget its tentative nature.”530

Gaps of motivation. The term motivation here refers to the inner motives behind

the action of the character in a narrative.531 This usually happens when the narrator

refrains himself from sharing his omniscient knowledge to the reader, and in this

524Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 199. Sternberg illustrates this concept through a brief
analysis of the story of David and Bathsheba. Ibid., 190-191.
525Walsh states, “If the missing information is true, we should understand things one way; if it is

false, we should understand them differently.” Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 66. For illustration, see
ibid., 66-67.
526Ibid., 66.
527Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 189.
528Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 66.
529Ibid.

530Ibid.

531Walsh states, “Gaps of motivation are quite common in literature, since most people rarely
express their motivations openly.” Ibid., 67. For illustration, see ibid., 67-68.

178
situation, “we must infer a character’s motivations from the context.”532 For example, the

narrator seldom shares the inner motives of Abraham in Gen 22:1-19.533 Gaps of

motivation “are often crucial for our understanding of the character and of the story.”534

Gaps of continuity. A gap of continuity refers to a narrator’s words or character’s

speech in the successive texts that seems disconnected.535 It may seem disorganized at

first to the readers, but, if the disruption is not very complicated, the deeper continuity

may be perceived by the reader with reflection. However, when gaps of continuity

become more complex, “it is possible (and often tempting) simply to dismiss the matter

as an example of inferior writing.”536

Function of gaps. Walsh points out that “the storyteller’s withholding of

information opens gaps, gaps produce discontinuity, and discontinuity breeds

ambiguity.”537 These functions of ambiguity manipulate the narrative interest through

532Ibid., 67-68.
533Sternberg illustrates, “The Bible gives us not access to what passes in Abraham’s mind after

loading the firewood on Isaac’s back (Genesis 22). A closer reading of the exchange between son and
father (‘But where is the lamb for the burnt offering?’—’God will provide himself the lamb for the burnt
offering, my son’) may enable us to fill in the gap and reconstruct the father’s thoughts after a fashion. . . .
But the focus of interest lies in Abraham’s supreme obedience regardless of any possible thought. His state
of mind thus becomes of secondary importance. An insight into it would doubtless enrich the drama, and
the reader concerned with realizing the text’s potentialities in full will cast about for clues; but this will at
best round things out. The point will be made and taken even with this gap left open.” Sternberg, Poetics of
Biblical Narrative, 192. Emphasis in original.
534Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 67.
535Ibid., 68.
536Ibid. For Walsh, “This cannot be excluded as a possibility, of course; but to decide too quickly
is to foreclose the possibility of discovering a more subtle meaning the narrator wishes us to ferret out from
between the lines.” Ibid.
537Ibid., 236.

179
“curiosity, suspense, [and] surprise.”538 Based on “their dislocation of chronology,”539

their dynamics may vary.

Analysis of the Gaps

Genesis 22:1-19 is known for its minimal details.540 The analysis of the gaps deals

with omissions in the narrative in relation to the plot of the story. Omissions that are

irrelevant to the plot of the story are classified under blanks while omissions that are

relevant to the plot of the story are classified under gaps. The latter are further divided

with a motive to understand its relevance to the plot of the narrative.

The classification of the omission into gaps and blanks is on their relationship to

the plot of the narrative. Since plot plays a vital role in the analysis of the lacuna in the

narrative, it is important to recapitulate the plot of the narrative. Looking at the

complication and denouement of the plot, God’s desire to gain knowledge about

Abraham is at the heart of the plot. The rest of the story shows that Abraham fears God

by obediently following His request while he expresses his believes and trusts in God that

he will intervene for his benefits in the end.

The presentation of the analysis of the gaps is organized on the basis of the

different elements in the plot of the narrative. The discussion follows the abstract, the

complication of the plot, the transforming action of the plot, the denouement of the plot,

538Ibid., 259.
539Ibid., 259-560.
540Davidson notes that the narrative is “remarkable for its restrained economy of words, its ability

to depict with a few deft touches a scene almost unbearable in its emotional intensity.” Davidson, Genesis
12-50, 92. See also Walton, Genesis, 508; Kohn, “The Trauma of Isaac,” 98-99.

180
and the final situation of the plot. The analysis is interested in the function of the gaps as

pointers that provide a clue to help the reader understand the story better.

Gaps in the abstract of the plot. The narrative begins with the phrase, “Now it

came about after these things that God tested Abraham,” in v. 1a. There are two

prominent gaps here: the length of interval between this narrative and the preceding

narrative and the reason for the test. The gaps of continuity function as a rhetorical device

by which the narrator sets up the reader for a surprise later. The narrator is not specific

about the time or the duration of the event. The omission does not inherently contradict

the ideology of the narrative; the omission is for the sake of interest. Therefore, to arouse

the curiosity of the reader is the main purpose of these gaps.

The gap of motivation is the omission of the reason for the test. The narrator

briefly told the reader that God tested Abraham but without sharing his omniscient

knowledge for the cause of the test. However, there is closure in the later stages of the

narrative for this gap of motivation. In v. 12, the motivation of the test was to know if

Abraham feared of God.

The closure provided by one of the characters in a narrative is often unreliable.

However, as the evaluative point of view is anchored upon God, the closure provided by

the angel of YHWH could be counted as reliable. This gap created curiosity and suspense

for the readers while they were led astray for the moment, making the narrative enjoyable

and captivating for them. Since the omission is part of the narrative strategy, it is (a) for

the sake of interest, (b) the constituent part of the narrative, and (c) relevant for the plot

of the narrative.

181
 It may also be noted that while the narrator briefly introduced the characters of the

narrative and told the reader that they interacted with each other, he did not specify how

they really interacted. This omission, however, is not significant to the plot of the

narrative and seems to be for lack of interest. Since the omission is irrelevant to the

narrative, it may be classified as a blank.

The analysis of the gaps in the abstract suggests that the narrator is contented to

informed the reader that Abraham is tested by God. However, the study also shows that

the narrator leaves out information that does not edify the plot of the narrative on the one

hand, and keeping to himself some information for later revelation as a rhetorical device

of the narrator to tell his story in an interesting way. The test then becomes a prominent

element in the abstract.

Gaps in the complication of the plot. The complication of the plot is found in

Gen 22:2. While there are extensive or elaborative qualifications for Isaac, the narrator is

not very specific about the mountain where Abraham should offer Isaac precisely! It

remains just “one of the mountains.” Since the narrator did not provide closure for this

lacuna in the narrative, it can be deduced that the author has no interest in the land per se

but on the things that happens on that mountain, and the implication that it produced.

Considering the plot of the narrative, this omission seems to be for lack of interest

and perhaps, contradictory to the ideology of the narrative. The narrator seems to

deliberately ignore to specify the location in v. 2 because at the end of v. 3, and it

becomes more apparent in v. 4, that Abraham seems to have a clear knowledge about that

place. The end of v. 3 reads, “And he arose and went to the place of which God had told

him,” and v. 4 reads, “On the third day Abraham raised his eyes and saw the place from a

182
distance.” However, the description of the place is left ambiguous for the reader in v. 3

and in the rest of the narrative.

Based on the abovementioned observation, the geographical location is

overshadowed by the ideological location which constitutes the theme of the narrative. In

the same way, while the narrator informs the reader that God talked to Abraham, how,

where, and when God talked to Abraham are not described by the narrator. These

omissions may be classified as another blank. As such, in order to understand the story

effectively, the reader has to disregard these omissions.

Gaps in the transforming actions of the plot. The transforming action of the

plot of the narrative is found in Gen 22:3-10. It has been noted in the analysis of the plot

that to remove the tension in the complication is the task of Abraham in the transforming

action. Thus, the narrative persuasively displays those details that demonstrate

Abraham’s fear of God through his actions and motivations in the narrative.

In v. 3, things that help show or foreground the obedience of Abraham are simply

brought out in the narrative. For example, the reader is not informed in v. 2 that Abraham

also needs to take along a donkey, the woods for the burnt offering, and the two servants

apart from Isaac. However, in v. 3, Abraham took all of them. The reason Abraham took

them are gaps of motivation. These lacunas could be filled in by the “probable, the logic

of the actions, . . . and the general significance of the work.”541 In other words, it could

just be logically understood as needed for such a journey. However, their significances in

541Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 122. Sternberg also states, “This gap-

filling ranges from simple linkages of elements, which the reader performs automatically, to intricate
networks that are figured out consciously, laboriously, hesitantly, and with constant modifications in the
light of additional information disclosed in later stages of the reading.” Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical
Narrative,186.

183
the narrative are also evident as the story develops further in the narrative. The two

servants later serve as an agent through which Abraham expresses his inner motivation

for his actions (v. 5). The woods for burnt offering naturally becomes an integral element

of the burnt offering (v. 9). In all these details, the narrator actually prepares the reader

for the later stages of the narrative.

Abraham’s obedience is clearly portrayed in the actions in v. 3. In the middle of

the verse, the narrator informs the reader that along with Isaac, he took two of his

servants. However, after that, Isaac and the two servants are left out of the actions and the

scene totally until v. 5. The narrator makes it look as though Abraham split the woods for

burnt offering alone, rose up alone, and went alone to the place God had told him (v. 3c).

The narrator continues to focus exclusively on the actions of Abraham in v. 4. Isaac and

the two servants are taken out of the narrative for the moment. Their actions become

blanks in the narrative because it is irrelevant to the plot of the narrative. Since only

Abraham’s action counts towards the transforming actions of the plot, the narrator seems

to deliberately focus on the actions of Abraham, allowing nothing to deviate the reader’s

attention away from Abraham.

In the same way, details about the rest of the journey from v. 5 up to the place in

v. 9 are another blank. Just as Abraham was said to be doing everything alone in v. 3,

even though Isaac could have helped, the narrator makes it look like only Abraham was

active in building the altar. This could again be understood as a hierarchy of importance,

in which Abraham and his actions are the focus of the narrative. Moreover, whether Isaac

protested or not is yet another blanks. It seems that all the events that do not edify the

obedience and dependence of Abraham upon God become blanks in the narrative while

184
everything else in the narrative that contributes to show Abraham’s obedient and

dependence on God is artfully narrated.

From this point, Sarah’s absence from the narrative can be postulated as well.

Considering the amount of attention that the narrator dictates upon Abraham, the

omission of Sarah could be understood as a lack of interest on the part of the narrator. For

a reason unknown to the reader, the narrator sees it best to exclude Sarah; perhaps,

anything about her would inherently contradict the ideology of the narrative. Therefore,

the absence of Sarah is another blank in the narrative.

Again, if Sarah is aware of Abraham’s plan, then all the commotion is another

blank in the narrative. Considering the scenario of the way Abraham prepared to embark

the mission, it would be difficult to do all those things without Sarah’s notice. However,

when the narrator decided not to talk about any element in the narrative, one can only

postulate ideas about it and that has to remain hypothetical. A soft clue may be deduced

from the analysis of the point of view in vv. 5 and 8 where Abraham expresses his inner

motivation. The analysis shows that there was a play on the point of view where the

narrator let the reader hears for himself what God said to Abraham in v. 2 and what

Abraham said to his servants in v. 5 and to his son in v. 8 but without sharing his

omniscient knowledge about their inner motivation. While Abraham seems to lie, it turns

out at the end that he was actually very honest in both situations. That happens to be the

only time Abraham expressed his inner motivation about his view of the mission: an act

of worship (v. 5) motivated by the belief that God would provide (v. 8). Thus, based on

this observation, one may suggest that Abraham would have told Sarah the same thing he

185
told his two servants. However, since this question belongs to the blanks of the narrative

as mentioned earlier, this has to remain just a hypothesis.

The phrase, “On the third day” summarizes the whole journey in v. 4. Nothing

about the other days of the journey were mentioned. It could be understood that as long

as the characters arrived at the destination, the plot of the narrative is not negatively

affected by the omission of the journey. An elaborate discussion of the journey could

contradict the ideology of the narrative by distracting the reader. The omission here

seems to be for lack of interest; thus, it is another blank that can be filled in with the logic

of action.

It is, however, a surprise to suddenly learned that in v. 4, Abraham had already

acquired the knowledge of the location of the mountain that God said he would tell him

in v. 2. When and how he knew the place is another blank in the narrative. The narrator

never cares to explicitly explain this phenomenon in the narrative. However, the lacuna

could function as a clue that Abraham knows more than the reader, elevating Abraham

higher than the reader in terms of knowledge.

After Abraham left his house in v. 3, the first time he spoke out is in v. 5. It has

been noted earlier that the narrator would leave out details about the journey until the

third day and report nothing about what Abraham might have said to Sarah either.

However, in v. 5, the narrator told the reader what Abraham said to his servants. Though

the reason Abraham wanted his two servants to stay behind with the donkey remains a

blank in the narrative, their presence here became significant in terms of their function in

the narrative. Their presence made provisions for Abraham to speak out his inner

186
motivation. This event becomes the rhetorical device through which the narrator shares

Abraham’s perception of the test he was put through.542

Similar to the case with the two servants, Isaac becomes the reason for Abraham

to speak out again in vv. 7-8. It may be noted that this is the only conversation between

Abraham and Isaac that is recorded in the OT narrative.543 Apart from the record, it is

imperative that they would have many more conversations before and after this incident.

The most likely reason for the omission of their other conversations is the narrator’s lack

of interest. The inclusion of this unique conversation in the transforming actions of the

plot then clearly emphasizes the significance of this conversation to the plot of the

narrative. Isaac becomes an instrument to draw out Abraham’s inner motivation that is

vital to the plot of the narrative. The inner motivations are significant to the plot of the

narrative as it can be seen as the chief motivation for Abraham’s obedience.

The response or reaction of Isaac to his father’s answer is another omission in the

narrative. The readers would soon learn that Isaac would be on the altar bounded;

therefore, the omission here is a gap of facts. As one of the norms of the narrative is

obedience without question, Isaac’s silence here seems to be in conformity with the norm

of the narrative. This would suggest that Isaac understood the motivation of his father and

542It was noted in chapter 2 that Walsh states, “Considering, for example, the nameless, faceless,
actionless ‘young men’ in Gen. 22:5. They are more like hitching posts than people, but somebody has to
guard the donkeys!” Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 24. However, based on the analysis of the gaps, the
two servants are not only hitching posts, but they become the means through which the narrator
communicate Abraham’s inner motivation.
543There are scholars who suggest that because of the incident of Gen 22:1-19, Abraham and Isaac

never spoke to each other again afterwards. For example, see Brayford, Genesis, 332-333. However, it may
be noted that there is no other records of Abraham and Isaac’s conversation even before this narrative.
Therefore, the lack of record could not be the consequence of this incident.

187
accepted to obediently follow his father’s leading. However, this suggestion has to

remain as a hypothesis in the absence of a definite closure.

The presentation of the analysis of the gaps above demonstrates that apart from

the actions, words, and deeds of Abraham, other characters and their actions, words, and

deeds merely exist in the narrative for the sake of Abraham, and other details beyond that

are excluded from the narrative. Even other details may be of interest to the readers, if

they do not enlighten the plot of the narrative, they can still be regarded as irrelevant to

the plot of the narrative and become blanks in the narrative.

Gaps in the denouement of the plot. The angel of the Lord suddenly appeared in

v. 11. The designation linked him to God and his locality is also telling. The angel of the

Lord had appeared in the previous narratives; therefore, it could be associated with God

who tested Abraham. Therefore, his words could be counted as authentic. The identity of

the angel of YHWH is another blank, and the reader is expected to accept him as

authoritative. His function precedes his identity. It could be understood as a hierarchy of

importance where the plot of the narrative takes precedence over the identity of the angel

of YHWH. Whether Isaac also knows the voice of the angel is another blank. The reason

for the test which was not made known earlier is now finally revealed: to know if

Abraham fears God (v. 12).

In the same manner, Abraham suddenly discovered a ram caught in the thicket by

its horn. It may be noted again that how and when the ram got caught in the thicket is

another blank in the narrative. Inasmuch as it would have been interesting to learn how

the ram got stuck there, the narrator is not interested in it; thus, the reader is left to

wonder. The presence of the ram when it is needed serves the purpose of the narrator.

188
The analysis of the gaps in the denouement clearly shows where the interest of the

narrator laid. As noted earlier, the narrator brings on characters and props when the plot

calls for it.

The denouement of the plot is “symmetrical with the complication”544 of the plot.

In the compilation of the plot, God tested Abraham, and in the denouement of the plot,

God proclaimed through the angel of YHWH that Abraham satisfactorily passed the test

in vv. 11-12 as Abraham showed that he feared God. The analysis also shows that the

denouement of the plot entails a significant revelation about God through the experience

of Abraham. The analysis of the gaps in the denouement demonstrates again that the

narrator is artfully foregrounded while hiding information for/from the reader to make his

point stand out clearly.

Gaps in the final situation of the plot. The final situation of the plot is found in

the blessings pronounced upon Abraham by the angel of YHWH in vv. 15-19 as a result

of his actions in the transformation action (vv. 3-10) and when Abraham finally returned

to Beersheba in v. 19. The analysis of the gaps shows that the narrator continues to

present the narrative by focusing on Abraham.

The narrator did not share the motivation behind the angel of YHWH calling to

Abraham for the second time in vv. 15-18. This is another blank in the narrative.

However, considering the nature of the final situation of a narrative plot, one would

expect a new stable situation at this point in the narrative. Accordingly, while the first

appearance of the angel of YHWH in the narrative functions as the denouement of the

plot of the narrative, the second appearance with its content can be understood as

544Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 44.

189
logically a necessity to usher in the final situation in the narrative. Likewise, it may be

noted that Abraham’s response and reaction to the angel of YHWH are another blank.

In v. 19, the narrator finally provides a closure for v. 5 which functions as a

means to prove Abraham’s honesty. Just as he said to his servants in v. 5, Abraham now

returned to his servants. One may recall that in vv. 3-4, the narrator foregrounded the

obedience of Abraham by describing only the actions of Abraham whereas the two

servants and Isaac were actually with Abraham all along. In v. 19 as well, the narrator

seems to focus again on the actions of Abraham in order to show his honesty, not really

because Isaac was not with him. Based on this analysis, the seeming absence of Isaac in

v. 19 could be explained as a hierarchy of importance, wherein the actions and deeds of

Abraham are being emphasized at the expense of Isaac.

Summary of the Gaps Analysis

In the abstract of the plot, there is a gap of continuity which sets up the reader for

later surprise, arousing the curiosity of the reader. The gap of motivation, which is the

reason for the test, is for the sake of making the story interesting as the closure is found

later in the narrative. It is to know if Abraham fears God. The details about the way God

and Abraham interacted are considered a blank.

In the complication of the plot, the specific location of the destination is a blank.

According to the analysis, it is because its ideological location constitutes the theme

which is more important than its geographical location. Other details about the

conversation between God and Abraham are also blanks in the narrative because they are

not relevant for the plot.

190
 In the transforming actions of the plot, the narrator seems to leave out many

details that do not demonstrate Abraham’s fear of God. The reason Abraham took along

the donkey, the woods, and the two servants are gaps of motivation. The narrative reveals

that the two servants later served as an agent for Abraham to express his motivation. The

actions of the two servants and Isaac are in vv. 3-5, details about the rest of the journey,

and the absence of Sarah from the narrative are also blanks as they do not contribute to

show Abraham’s obedience. In v. 4, Abraham already knew the place while how he knew

it is another blank. It is a clue that Abraham knows more than the reader. The reason

Abraham let his two servants remain with the donkey is another blank, but they present

occasion for Abraham to reveal his inner motivation about the test. In a similar way,

Isaac also asked question that drew out Abraham’s inner motivation while other details

such as Isaac’s response and reactions remain a gap of fact.

In the denouement of the plot, the identity of the angel of YHWH is a blank

because his function precedes it. How and when the ram got caught is another blank as its

presence serves the purpose of the narrator. The denouement of the plot is symmetrical

with the complication of the plot.

In the final situation of the plot, the reason the angel of YHWH appears the

second time is another blank. It could be understood as logically necessary. The used of

singular verb to report the return of Abraham could also be understood as a hierarchy of

importance. The analysis revealed that the narrator is profoundly interested in the plot of

the story to the extent that he tends to leave out elements that do not enhance the plot of

the narrative. At times, the narrator leaves out things for the sake of interest in a way that

enhances the plot of the story. The details that necessarily add meaning to the plot of the

191
narrative are presented in a persuasive manner, but without delving into it beyond what is

necessary for enhancing the plot. As such, some forms of a pattern in the system of the

omission emerge.

192
 CHAPTER 3

PARADOX AND PASSIVITY IN

GENESIS 22:1-19

This chapter discusses the paradox and the passivity in Gen 22:1-19 based on the

narrative analysis in the previous chapter. The discussion of the paradox is further

divided into two subsections: the contradiction between the request of God with the

promise of progeny and the enigmatic words of Abraham with the request of God and

Abraham’s actions. The passivity is also further divided into the unprotested obedience of

Abraham and the silent submission of Isaac. Theological insights that emerges from the

narrative study are presented at the end of this chapter.

The Paradox

This section discusses the paradox in the narrative of Gen 22:1-19.1 In an attempt

to explain the paradox in the narrative, the discussion is divided into two parts: the

difficulties and the explanation. The presentation begins with the narrative features that

contribute to its difficulties. Then, it proceeds with the explanation of the difficulty using

the narrative analysis from the previous chapter.

1For a detailed explanation on the use on the term paradox in this study, see Chapter 1, pp. 3-5.

193
The Promise of Progeny and the Test

The request of God to test Abraham in Gen 22:2 is in direct contention with the

progeny that He promised to Abraham earlier (Gen 12:1-3; 17:15-21; 21:9-13).2 For

some scholars,3 this paradox4 creates negative feelings toward God. The detailed analysis

of the narrative in the previous chapter yields significant findings that contributes to a

better understanding of the paradox.

The difficulties. The analysis of the narrative shows that the narrative of Gen

22:1-19 is the product of literary craftsmanship. Awareness of the intricate narrative

techniques becomes the main key to understanding the paradox. Based on the narrative

study, the difficulty of the paradox, to a large extent, rests upon the storytelling technique

that the narrator employs in the narrative. Three prominent narrative features stand out in

this respect: the role of the narrator, the play on the point of view, and the character trait

of God.

The role of the narrator. The narrator of Gen 22:1-19 summarizes the events and

lets the characters speak out in the narrative without sharing his insights about the events

and speeches to the reader.5 As an omniscient narrator, he knows the complete story from

2See Brueggemann, Genesis, 185. Moltz, “God and Abraham,” 68; Boehm, “The Binding of
Isaac,” 1-2; Speiser, Genesis, 164.
3See Levering, “God and Natural Law,” 151. Moltz said that God seems to violate His self-
imposed obligation. Moltz, “God and Abraham,” 62. Some scholars even liken Him to pagan gods. Tucker,
“Sins of Our Fathers,” 34; Walton, Genesis, 510. See also Bernstein, “Angels at the Aqedah,” 276. K.
Matthews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, 289, 301; Kohn, “The Trauma of Isaac,” 97; Brueggemann, Genesis, 185;
Kierkegaard, “Fear and Trembling: Repetition.”
4The term paradox in this section refers to the contradiction between the request of God with the
promise of progeny, unless otherwise stated.
5For the analysis of the narrator, see Chapter 2, pp. 92-93.

194
the beginning.6 However, in the complication of the plot, he refrains from sharing why

God tested Abraham only to reveal the reason for the test later in the denouement of the

plot through another character—the angel of YHWH.7 As a result, the gap of motivation

exists in the complication of the plot which creates tension in the narrative plot.8

Had the narrator revealed the reason for the test to the reader right at the

beginning, that information would have softened the tension of the plot. However,

“tension is what impels a plot.”9 Thus, softening the tension would make the story less

captivating for the reader. Therefore, the tension that the narrator created using the gap of

motivation, which is an important part of the narrator’s storytelling strategy, comprises

the crux of the paradox of the promise of progeny and the requirement of the test.

The play on the point of view. The narrator’s artful play on the point of view

works in tandem with the gap of motivation (v. 2) to produce the paradox.10 The narrator

starts the narrative using the omniscient point of view and shares with the reader things

only God knows in v. 1a. Then, he quickly shifted to the neutral point of view from v. 1b.

The reader hears for himself the conversation between God and Abraham in vv. 1b-2

without the narrator sharing the intention for the test to the reader. The shift in the point

of view presents the story in a way that looks like a fair report even without the narrator

6A few explicit comments (Gen 22:1, 10, 14) indicate that the narrator knows the complete story
that he is narrating. See the analysis of the narrator in Chapter 2 of this study.
7Thereason for the test based on the analysis of the plot and the analysis of the gaps is to know if
Abraham fears God. See Chapter 2, pp. 76, 198.
8See Fretheim, “God Was With the Boy,” 15.
9Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 14.
10Inthe narrative, the narrator controls the angle of the reader’s view. Walsh, Old Testament
Narrative, 44.

195
sharing the reason for the test.11 Thus, the narrator plays with the point of view

strategically, but convincingly, to conceal the gap of motivation from the reader for later

surprises. The play on the point of view, while generating tension in the plot, adds to the

difficulties of the paradox.

The character trait of God. God is one of the protagonists in the story, who has a

round and complex character trait.12 His complexity and unpredictability adds to the

complication of the narrative. Therefore, the request He makes in the complication of the

plot is perplexing without the awareness of the narrative plot as a whole.13

The promise of progeny with the test in the narrative context. The request of

God in Gen 22:2 occupies a strategic position within the narrative plot and it has

significant bearings toward the understanding of the paradox.14 The analysis of the

settings and the characterization of God in the previous chapter also contain valuable

insights. The presentation moves on to the explanation of the paradox from the narrative

approach.

In terms of the plot structure, the paradox constitutes the complication that

triggers the dramatic tension of the transforming action of the plot (vv. 3-10). The

function of the complication in a plot is to create tension in the plot that will drive the

11For the detailed discussion on the shift in the point of view, see the section on the analysis of the
point of view on scene I in Chapter 2, pp. 104, 105, and 151.
12For the detailed analysis on the character trait of God, see Chapter 2, pp. 137-138.
13See Levering, “God and Natural Law,” 151; Moltz, “God and Abraham,” 62; Tucker, “Sins of

Our Fathers,” 34; Walton, Genesis, 510; Bernstein, “Angels at the Aqedah,” 276; K. Matthews, Genesis
11:27-50:26, 289, 301; Kohn, “The Trauma of Isaac,” 97; and Brueggemann, Genesis, 185.
14The plot of a narrative constitutes the main organizing principle of the story. See Marguerat and

Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 40; Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Narrative, 76; Bar-Efrat, Narrative
Art in the Bible, 93.

196
narrative forward and put the protagonists into action to remove the tension.15 Therefore,

the characterization of God should not be drawn solely from the request that He made to

Abraham in the complication of the plot. To have a better understanding of the paradox,

the subsequent development of the plot needs to be considered.

In the poetics of the plot, the denouement (resolution) of the plot is “symmetrical

with the complication”16 of the plot. The analysis shows that the actions of Abraham in

the transforming action of the plot remove the tension triggered by the request of God in

the complication of the plot.17 The narrative reaches the denouement of the plot in v. 12

where the angel of YHWH pronounces the resolution of the tension of the complication

in v. 2.18 The request to take (‫ )ַקח־נָא‬and offer Isaac in the complication of the plot is

negated in the denouement of the plot using a prohibitive command (‫שַׁלח‬

ְ ‫ אַל־ִתּ‬and ‫אַל־‬

‫ )ַתַּעשׂ‬and with the force of a jussive, it takes immediate effect.19 Since the symmetry takes

the form of negation, the denouement of the plot sheds lights on the characterization of

God and makes it clear that it was not God’s intention for Abraham to kill Isaac. The

main purpose of the test is for Abraham to show his commitment to obey God (vv. 11-

12).

15Thecomplication of the plot is “an element that sets off the narrative, introducing narrative
tension.” Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 44.
16Ibid.

17See the analysis of the transforming action of the plot in Chapter 2.

18The denouement describes “the effects of the transforming action on the people concerned or the
way in which situation is re-established in its former state.” Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible
Stories, 44. For more details, see the analysis of the plot type and plot pattern in Chapter 2 of this study.
19The uses of the negative particle ‫ אַל‬in this context denotes immediate prohibition. According to
Arnold and Choi, the negative particle may denote prohibition that “typically negates imperatival forms to
denote a specific or immediate prohibition: ‫שָׂרֵאל‬
ְ ִ ‫שַׂמח י‬
ְ ‫אַל־ִתּ‬, ‘Do not rejoice, O Israel’ (Hos 9:1).” Bill T.
Arnold and John H. Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press, 2003), 130. Emphasis in original. See also Williams and Beckman, Williams’ Hebrew Syntax, 79.

197
 The analysis of the plot type and pattern supports the abovementioned

observations. The narrative of Gen 22:1-19 has a revelation plot type where the pragmatic

actions in the transforming action of the plot (vv. 3-10) are used extensively at the service

of the cognitive quest (v. 12). Abraham demonstrates his obedience and trust in God

through his actions and speeches in the transforming action of the plot.20 At the end of the

narrative, the angel of YHWH declares that through the actions of Abraham in the

transforming action of the plot, he acquires new cognitive knowledge. As a result, he

stops Abraham from slaughtering Isaac and blesses him. The analysis also shows that the

narrative has a U-shaped plot pattern where the complication of the plot triggers the

downward curve in the narrative and the transforming action of the plot triggers the

upward turn. The blessings at the end of the narrative and the return to Beersheba

complete the U-shaped curve. The narrative has a happy ending.

In correspondence to the revelation plot type where there is progression of

cognitive knowledge in the narrative, the analysis of the spatial settings also reflects the

pattern of progression. In the spatial settings of Gen 22:1-19, concerning the description

of the mountain, there is a development from uncertainty to certainty where one of the

mountains in Moriah (v. 2) finally becomes the mountain of the Lord (v. 14).21 It was

also noted in the analysis of the sphere settings that in the narrative, all the sphere settings

20For the discussion on the analysis of the plot type, see Chapter 2 of this study, pp. 85-86.

Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 56. Resseguie also states, “A recognition plot, for
instance, posits characters that are initially unseeing and unknowing but eventually awaken to an important
discovery.” Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 204.
21For the discussion on the progression in knowledge, see Chapter 2, pp. 169-171.

198
are related to religious ritual.22 Therefore, Abraham’s act of naming the place

demonstrates that he has certainty about God through his experience.

The final situation of the plot (vv. 15-18) adds more light toward both the

characterization of God and the paradox. While the request of God in the complication of

the plot is a temporary threat against the promise of progeny through Isaac, God blesses

Abraham and reaffirms His promise through the angel of YHWH in the final situation of

the plot. The tension in the complication of the plot is completely removed in the

denouement, and the final situation of the plot even improves the situation of Abraham.

The improved situation of Abraham and Isaac in the final situation makes it clear that the

function of the paradox in the narrative is to create tension in the complication of the plot

so that Abraham will demonstrate that he fears God.

In terms of characterization, the narrator of Gen 22:1-19 completely avoids using

the simple characterization technique called telling for God. The characterization of God

has to be gleaned through the complex characterization technique called showing.23

Through direct showing (the speech in v. 2), God is characterized as tactful without

necessarily being arrogant.24 Through the actions and words of Abraham in vv. 8 and 14,

which is termed as the perceived understanding through indirect showing, Abraham

characterizes God as someone who will provide.25 The development of the narrative

confirms that Abraham’s perception of God is correct (vv. 13-14).

22See the analysis of the sphere settings in Chapter 2 of this study.

23For more details on the analysis of the characterization for God, see Chapter 2, pp. 152-153.
24See the section on the characterization of God in Chapter 2, p. 149.
25If it were not for the declaration of Abraham in v. 14, the ram caught in the thicket could be well

considered as a coincidence or chance. However, Abraham voiced his perception and also showed that God
is the one who provides, just as he expected (v. 8), and accordingly named the mountain (v. 14). Abraham’s
199
 Thus, considering the contention between the promise of progeny and the test

within its narrative context, what at first looks like a paradox is but a significant element

of the narrative component. It is not that God is absurd,26 or acts like a pagan god,27 or

misuses His sovereignty;28 neither is the test instigated by other characters other than God

Himself.29 The paradox creates immense tension in the complication of the plot that

dramatically propels the narrative into action. The denouement and the final situation of

the plot clearly reveal that the request God makes in the complication of the plot is only

an instrument for the test to gain cognitive knowledge about Abraham’s obedience but

without a serious intension to take away the promise of progeny from Abraham. The

analysis of the characterization projects God as tactful, trustworthy, and the one who

meets Abraham’s expectation.

The Enigmatic Words of Abraham

Abraham’s answer to Isaac in Gen 22:8, “God will provide the lamb for the burnt

offering, my son,” attracts the attention of scholars.30 Considering what Abraham said in

v. 8 with what he did immediately in vv. 9-10, it is no wonder that diverse views exist.31

words and actions coordinate. See the section, “Perceived Understanding Through Indirect Showing” in
Chapter 2, pp. 152-153.
26See Levering, “God and Natural Law,” 151; Kant, The Conflict of the Faculties, 115; Kohn,
“The Trauma of Isaac,” 96-97; Brueggemann, Genesis, 185; Moltz, “God and Abraham,” 68; Boehm, “The
Binding of Isaac,” 1-2; Speiser, Genesis, 164.
27Tucker, “Sins of Our Fathers,” 34.
28Kierkegaard, “Fear and Trembling: Repetition,” 54-81; Brueggemann, Genesis, 185.
29SeeBernstein, “Angels at the Aqedah,” 276; K. Matthews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, 289, 301;
Kohn, “The Trauma of Isaac,” 97.
30Brueggemann, Genesis, 185. K. Matthews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, 294. Sheridan and Oden,

Ancient Christian Commentary, 102. Walton, Genesis, 515. Wenham, Genesis 16-50, 114-15.
31For the details about the different views, see Chapter 1, pp. 9-12.
200
While some scholars see it as Abraham’s expression of faith,32 other scholars accused

him of not being honest to Isaac and also to the two servants.33 The narrative elements

that add to the difficulty of the enigmatic words of Abraham based on the narrative

analysis are presented below. The explanation based on the narrative context follows.

The difficulties. There are a few significant narrative features that need to be

considered in order to understand the enigmatic words of Abraham in v. 8. Without the

awareness of the narrative poetics, the words of Abraham become a difficult riddle. Three

narrative features standout in this respect: its function in the plot, the gaps and blanks,

and the mode of the storytelling.

Its function in the plot. The analysis of the plot shows that the enigmatic words

of Abraham, which are contradictory to his actions in vv. 9-10, are all part of the

transforming action of the plot. Since the main function of the transforming action of the

plot is to remove the tension in the complication of the plot, the actions of Abraham in

vv. 9-10 contribute directly towards the removal of the tension. In the denouement of the

plot in v. 12, the angel of YHWH makes a direct reference to Abraham’s actions as the

reason for removing the tension. On the other hand, the function of Abraham’s enigmatic

words in v. 8 is not as obvious as his actions.34 The function of Abraham’s enigmatic

words requires a further probe into the denouement of the plot to find the meaning and its

32Sheridan and Oden, Genesis 12-50, 102; Walton, Genesis, 515.

33Davidson states that Abraham was being evasive of the appalling dilemma. Davidson, Genesis
12-50, 96. See also Sarna, Be-Reshit, 152; Mazor, “Genesis 22,” 86. Tucker goes further and states that
lying is immoral. Tucker, “Sins of Our Fathers,” 35.
34For more details, see the section on the analysis of the transforming action of the plot in Chapter
2, pp. 76-80.

201
function in the narrative context.35 This complication adds to the difficulty of the

enigmatic words of Abraham.

The gaps and blanks. As the task of removing the tension in the complication of

the plot falls upon Abraham, his actions and words gain significance at the expense of all

other details in the transforming action of the plot.36 The analysis of the gaps in the

transforming action of the plot shows that the narrator does not directly disclose

Abraham’s perception of the test. To fill in this significant gap, the narrator uses the two

servants as a rhetorical device to provide an occasion to subtly communicate Abraham’s

perception of the test he was facing. Their existence benefits Abraham. Thus, to keep the

narrative focus on Abraham and to make the story suspense-filled, the narrator is very

selective in its presentation of the actions and words of the characters that exhibit

Abraham’s obedience. Awareness of the narrative poetics of the gaps and blanks is

essential to reconstruct the true motive of Abraham in v. 8.37 Consequently, the gaps and

blanks contribute to the difficulty of the enigmatic words of Abraham.

The mode of the storytelling. The narrator’s choice of point of view to tell the

story in the transforming action of the plot also adds to the difficulty. Neutral point of

view is the dominant mode of the storytelling in the transforming action of the plot.38 The

unspecified motives of the characters contribute to the difficulty of ascertaining the

35See Chapter 2, pp. 82-83.

36See the analysis of the gaps in the transforming actions of the plot section in Chapter 2, pp. 188-
190. The role of the two servants demonstrates well that details in the narrative exists for the benefit of
Abraham. Deeming the role of the two servants as trivial in the narrative, Walsh likens them to a “hitching
posts” for the donkey. Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 24. He argues, “Somebody has to guard the
donkeys!” Ibid.
37See Chapter 2, p. 193.
38For the narrative poetics on the gaps and blanks, see Chapter 2, pp. 98-99.

202
intended meaning of Abraham’s enigmatic words in relation to Abraham’s subsequent

actions.

The enigmatic words of Abraham in the narrative context. The analysis of the

narrative time and actions show that the narrator considers the enigmatic words of

Abraham to be significant39 because he makes the tempo of the narrative slower by

getting into a tableau when the narrator reports Abraham’s words in vv. 5 and 8. In terms

of order, Abraham’s words contain prolepsis with internal distance and punctual

frequency that further underlines the significance of Abraham’s words.40 However, since

the narrator’s use of the neutral point of view conceals the motives of Abraham’s words,

what Abraham said seems unlikely to happen; thus, the tension shifted from what will

happen to how it will happen, creating suspense in the narrative.41

The closure found in the denouement of the plot, as noted earlier, and the analysis

of the evaluative point of view provide an interpretative key to the enigmatic words of

Abraham. In the denouement of the plot, the angel of YHWH intervenes and declares that

Abraham successfully removes the tension of the plot (vv. 11-12) through his actions (vv.

3-4, 6, 9-10) in the transforming action of the plot. In v. 13, Abraham discovers the ram

caught in the thicket by its horn and sacrifices it in place of Isaac, and that provides

closure for the enigmatic words of Abraham in v. 8.42 As a memorial of his experience,

39For the analysis of the narrative time and actions, see Chapter 2, pp. 125-127.
40See scene IV of the analysis of the time and action in Chapter 2, p. 126.
41Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 61. See also the poetics of the prolepsis in Chapter 2, pp. 119-
200.
42For a detailed discussion, see the analysis of the denouement of the plot in Chapter 2, pp. 82-83.

203
Abraham names the place “God will provide” in v. 14 which echoes his enigmatic words

in v. 8. It turns out that Abraham did not lie to his son.

Furthermore, it may be highlighted that in the analysis of the point of view, God’s

perception is the evaluative point of view or the standard of right and wrong in the

narrative of Gen 22:1-19.43 It is important to note that God did not condemn Abraham for

his words or actions. On the contrary, the intervention of the angel of YHWH and the

provision of the ram confirm that God approves Abraham’s actions and words in the

narrative.

The study of the characterization also characterized Abraham as obedient and

deliberately willing to obey God’s words.44 He has superior knowledge over the reader

and perceives obeying God’s words as worship.45 He satisfactorily fulfilled God’s

request, and most of all, feared God. Therefore, the abovementioned observation

concludes that the enigmatic words of Abraham (v. 8) and his actions (vv. 9-10) are not

contradictory but complementary to each other. They are the component parts of the fear

of God that Abraham has (v. 12). The enigmatic words of Abraham are then the motives

behind his obedient actions in the transforming action of the plot. In other words, what

Abraham said to his servants (v. 5) and to Isaac (v. 8) serves as the motive for his

obedience.

43See the analysis of the evaluative point of view in Chapter 2, p. 111.

44See the analysis of the characterization of Abraham in Chapter 2, pp. 152-156.
45See the summary of the characterization of Abraham in Chapter 2, pp. 158-159.

204
 The Passivity

The discussion of the passivity has two parts. The first part presents the study of

the unprotested obedience of Abraham. The second part shows the study of the

submission of Isaac.

Unprotested Obedience of Abraham

The unprotested obedience of Abraham to the seemingly outrageous request of

God to sacrifice his only beloved son, Isaac, is challenging to understand. While some

scholars admire the faith of Abraham,46 other scholars are baffled by his unprotested

obedience.47 Since Abraham voiced his opinion or concern to God in the case of Sodom

and Gomorrah (Gen 18:22-33) and the case of Ishmael (Gen 21:8-14), Abraham’s

unprotested obedience in this narrative is surprising. However, a few narrative features

explain the unprotested obedience of Abraham.

Function of passivity. The narrator shrewdly maneuvers his storytelling

strategies purposefully and conceals the explicit motives behind Abraham’s obedience.

The unprotested obedience of Abraham constitutes the transforming action of the plot

which seeks to remove the tension built in the complication of the plot. The denouement

of the plot shows that Abraham’s obedience is the key to removing the tension in this

narrative. Since the plot of the narrative of Gen 22:1-19 calls for the examination of

Abraham’s obedience, a protest would not be impressive and only work against

Abraham. However, this is not the case with the two previous narratives (Gen 18:22-33;

46See Kuruvilla, “The Aqedah,” 508. See also Jas 2:21.

47SeeMoltz, “God and Abraham,” 62; Fretheim, “God Was With the Boy,” 15; Hartley, Genesis,
205; Levenson, The Death and Resurrection, 262.

205
21:8-14) where Abraham voiced his concerns to God.48 The strategy of the narrator could

be understood as part of his rhetoric whereby he seeks to make the story suspense-filled

for the readers by giving them the experience of curiosity, suspense, and surprise through

the process of the narrative.

The revelation plot type narrative suits the strategy of the narrator in this

narrative. Until the denouement of the plot, the reader is in an indecisive situation

because the actions and words of the characters seem inexplicable. The denouement of

the plot demonstrates a significant revelation about God and Abraham: Abraham silently

obeys God because he fears God, and God does not intend Abraham to sacrifice Isaac and

makes the promise of the progeny through Isaac futile, which is demonstrated when He

stops Abraham from completing his action to slaughter his son.

The analysis of the final situation further confirms the faithfulness of God in his

promise by revealing the reward He has in place for Abraham for showing his obedience.

Since the obedience of Abraham functions as the key to removing the tension of the plot,

the unprotested obedience of Abraham becomes a significant element in the narrative.

The abovementioned observation shows that the unprotested obedience of Abraham is

part of the narrator’s storytelling strategy.

Passivity in the narrative context. Apart from the functional aspect of the

unprotested obedience of Abraham in the plot, there are other narrative elements worthy

of consideration in regard to Abraham’s passivity in this respect. The narrator prefers the

characterization technique of showing over telling. The analysis of the characterization

reveals that the actions and words of Abraham in the transforming action of the plot

48See the analysis of the denouement of the plot in the previous chapter.

206
conveys through the series of actions that Abraham deliberately obeys God’s voice. The

unprotested obedience of Abraham becomes a rhetoric of the narrator to persuade the

reader of Abraham’s obedience. As Abraham is proved truthful in his words with the

servants (v. 5) and Isaac (v. 8), it can be deduced that Abraham does not need to protest

because he expects God to provide. God does provide in vv. 12-14. Abraham does not

seem to think. Abraham’s words in vv. 5 and 8 characterize him as having an outrageous

faith, total dependence, and trust in God that He will not take away His promise. The

analysis of the evaluative point of view also shows that God did not condemn Abraham’s

actions and words, but rather accepts and appreciates his conduct.

The indirect showing of the characterization of Abraham reveals that according to

God, Abraham loved Isaac. The revelation of the inner motive of Abraham makes the

narrative all the more intense. Obedience is one of the qualities characterized by

Abraham within the narrative through direct showing. The narrator employs both

speeches and actions to show the obedience of Abraham. In the narrative of Gen 22:1-19,

whenever Abraham is called, he always answers, “Here I am.”49 Abraham’s consistent

responsiveness shows his obedience and attentiveness to God’s call.

The analysis of the gaps in the transforming actions of the plot shows that only

those details that demonstrate Abraham’s fear of God through his actions and words are

selectively presented in the narrative.50 For Berlin, there are actions without words in

place of the description of the events and actions.51 In his deliberation to show the

49See Gen 22:1, 7, and 11.

50See Chapter 2, pp. 191-196.
51Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 39.

207
obedience of Abraham, the narrator sacrifices everything else apart from that which

shows Abraham’s obedience. Apart from the actions, words, and deeds of Abraham,

other characters and their actions, words, and deeds merely exist in the narrative for the

sake of Abraham. Other details beyond are excluded from the narrative. Other details

may be of interest to the readers but if these details do not enlighten the plot of the

narrative, they are regarded as irrelevant to the plot of the narrative and become blanks in

the narrative.

While some scholars see Abraham’s unprotested obedience as a silent protest,52

the narrative study shows that it was Abraham’s trust and expectation in the Lord that

caused him to obey without protest. In other words, since he is confident that God would

act the way Abraham told his servants in v. 5 and his son in v. 8, there was no need to

protest against the Lord.

The Silent Submission of Isaac

The submission of Isaac has received serious attention from Jewish and Christian

scholars, but the studies about the function of the silent submission of Isaac in the

narrative are not many.53 The analysis of the narrative sheds some light on the function of

the submission of Isaac in the narrative. In order to understand the function of Isaac’s

silent submission, it is significant to look at the plot of the narrative and Isaac’s role in

the plot.

52Wacome saw Abraham as silently obeying God while his silence was also seen as a wordless

argument against the sacrifice. Wacome, “Sacrifice of Isaac,” 92.

53See Albert van der Heide, ‘Now I Know’: Five Centuries of Aqedah Exegesis (New York, NY:
Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2017); Sarna, JPS Torah, 105; Oh, “Canonical Understanding,” 1; K.
Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, 301; Kunin, “The Death of Isaac,” 73.

208
 The plot of the narrative is about Abraham’s fear of God. At the heart of the

complication of the plot lies Abraham’s only beloved son, Isaac. The elaborate

qualification of Isaac in respect to his relationship with Abraham intensifies the weight of

the test. In the transforming action of the plot, the narrator moves quickly to show how

Abraham reacts to the complication of the plot. Since the primary purpose of the

transforming actions of the plot is to remove the tension, the narrator executes the

purpose well by selectively showing only the actions and words that contribute to remove

the tension. The denouement of the plot shows that God approves the effort of Abraham

with no criticism against his words or actions. As a result, God gives the confirmation of

the blessings of Abraham through the angel of YHWH (vv. 15-18). The gaps in the

narrative also show that only the details that contribute towards the transforming action

of the plot are selectively presented, and they focus on the actions and words of

Abraham. Isaac and the two servants appear only when their roles enhance Abraham.

A trail of hints, showing that Abraham knew something the narrator does not

reveal to the reader, is found in v. 5. A close reading of the inclusio with the framing

phrase “and both of them walk together” and the conversation presented in a tableau in

vv. 6-8 reveals that the narrator intentionally uses these devices to introduce Abraham’s

motive for his obedience—that God will provide. Isaac’s role in the narrative is a foil

character. He is silent all throughout the narrative but suddenly speaks out in this

particular instance. The question he asks Abraham is the only initiative he takes in the

narrative, and it provides an opportunity for Abraham to express his motivation for all his

actions—that God will provide. In v. 12, God did intervene and in v. 14, Abraham names

the mountain with the same root word (‫)ראה‬.

209
 The abovementioned observation shows that the only things that help portray

Abraham’s obedience are brought out in the narrative. Isaac exists in the narrative for the

sake of Abraham; indeed, Isaac’s role is a foil character. In order to emphasize

Abraham’s worthy actions in the narrative, all other details are sacrificed including

Isaac’s actions and words. Isaac’s passivity becomes the rhetorical device through which

the narrator convincingly demonstrates Abraham’s obedience to God.

Theological Insights

The main purpose of this study is literary in nature. However, from the study of

the paradox and the passivity in Gen 22:1-19 few theological insights emerge. Three

main points are presented below.

God Tests His People

The requirement of the test in Gen 22:2 provokes some theological concerns

about God. Without the narrator immediately telling the motive of God for testing

Abraham, the requirement of the test that summons Abraham to commit a brutal act

against his son tainted the picture of God. Some scholars deemed the act of God as

absurd54 and fitting a pagan god.55 Such conclusion, however, is premature when one

looks at Gen 22:1-19 from the narrative analysis approach. As the requirement of the test

is the rhetoric device of the narrator to create tension in the narrative, such reaction

clearly demonstrates that it serves its purpose very well because tension is what propels

54See Levering, “God and Natural Law,” 151; Kant, The Conflict of the Faculties, 115; Kohn,

“The Trauma of Isaac,” 96-97; Brueggemann, Genesis, 185; Moltz, “God and Abraham,” 68; Boehm, “The
Binding of Isaac,” 1-2; Speiser, Genesis, 164.
55Tucker, “Sins of Our Fathers,” 34.

210
the plot. However, once Abraham demonstrates his obedience to God, in behalf of God

the angel of YHWH intervenes and removes all the threats that comes with the tension.

As a result, God reaffirms the blessings of Abraham.

Based on the narrative analysis approach, God is neither absurd nor acting like the

pagan gods. Since the motive behind the test was for Abraham to show his obedience, it

implies that the test was not instigated by another character but God Himself.56 The

narrative teaches that God tests His people to exercise and to demonstrate their faith.57

God Provides

The study of Gen 22:1-19 also implies that when God puts His people to a test,

He is not misusing His sovereignty,58 as some scholars accuse Him. If God did not

intervene in vv. 11-12, Abraham would have slaughtered his son because the narrator told

the readers that Abraham had the intention to slaughter Isaac (v. 10). The intervention of

the angel of YHWH in v. 11-12 elucidates that when Abraham demonstrates his

obedience to God, He provides. When Abraham discovered the ram, he recognized that

God provided for him the substitute for Isaac. The study shows that God intervenes in the

life of His people and provides for their needs.

God Is Trustworthy

The plot of the narrative focuses on the obedience of God. The narrator artfully

displays through different narrative features how Abraham thoroughly demonstrates his

56There are some scholars who suggest that the test was instigated by other characters other than

God. See Moshe J. Bernstein, “Angels at the Aqedah,” 276. K. Matthews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, 289, 301.
And also Kohn, “The Trauma of Isaac,” 97.
57See also Exod 16:4.
58Kierkegaard, “Fear and Trembling: Repetition,” 54-81; Brueggemann, Genesis, 185.
211
obedience. However, the narrator subtly reveals through the actions and words of

Abraham that God is trustworthy. The words of Abraham in vv. 5 and 8 are presented in

verbatim where the narrator slows down the narrative to bring the attention of the readers

to what Abraham said. Abraham’s words are the revelation of his inner motivation that

caused him to act accordingly. They echo the paramount faith that Abraham has upon

God. As Abraham discovers the ram in the thicket, he proclaims the trustworthiness of

God by naming the place “God will provide” in v. 14. Thus, the narrative of Gen 22:1-19

teaches that God is trustworthy even when things seem to fall apart.

212
 CHAPTER 4

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This chapter consists of the summary of the study and the conclusions of the

study. The chapter summary presents the main findings from Chapters 2 and 3. A brief

presentation of the conclusions drawn from the study follows.

Summary of the Study

This study examined Gen 22:1-19 in its literary settings using a narrative analysis

approach concerning the paradox and the passivity that constitute the complexities of the

narrative. These difficulties further elicit interpretative issues with the main characters of

the narrative: God, Abraham, and Isaac. This chapter presents the summary of the

narrative analysis in the previous chapters that has bearing on the paradox and the

passivity of the narrative.

The study of Gen 22:1-19 in Chapter 2 comprises an analysis using the poetics of

the various narrative components. It includes the closures and scenes, the plot, the

narrator, the points of view, the time and actions, the characters, the characterizations, the

settings, the props, and the gaps. The analysis illustrates significant information that

enlightens the difficulties of the narrative.

The narrative has a clean closure and has eight scenes which are preceded by

abstracts. It has chronological progression in terms of movement. God and Abraham are

213
the two protagonists, and Abraham is featured the most among the characters in the

narrative scenes (abstract of the narrative). God’s request to Abraham to take, go, and

offer his son Isaac creates tension that forms the complication of the plot (scene I). The

tension triggers Abraham’s actions to fulfill the request to take, go, and offer his son,

Isaac, in the transforming action of the plot (scenes II-IV). Abraham expresses the

motives for his obedience through his words to his servants (v. 5) and to Isaac (v. 8).

Abraham’s actions in the transforming action of the plot remove the tension in the

complication of the plot that threatens the promise of progeny and bring about the

denouement of the plot (scenes V-VI). The denouement leads to the final situation of the

plot where God reaffirms His promise of progeny to Abraham in scene VII. Abraham

goes back to Beersheba with Isaac and his servants in scene VIII. The narrative has a

revelation plot type because the pragmatic actions of Abraham yield cognitive knowledge

about the obedience of Abraham and the faithfulness of God. The final situation of the

plot removes the tension in the complication of the plot because of the actions of

Abraham in the transforming action of the plot; thus, the narrative has a U-shaped plot

pattern.

The narrator of Gen 22:1-19 is a third-person omniscient narrator. The narrator

uses the character-elevating style of storytelling and refrains from sharing the motives of

the characters for the most part. The reader needs to observe the actions and words of the

characters. The narrator creatively manipulates the points of view in the narrative to make

it exciting, captivating, and suspense-filled for the reader. For the most part, he uses the

neutral point of view and avoids the burden of sharing the inner motivations of the

characters in the narrative with the reader. A careful observation of the speeches and

214
actions of the characters becomes the key to the right reading of this story. God’s

perception is the evaluative point of view of the narrative.

The duration of the narrative time mainly consists of acceleration and tableau.

When the narrative describes Abraham’s actions that contribute towards the removal of

the tension in the complication of the plot, the narrative pace accelerates by using many

action verbs. Abraham’s speeches in vv. 5 and 8, that are in a tableau, illuminate his

motives more than it develops the plot. There are analepses in scenes II and VII. The first

analepsis in scene II shows that Abraham knows more than the reader.1 The others in

scene VII show that the actions of Abraham in the transforming action of the plot are

very significant in the narrative.

Apart from the protagonists God (‫ ָהֲאֹלִהים‬and ‫ )י ְהָוה‬and Abraham, other characters

involved in the narrative are Isaac, the servants, and the angel of YHWH. Both God and

Abraham have round character types and complex character traits. Isaac is a foil character

with a flat character trait, providing a contrasting background for Abraham. The two

servants are walk-on characters with flat character traits and their presence in the

narrative gives occasion for Abraham to express his thoughts concerning the test. The

angel of YHWH is an agent character with a flat character trait as well. He is featured in

the denouement and in the final situation of the plot on behalf of God.

Characterization through telling is infrequent in the narrative of Gen 22:1-19,

making the narrative complicated for the reader. By means of showing, the narrative

characterizes God as someone who wanted Abraham to show that he fears God, who

1The analepsis does not have an antecedent, which is an ellipsis. The ellipsis indicates that the

narrator is hiding some important information from the reader. For more details, see the analysis of the time
and actions section on scene II which is part of Chapter 2 of this study.

215
could be trusted, tactful without necessarily being arrogant or cruel, able and willing to

provide, and blesses those who obey Him. The narrative characterizes Abraham as the

one who is deliberately willing to obey God’s words; has superior knowledge over the

reader; believes that obeying God’s words is equivalent to worship; satisfactorily fulfills

God’s request; and, most of all, fears God. Isaac is characterized as very close to his

father and one who knows what worship is and what it entails. The two servants are

obedient to Abraham.

The spatial settings provide the context for the events that took place in the

narrative. There is a movement from uncertainty to certainty that conforms to the nature

of a test. There are also spatial settings that comprehensively enhance the rewards of

Abraham. The narrative uses the temporal settings sparingly but effectively. At times, it

functions as a hint for the background of the narrative plot (v. 1); at another time, they are

used for setting the mood and intensity of the narrative (vv. 3, 6, 8, 12, 14). There is also

a trace of a motif from uncertainty to certainty. The sphere settings are related to religious

ritual. While the readers knew Abraham went through a test, the sphere settings analysis

shows that Abraham sees the test as a religious ritual by using the term worship and a few

other elements concerning worship.

There are four sets of props in the narrative. The ritual props include elements for

the burnt offering such as the wood, knife, lamb, altar, and ram. The donkey and the two

servants constitute the props for the journey. The props for the intervention of the angel

of YHWH include the thicket, a ram, and its horn. Also, the props for the blessing of

Abraham include the seed, stars of the heavens, and sands of the sea.

216
 The narrator is profoundly interested in the plot of the story to the extent that he

tends to leave out elements that do not enhance the plot of the narrative. At times, the

narrator leaves out things for the sake of interest in a way that enhances the plot of the

story. The narrative presents details that necessarily add meaning to the plot of the

narrative in a persuasive manner but without delving into it beyond what is necessary for

enhancing the plot. As such, some forms of pattern in the system of the omission emerge.

Chapter 3 addresses the narrative problem of the paradox, passivity, and reticence

based on the narrative analysis in Chapter 2. The paradox and passivity, along with

reticence, in the narrative are part of the storytelling strategy of the implied author. An

understanding of their function in the narrative helps the reader understand the difficulties

of the narrative. With such consideration, the paradox, the passivity, and the reticence in

the narrative become significant elements in the story. The theological insights that

emerge from the narrative study is presented at the end of the chapter.

The first paradox in the narrative is the paradox of the promise of progeny with

the test. Since the narrator did not share the motive of God by telling the story using the

neutral point of view, there is a gap of motivation that complicates the paradox. The role

of God as a round and complex narrative character adds to the difficulty. Considering the

paradox in a narrative context, the study of the narrative plot, the plot type and pattern,

and the characterization of God show that the requirement of the test is only an

instrument for the test to gain cognitive knowledge about Abraham’s obedience.

The second paradox is the enigmatic words of Abraham in vv. 5 and 8. They are

in contradiction to the requirement of the test in v. 2 and his actions in vv. 9-10. The

difficulties of the narrative comprise the use of the neutral point of view and the priority

217
of Abraham’s actions in the narrative which left many gaps in the narrative. Considering

the paradox in the narrative context, it focuses on the details that exhibit Abraham’s

obedience in the transforming action of the plot where the enigmatic words of Abraham

are located. The enigmatic words of Abraham are the rhetorical device of the narrator that

subtly reveal his motive for his obedience. The evaluative point of view endorses

Abraham’s actions and words.

The first passivity is the unprotested obedience of Abraham to the difficult request

of God in Gen 22:1-19. The passivity functions as the key to removing the tension of the

plot. Unlike the case of Sodom and Gomorrah in Gen 18:22-33 and Ishmael in Gen 21:8-

14, Abraham’s obedience is in question in Gen 22:1-19. Silent obedience is a necessity.

Considering the passivity in the narrative context, since the task of removing the tension

falls on Abraham in the transforming action of the plot, the implied author shrewdly

maneuvers his narrative to portray Abraham’s obedience convincingly by using a neutral

point of view as the mode of the storytelling. On the other hand, the study also shows that

there is no need for Abraham to protest because he believes that God will provide.

Abraham’s silence is not a protest but a strong expression of trust and obedience.

The second passivity is the silent submission of Isaac. Putting the rich theological

reading of Gen 22:1-19 aside, the silent submission of Isaac has a significant function in

the plot of the narrative. As the narrative is about the obedience of Abraham, the focus is

on his actions and words that will remove the tension of the plot while everything else

that does not contribute towards this cause is left out in the narrative. The only time Isaac

speaks out in vv. 6-8 is for the benefit of Abraham. As a foil character, Isaac’s passivity

218
becomes the rhetorical device through which the narrator convincingly demonstrates

Abraham’s obedience to God.

There are few theological insights that emerge from the study. The study of the

paradox of the promise of progeny with the test teaches that God put his people to tests so

that they may demonstrate their faith. God cares and provides for His people, and (c) God

is trustworthy even when things seem to fall apart. The study of the paradox of the

enigmatic words of Abraham teaches that God intervenes in the life of His people and

provides their needs. The study of the passivity of the unprotested obedience of Abraham

and the silent submission of Isaac encourages the reader to have the faith that Abraham

exhibits. The fear of God in Gen 22:1-19 is a concept that comprises a sincere and fervent

obedience to God’s words which is motivated by trusting in Him even in all situations

because God is trustworthy.

Conclusions of the Study

The paradox and the passivity are integral part of the storytelling technique. The

paradox of the promise of progeny and the test are a functional part of the complication

of the plot that built tension in the narrative. After Abraham’s words and actions in the

transforming action of the plot removed the tension, the promise of progeny is reaffirmed

in the final situation of the plot. The paradox of the enigmatic words of Abraham is subtle

revelations of his motive for his obedience. The unprotested obedience of Abraham is the

key to removing the tension of the plot which is inspired by his belief that God will

provide. The silent submission of Isaac is part of the rhetoric device that demonstrates

Abraham’s obedience to God as it is the main plot of the narrative. Since Abraham is

tasked to remove the tension of the plot, other details that do not contribute to it are left
219
out of the narrative. Thus, the paradox and the passivity are parts of the narrative

convention that contributes to the plot of the narrative: Abraham obeys God because he

believes that God will provide, and God did provide.

220
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abrams, Meyer H. The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical
Tradition. 1953. Reprint. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 1971.

Abrams, Meyer H., and Geoffrey G. Harpham. A Glossary of Literary Terms. 9th ed.
Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009.

Alden, R. “yāḥîd,” New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis.
Edited by Willem VanGemeren. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997. 2:435.

Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York, NY: Basic, 1981.

________. The Pleasures of Reading: In an Ideological Age. New York, NY:

Touchstone, 1986.

Antoine, Gérald. Exegesis: Problems of Method and Exercises in Reading (Genesis 22

and Luke 15). Edited by François Bovon and Grégoire Rouiller. Translated by
Donald G. Miller (Pittsburgh, PA: Pickwick, 1978). Quoted in Jacques Doukhan,
“The Center of the Aqedah: A Study of the Literary Structure of Genesis 22:1-
19.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 31, no.1 (1993): 17-28.

Arnold, Bill T. Encountering the Book of Genesis: A Study of Its Content and Issues.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998.

Arnold, Bill T., and John H. Choi. A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Auerbach, Erich. Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature.

Translated by W. Trask. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1957.

Backon, Joshua. “Why Isaac Wasn’t Permitted to Resist at the Akedah: Legal
Requirement to Obey the Command of a Prophet.” Jewish Bible Quarterly 42,
no. 2 (2014): 131-132.

Bal, Meiki. Narratology: Introduction to the Theology of Narrative. Toronto, Canada:

University of Toronto Press, 1985.

Bar-Efrat, Shimon. Narrative Art in the Bible. London, UK: Sheffield, 1989.

221
Bauckham, Richard. “The Parable of the Royal Wedding Feast (Matthew 22:1-14) and
the Parable of the Lame Man and the Blind Man (Apocryphon of Ezekiel).” JBL
115 (1996): 471-488.

Beach, Bradley, and Matthew Powell, eds. Interpreting Abraham: Journeys to Moriah.
Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2014.

Benyamini, Itzhak. A Critical Theology of Genesis: The Non-Absolute God. Translated

by Jeffrey M. Green. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.

Berlin, Adele. “Literary Approaches to the Hebrew Bible.” In The Cambridge

Companion to the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, edited by Stephen B. Chapman
and Marvin A. Sweeney, 163-183. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press,
2016.

________. Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative. 1983. Reprint. Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994.

Bernstein, Moshe J. “Angels at the Aqedah: A Study in the Develpment of a Midrashic

Motif.” Dead Sea Discoveries 7, no. 3 (2000): 264-291.

Boehm, Omri. “The Binding of Isaac: An Inner-Biblical Polemic on the Question of

‘Disobeying’ a Manifestly Illegal Order.” Vetus Testamentum 52, no. 1 (2002):
1-12.

Brayford, Susan. Genesis. Septuagint Commentary Series. Boston, MA: Brill, 2007.

Brock, Sebastian. “Reading Between the Lines: Sarah and the Sacrifice of Isaac (Genesis,
Chapter 22).” In Women in Ancient Societies: An Illusion of the Night, edited by
Léonie J. Archer, Susan Fischler, and Maria Wyke, 169-180. New York, NY:
Routledge, 1994.

Brown, David. Tradition and Imagination: Revelation and Change. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press, 1999.

Brown, Francis, With S. R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon
of the Old Testament With an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic. Based
on the lexicon of William Gesenius. Oxford, UK: Clarendon, 1952.

Brueggemann, Walter. Genesis. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and

Preaching. Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1982.

Bullinger, Ethelbert W. Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. London, UK: Eyre &
Spottiswoode, 1898.

Chatman, Seymour. Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1978.

222
Childs, Peter, and Roger Fowler. The Routledge Dictionary of Literary Terms. London,
UK: Routledge, 2006.

Coats, George W. Genesis: With an Introduction to Narrative Literature. The Forms of

the Old Testament Literature. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983.

Colie, Rosalie L. Paradoxia Epidemica: The Renaissance Tradition of Paradox. Hamden,

CT: Archon, 1976.

Collins, John J. “Historical Critical Methods.” In The Cambridge Companion to the

Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, edited by Stephen B. Chapman and Marvin A.
Sweeney, 129-146. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2016.

Cotter, David W., ed. Genesis. Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry.
Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2003.

Culler, Jonathan D. Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics, and the Study of

Literature. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1975.

Curcio, Janice Ann. “Genesis 22 and the Socio-Religious Reforms of Ezra and
Nehemiah.” PhD diss., Brunel University, 2010. Accessed March 31, 2017.
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.

Daly, Robert J. “Soteriological Significance of the Sacrifice of Isaac.” Catholic Biblical

Quarterly 39, no. 1 (1977): 45-75.

Davidson, Robert. Genesis 12-50. Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press, 1979.

Davies, Philip R., and Bruce D. Chilton. “The Aqedah: A Revised Tradition History.”
The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40, no. 4 (1978): 514-546.

Davila, James R. “The Name of God at Moriah: An Unpublished Fragment From

4QGenEXOD.” Journal of Biblical Literature 110, no. 4 (1991): 577-582.

Dockery, David S., ed. Holman Bible Handbook. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible, 1992.

Doukhan, Jacques. “The Center of the Aqedah: A Study of the Literary Structure of
Genesis 22:1-19.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 31, no.1 (1993): 17-28.

Dybdahl, Jon L., ed. Andrews Study Bible Notes. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews
University Press, 2010.

Erisman, Angela R. “Literary Theory and Composition History of the Torah: The Sea
Crossing (Exod 14:1-31) as a Test Case.” In Approaches to Literary Readings of
Ancient Jewish Writings. Edited by Klaas. A. Smelik and Karolien Vermeulen,
53-76. Boston, MA: Brill, 2014.

223
Finsterbusch, Karin, Armin Lange, and Diethard Römheld. Human Sacrifice in Jewish
and Christian Tradition. Numen Book Series. Boston, MA: Brill, 2007.

Fischer, Zoltan. “Sacrificing Isaac: A New Interpretation.” Jewish Bible Quarterly 35,
no. 3 (2007): 173-178.

Fokkelman, Jan P. Reading Biblical Narrative: A Practical Guide. Translated by Ineke

Smit. Tools for Biblical Study Series 1. Leiden, The Netherlands: Deo, 2000.

Forster, Edward M. Aspects of the Novel. Electronic ed. New York, NY: RosettaBooks,
2002.

Fretheim, Terence E. “God, Abraham, and the Abuse of Isaac.” Word and World 15, no.
1 (1995): 49-57.

________. “‘God Was With the Boy’ (Genesis 21:20): Children in the Book of Genesis.”
In The Child in the Bible, edited by Marcia J. Bunge, Terence E. Fretheim, and
Beverly Roberts Gaventa, 3-23. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008.

Fry, William F., Jr. “Humor and Paradox.” American Beharioral Scientist 30, no. 1
(1987): 42-72.

Greidanus, Sidney. Preaching Christ From Genesis: Foundations for Expository

Sermons. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007.

Gunkel, Hermann. The Stories of Genesis. Vallejo, CA: Bibal, 1994. Quoted in John J.
Collins, “Historical Critical Methods.” In The Cambridge Companion to the
Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, edited by Stephen B. Chapman and Marvin A.
Sweeney, 129-146. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2016.

________. The Stories of Genesis. Vallejo, CA: Bibal, 1994. Quoted in Tremper
Longman III, Literary Approaches to Biblical Interpretation: Foundations of
Contemporary Interpretation. Grand Rapids, MI: Academie, 1987.

Hahn, Scott, and Curtis Mitch. Genesis: With Introduction, Commentary, and Notes.
Revised standard version and second Catholic ed. Ignatius Catholic Study Bible.
San Francisco, CA: Ignatius, 2010.

Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis, Chapters 18-50. The New International
Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995. 116.

Hartley, John E. “Genesis.” New International Biblical Commentary. Edited by Robert L.

Hubbard Jr. and Robert K. Johnston. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000. 1:1-393.

Hawk, L. Daniel. “Literary/Narrative Criticism.” Dictionary of the Old Testament:

Pentateuch. Edited by T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker. Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003. 536-544.

224
Herman, Luc, and Bart Vervaeck. Handbook of Narrative Analysis. Frontiers of
Narrative. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2005.

Jacobs, Louis. “Akedah.” Encyclopaedia Judaica: A-Ang. Corrected ed. Jerusalem,

Israel: Kreter, 1972. 2:480-486.

Jasper, David. “Literary Readings of the Bible.” In The Cambridge Companion to

Biblical Interpretation, edited by John Barton, 21-34. Cambridge, NY:
Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Jeanrond, Werner G. Theological Hermeneutics: Development and Significance. Studies

in Literature and Religion. London, UK: Macmillan, 1991.

Josipovici, Gabriel. The Book of God: A Response to the Bible. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 1988.

Juel, Donald H. A Master of Surprise: Mark Interpreted. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress,

1994.

Kalimi, Isaac. “‘Go, I Beg You, Take Your Beloved Son and Slay Him!’: The Binding Of
Isaac in Rabbinic Literature and Thought.” The Review of Rabbinic Judaism 13
(2010): 1-29.

Kant, Immanuel. The Conflict of the Faculties. New York, NY: Abaris, 1979.

Kessler, Edward. Bound by the Bible: Jews, Christians and the Sacrifice of Isaac.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Khosravishakib, Mohammad. “Literary and Non-Literary Texts From Viewpoint of

Formalism as Rudimentary of Other Literary Criticism.” International Journal of
Arts 2, no. 3 (2012): 11-15.

Kierkegaard, Søren. Fear and Trembling. New York, NY: Penguin, 1985.

________. Fear and Trembling: Repetition. Edited and translated by Howard V. Hong,
and Edna H. Hong. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983.

King, Greg A. “Interpreting Old Testament Historical Narrative.” In Understanding

Scripture: An Adventist Approach, edited by George W. Reid, 153-162. Silver
Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 2006.

Kissling, Paul. “Genesis.” The College Press NIV Commentary. Joplin, MO: College,
2009. 2:1-624.

225
Kittel, Gerhard. “Παράδοξος.” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by
Kittel, Gerhard, Geoffrey William Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich. Translated
by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 1964. Reprint. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982.
2:255.

Klein, William W., Craig Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard. Introduction to Biblical
Interpretation. Dallas, TX: Word, 1993.

Kochuthara, Shaji George. “Patriarchy and Sexual Roles: Active-Passive Gender Roles
Versus an Ethics of Mutuality.” Journal of Dharma 36, no. 4 (2011): 435-452.

Kohn, Murray J. “The Trauma of Isaac.” Jewish Bible Quarterly 20, no. 2 (1991): 96-
104.

Kunin, Seth Daniel. “The Death of Isaac: Structuralist Analysis of Genesis 22.” Journal
for the Study of the Old Testament 64, no. 1 (1994): 57-81.

Kuruvilla, Abraham. “The Aqedah (Genesis 22): What Is the Author Doing With What
He Is Saying?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 55, no. 3 (2012):
489-508.

Kuschel, Karl-Josef. Abraham: A Symbol of Hope for Jews, Christians and Muslims.
London, UK: SCM, 1995.

Lachs, Nicky. “Isaac: A Psychological Perspective.” Jewish Bible Quarterly 30, no. 4
(2002): 266-271.

Landy, Francis. “Narrative Techniques and Symbolic Transactions in the Akedah.” In

Beauty and the Enigma: And Other Essay on the Hebrew Bible, 123-158. London,
UK: Sheffield, 2001.

Lerner, Berel Dov. “The Akedah: Machloket l’shem shamayim sofa l’hitkayeim.” Jewish
Bible Quarterly 29, no. 2 (2001): 118-124.

Levenson, Jon Douglas. The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The
Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press, 1993.

Levering, Matthew. “God and Natural Law: Reflections on Genesis 22.” Modern
Theology 24, no. 2 (2008): 151-177.

Lindner, Sheri, and Michael A. Lindner. “The Binding of Isaac: A Psychoanalytic

Developmental Exploration.” Reconstructionist 57 (1992): 5-8.

Longman, Tremper, III. Literary Approaches to Biblical Interpretation: Foundations of

Contemporary Interpretation. Grand Rapids, MI: Academie, 1987.

226
Malbon, Elizabeth S. “Narrative Criticism: How Does the Story Mean?” In Mark &
Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies, edited by Janice C. Anderson and
Stephen D. Moore, 29-58. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2008.

Marguerat, Daniel, and Yvan Bourquin. How to Read Bible Stories: An Introduction to
Narrative Criticism. London, UK: SCM, 1999.

Matthews, Kenneth A. Genesis 11:27-50:26. The New American Commentary 1B.

Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2005.

Matthews, Victor H. “Social Science Models.” In The Cambridge Companion to the

Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, edited by Stephen B. Chapman and Marvin A.
Sweeney, 147-162. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2016.

Mazor, Yair. “Genesis 22: The Ideological Rhetoric and the Psychological Composition.”
Biblica 67, no. 1 (1986): 81-88.

McNamara, Martin. Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis. The Aramaic Bible 1A. Collegeville,
MN: Liturgical, 1992.

Mikics, David, A New Handbook of Literary Terms. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 2007.

Moberly, R. W. L. The Bible, Theology, and Faith: A Study of Abraham and Jesus.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

________. “The Earliest Commentary on Aqedah.” Vetus Testamentum 38, no. 3 (1988):
302-323.

________. “Genesis 22: Abraham-Model or Monster?” In The Theology of the Book of

Genesis, edited by Brent A. Strawn and Patrick D. Miller, 179-199. London, UK:
Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Moltz, Howard. “God and Abraham in the Binding of Isaac.” Journal for the Study of the
Old Testament 96 (2001): 59-69.

Morgan, Robert C. “Biblical Hermeneutics and Critical Responsibility.” In The Future of

Biblical Interpretation: Responsible Plurality in Biblical Hermeneutics, edited by
Stanley E. Porter and Matthew R. Malcolm, 101-116. Downers Grove, IL: IVP,
2013.

Mueller, Eike A. “Cleansing the Common: Narrative-Intertextual Study of Mark 7:1-23.”

PhD diss., Andrews University, 2015. Accessed December 31, 2016. ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses.

Oh, Abraham. “Canonical Understanding of the Sacrifice of Isaac: The Influence of the
Jewish Tradition.” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 72, no. 3 (2016):
1-7.
227
Paseggi, Marcos R. “Lazos de sangre: Una aproximación literaria a la aqueda.”
DavarLogos 1, no. 1 (2002): 43-61.

Peck, John, and Martin Coyle. Literary Terms and Criticism: A Student’s Guide.
Hampshire, UK: Macmillan, 1984.

Powell, Charles E. “The ‘Passivity’ of Jesus in Mark 5:25-34.” Bibliotheca Sacra 162,
no. 1 (2005): 66-75.

Powell, Mark A. “Narrative Criticism: The Emergence of a Prominent Reading Strategy.”

In Mark as Story: Retrospect and Prospect, edited by Kelly R. Iverson,
Christopher W. Skinner, and Society of Biblical Literature, 19-44. Atlanta, GA:
Society of Biblical Literature, 2011.

________. What Is Narrative Criticism? Guides to Biblical Scholarship New Testament

Series. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990.

Pratico, Gary D., and Miles V. Van Pelt. Basics of Biblical Hebrew Grammar. 2nd ed.
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007.

Prince, Gerald. Narratology: The Form and Functioning of Narrative. Janua Linguarum
Series Maior. Berlin; New York, NY: Mouton, 1982.

Resseguie, James L. Narrative Criticism of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker, 2005.

Rhoads, David M. “Narrative Criticism and the Gospel of Mark.” Journal of the
American Academy of Religion 50, no. 3 (1982): 411-434.

Rodenberg, O. “Der Opfergang. Gen. 22, l-14.” Theologische Beitrage 9 (1978): 138-
143. Quoted in Jacques Doukhan, “The Center of the Aqedah: A Study of the
Literary Structure of Genesis 22:1-19.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 31,
no.1 (1993): 17-28.

Rondonuwu, Joppi. “Abraham’s Journey Episode: A Narrative Analysis.” MA thesis,

Philippine Union College, Silang, Cavite, Philippines, 1996.

Roth, Dieter T. “The Boy With Loaves and Fish: Picnic, Plot, and Pattern.” In Character
Studies in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Approaches to Seventy Figures in John,
356-359. Edited by Steven A. Hunt, D. Francois Tolmie, and Ruben
Zimmermann. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016.

Ryle, Herbert E. The Book of Genesis in the Revised Version With Introduction and
Notes. The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press, 1921.

228
Sandy, D. Brand, and Ronald L. Giese Jr. Cracking Old Testament Code: A Guide to
Interpreting the Literary Genres of the Old Testament. Nashville, TN: Broadman
& Holman, 1995.

Santos, Narry F. Slave of All: The Paradox of Authority and Servanthood in the Gospel of
Mark. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series. London,
UK: Sheffield, 2003.

Sarna, Nahum M. Be-Reshit: The Traditional Hebrew Text With New Jewish Publication
Society Translation. The Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary.
Philadelphia, PA: JPS, 1989.

Schmid, Konrad. “Abraham’s Sacrifice: Gerhard von Rad’s Interpretation of Genesis

22.” Interpretation 62, no. 3 (2008): 268-276.

Schokël, Luis Alonso, and Jose Maria Bravo. A Manual of Hermneutics. Translated by
Liliana M. Rosa. The Biblical Seminar 54. London, UK: Sheffield, 1998.

Schrader, Malcolm E. “The Akedah Test: What Passes and What Fails.” Jewish Bible
Quarterly 32, no. 4 (2004): 251-258.

Sheridan, Mark, and Thomas C. Oden, eds. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture
Old Testament: Genesis 12-50. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002.

Ska, Jean L. “Our Fathers Have Told Us”: Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew
Narrative. Subsidia Biblica 3. Roma, Italy: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico,
2000.

Speiser, Ephraim. A. Genesis. Anchor Bible 2. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964.

Spencer, F. Scott. “The Literary/Postmodern View.” In Biblical Hermeneutics: Five

Views, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Beth M. Stovell, 48-69. Downers Grove,
IL: IVP, 2012.

Spiegel, Shalom. The Last Trial: On the Legends and Lore of the Command to Abraham
to Offer Isaac as a Sacrifice: The Akedah. Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights, 1993.

Stern, Stephen J. The Unbinding of Isaac: A Phenomenological Midrash of Genesis 22.

Studies in Judaism 5. New York, NY: Peter Lang, 2012.

Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama
of Reading. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1985.

Streit, Judith Ann. “The God of Abraham: A Study in Characterization.” PhD diss., The
University of Denver, 1996. Accessed February 15, 2017. ProQuest Dissertations
& Theses.

229
Sweat, Laura C. “A Paradoxical Portrayal: God in the Gospel of Mark.” PhD diss.,
Princeton Theological Seminary, 2011. Accessed January 21, 2018. ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses.

________. The Theological Role of Paradox in the Gospel of Mark. Library of NT

Studies 492. London, UK: T. & T. Clark, 2013.

Swetnam, James. Jesus and Isaac: A Study of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Light of
the Aqedah. Analecta Biblica. Rome, Italy: Biblical Institute, 1981.

Todorov, Tzvetan. Introduction to Poetics. Theory and History of Literature 1.

Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, 1981. Quoted in Adele Berlin,
Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative. 1983. Reprint. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 1994.

Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis, MN; Fortress, 1992.

Trible, Phyllis. Genesis 22: The Sacrifice of Sarah, Gross Memorial Lecture 1989.
Valparaiso, IN: Valparaiso University, 1990. Quoted in Jacques Doukhan, “The
Center of the Aqedah: A Study of the Literary Structure of Genesis 22:1-19.”
Andrews University Seminary Studies 31, no.1 (1993): 17-28.

________. “Genesis 22: The Sacrifice of Sarah.” In Not in Heaven: Coherence and
Complexity in Biblical Narrative. Edited by Jason Philip Rosenblatt and Joseph C.
Sitterson. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1991), 187.

Tucker, Aviezer. “Sins of Our Fathers: A Short History of Religious Child Sacrifice.”
Zeitschrift für Religions-und Geistesgeschichte 51, no. 1 (1999): 30-47.

Vaccaro, Jody Lyn. “Early Jewish and Christian Interpretations of the Character of Isaac
in Genesis 22.” PhD diss., University of Notre Dame, 1998.

van der Heide, Albert. “Now I Know”: Five Centuries of Aqedah Exegesis. New York,
NY: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2017.

van Ruiten, Jacques T. “Isaac’s Binding (Gen 22:1-19; Jub. 17:15-18:19).” In Abraham
in the Book of Jubilees: The Rewriting of Genesis 11:26-25:10 in the Book of
Jubilees 11:14-23:8, 209-226. Edited by Benjamin G. Wright III. Boston, MA:
Brill, 2012.

Vogt, Peter T. “The Genres of the Pentateuch.” In Interpreting the Pentateuch: An

Exegetical Handbook, edited by David M. Howard Jr., 25-60. Grand Rapids, MI:
Kregel, 2009.

von Rad, Gerhard. Old Testament Library: Genesis. Revised ed. London, UK: SCM,
1972.

230
Wacome, Karen Ann H. “Watching the Sacrifice of Isaac: Bakhtin, Dialogism and
Genesis 22:1-19.” PhD diss., Graduate Theological Union, 2005. Accessed
October 29, 2017. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.

Walsh, Jerome T. Old Testament Narrative: A Guide to Interpretation. 1st ed. Louisville,
KY: Westminster, 2009.

________. Style and Structure in Biblical Hebrew Narrative. Collegeville, MN:

Liturgical, 2001.

Waltke, Bruce K., and Cathi J. Fredricks. Genesis: A Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 2001.

Waltke, Bruce K., and Michael P. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990.

Walton, John H. Genesis: From Biblical Text . . . to Contemporary Life. The NIV
Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001.

Wenham, Gordon. Genesis 16-50. Word Biblical Commentary 2. Nashville, TN: Thomas
Nelson, 1994.

Westermann, Claus. Genesis 12-36: A Continental Commentary. 1st ed. Minneapolis,

MN: Fortress, 1995.

Wilken, Robert L. “Melito, the Jewish Community at Sardis, and the Sacrifice of Isaac.”
Theological Studies 37, no. 1 (1976): 53-69.

Williams, Ronald J., and John C. Beckman. Williams’ Hebrew Syntax. Toronto, Canada:
University of Toronto Press, 2007.

Yusa, Michiko. “Paradox and Riddles.” The Encyclopedia of Religion. 2nd ed. New
York, NY: Macmillan, 1907-1987. 11:189-195.

Zeelander, Susan. Closure in Biblical Narrative. Biblical Interpretation Series 111.

Boston, MA: Brill, 2012.

Zucker, David J. “Isaac Betrayed and Triumphant.” Jewish Bible Quarterly 38, no. 3
(2010): 166-175.

231