Commentary on Genesis 21:1-3; 22:1-14

The lectionary says to read the start of two chapters. The reader who follows these guidelines (and has some background to each set of verses) is encouraged to appreciate the extreme challenge Abraham faces.

Genesis 21 begins with the fulfillment of God’s promises about Sarah birthing a child despite her advanced age, at the timing God had foretold, and with Abraham giving their son the name God had announced (17:19; 18:9–15). While God has promises for Ishmael—Abraham’s first son, born to Hagar—Isaac is the child of the main promise: Sarah’s son is the one through whom God’s covenant with Abraham will continue into future generations (Genesis 17:19–21).

Thus, the start of the lectionary reading (Genesis 21:1–3) seems like a happy fulfilment of long-awaited offspring for Abraham and Sarah, who seemed too elderly and infertile for children when God called them to journey to Canaan about 10 biblical chapters and 25 years earlier (Genesis 11:30; 12:4, 7). Sarah even muses that Isaac’s name (meaning “he will laugh”) matches the mirth she feels and assumes others will feel when they find out God has given her a child (21:6–7).

The lectionary leads us to skip the rest of Genesis 21, and we get a drastic turn away from feelings of contentment, resolution, and laughter concerning Isaac. Instead of a settled situation, Genesis 22 continues with a story where “God tested Abraham,” using Isaac (22:1). What is the test?

With a dramatic progression of specificity culminating in a heart-wrenching directive, God says, “Take your son, your only/favored son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I will tell you” (Genesis 22:2; my translation). God’s command for Abraham to “go” to a place “that I will tell you” requires faith-filled obedience, and it resembles “the call of Abram” that marked the beginning of his relationship with God (Genesis 12:1).

By coupling celebration of Isaac’s specialness with God’s terrifying command, our lectionary verses suggest that Abraham’s test is to prove that he still has the same obedient commitment to God’s will even when it costs him the beloved child who embodies God’s promises.

From this perspective, the reader might trudge through verses 3–10 wondering if Abraham told Sarah his morbid plans, hypothesizing about her reaction, speculating on Abraham’s expectations about what will happen at the mountain, visualizing Isaac’s struggle or ignorance or stoic acceptance of his fate, imagining the manner and mood in which Abraham prepares his son for sacrifice, and—most of all—waiting for a miracle to prevent Isaac’s immolation.

Readers are relieved when an angel stops Abraham’s knife-wielding hand and tells the patriarch that he has passed the test: “Now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me” (Genesis 22:12). Instead of remembering this as the place where Isaac was slaughtered, Abraham names the place “The LORD will provide” (traditionally Jehovah Jireh) because a ram in a thicket was provided as a substitute for the sacrifice (verses 13–14).

Appreciating Abraham’s faithful obedience—his love or fear of God—in this way is a traditional interpretation embraced (with some variance in focus) by many adherents to the “Abrahamic” faiths: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. However, modern and (at least some) premodern readers have often struggled with such interpretations of Abraham and God. Yes, Abraham is an obedient devotee. But is the God who would ask you to sacrifice your own child worthy of devotion? Is the follower of such a command a model of good faith?

Effective teaching or preaching can wrestle meaning from this difficult ethical issue when it is addressed within a context or framework that your target audience is receptive to.

Apologetics—arguments to defend the rationale or ethics of a doctrine or traditional belief—for the traditional interpretation might appeal to many Christians who believe in biblical inerrancy. With a conviction that God is good and child sacrifice is not, one might focus on the fact that this was only a “test,” and God prevented (thus, never intended) death as its consummation. God teaches that animal sacrifice should happen instead of human sacrifice. Therefore, God is not a monster. Also, Abraham, according to Hebrews 11:19, believed God could resurrect Isaac. So, Abraham only intended to temporarily kill his son. Often, Christian apologetic interpretations make connections between Abraham sacrificing Isaac and God sacrificing Jesus.

Among interpreters who find apologetics unconvincing as a method, there are scholars who try to historicize the text. They argue that there were times when some ancient Israelites thought it was a legitimate—though extreme—act of worship to offer a son to God. Some passages suggest as much (Judges 11:31, 35–36; Micah 6:6–8), and there are biblical laws asserting that the firstborn are owed to God (Exodus 13:1; 22:29–30). Genesis 22 is from this stage in Israelite thought.

At a later stage in history, human sacrifice is considered illegitimate, and Israelite authors write about substitutions for firstborn humans (Exodus 13:13; 34:20; Numbers 3:12–13, 40–51; 8:17–18; 18:15) or use polemics (Jeremiah 7:31; Ezekiel 20:25–26) to explain away the older practice.¹ Those who are comfortable with the idea that biblical understandings of God vary between worse and better ethics will most likely be able to accept this historicization and suspend their judgment of God and Abraham long enough to get a lesson.

Yet other interpreters will be unable to go with the grain of traditional interpretations. J. Richard Middleton, for example, argues that a close reading of Genesis 22 in its biblical context shows that the test was to see if Abraham would protest against the injustice of God’s command like Moses does when God wants to wipe out the Israelites after the golden-calf incident (Exodus 32:7–14) or like Abraham did when God told him about the plan to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:17–33). The point is to discern whether Abraham knows God’s character (since the previous chapters include indications that Abraham still does not think rightly about God). Abraham’s silent obedience shows he failed the test.²

A different audience might focus on the history of how the Bible has been used. Regardless of what ancient Israelites thought, there are times and places in which people have appealed to Abraham’s intent to sacrifice Isaac as a justification for sending sons to war. For example, some Israelis recalled Abraham when discussing the cost of one generation sending the next generation to fight in the 1967 Six-Day War. For pacifists, responsible exegesis might align with other Israelis who have critiqued such interpretations and the biblical text itself.³

One could go on with variations of contexts based on theology, history, biblical literature, or reception history. With whatever context helps, the teacher/preacher should understand the great responsibility that comes with teaching this famous and troubling text.

Notes

1. Jon D. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993).
2. J. Richard Middleton, Abraham’s Silence: The Binding of Isaac, the Suffering of Job, and How to Talk Back to God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2021).
3. “Judaism: Akedah” from Jewish Virtual Library describes both responses.

PRAYER OF THE DAY

God of promise,
You stayed the hand of Abraham and fulfilled the promise you made to him, that he would father a great nation. Keep your promises to us, that we become inheritors of eternal life. Amen.

HYMNS

The God of Abraham praise   ELW 831
A lamb goes uncomplaining forth   ELW 340

CHORAL

Listen to the lambs, William Dawson