Sermon Tone Analysis

“Tested” (נסה).

“Testing” shows what someone is really like, and it generally involves difficulty or hardship.

The queen of Sheba tested Solomon with riddles (); Daniel and his companions were tested by being put on a simple diet (, ).

God is often said to test Israel through hunger and thirst in the wilderness (; ; ; , ), through false prophets ( []), or through foreign oppression (; , ).

The purpose of such trials is to discover “what was in your heart, whether you would keep his commandments or not” (; cf. ), “to humble you … to do you good in the end” (; cf. ).

The use of the term here hints that Abraham will face some great difficulty but that he will ultimately benefit from it.

This

Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50, vol.

2, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 103–104.

Three times in this story we have the refrain “Abraham (my father)” with its response “Here I am” (vv , , ); each signals a tense new development in the narrative.

Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50, vol.

2, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 104.

With this fourfold characterization of Isaac, the whole poignant tale of Isaac so far, the promise, the delay, and the miraculous fulfillment, is summed up.

On him all Abraham’s hopes are riding.

Note particularly the remark “whom you love,” the only explicit clue to Abraham’s attachment to his son, precluding any reading of the story that would see Abraham as callous and hard-hearted.

Far from it—obedience to God and love for his son will tear him in diametrically opposed directions.

But thus far, nothing has been said to disturb his peace of mind.

Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50, vol.

2, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 104.

God explains what he wants.

A burnt offering involves cutting up and burning the whole animal on the altar and was the commonest type of sacrifice.

It seems to have expressed at least two ideas: that the offerer is giving himself entirely to God (for the animal represents the offerer) and that the animal’s death atones for the worshiper’s sin.

The usual victims of burnt offerings were birds, sheep, or if the worshiper was very wealthy, a bull.

But to offer one’s child was quite out of the question for devout orthodox worshipers.

“Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” asks Micah (), expecting his hearers to reply with an emphatic no (cf.

; ).

But it was done occasionally in the biblical world, especially in times of dire crisis (; ; ).

In fact, biblical law expects every firstborn son to be dedicated to God but insists that he be redeemed and an animal offered instead ( []; ).

Later, the Levites by their service were seen as consecrated to God instead of the firstborn in each family ().

And it is this background of thought that, as Westermann points out, makes the test comprehensible.

“Following , it is seen as possible that God can demand such a sacrifice.

In reality, however, human sacrifice is not possible ().

It is precisely because of this ambivalence that the command to Abraham is a particularly suitable test” (2:358).

Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50, vol.

2, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 105.

The narrator’s silence allows the reader’s imagination a free rein.

He rather concentrates on Abraham’s acts, which show him promptly, “early in the morning,” obeying, as he did when commanded to expel Ishmael (; cf. ; ).

Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50, vol.

2, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 106.

“Saddled … took … cut.”

This sequence of waw-consecutives implies Abraham did one thing after another, so it is surprising that he cut the wood after saddling his ass and gathering together his servants and Isaac.

It would have been more sensible to cut the wood first.

This illogical order hints at Abraham’s state of mind.

Is he so bemused that he cannot think straight, is he quite collectedly trying to keep everybody in the dark about the purpose of the journey till the last possible moment, or is he trying to postpone the most painful part of the preparation till last (cf.

his withholding Ishmael in )?

All these interpretations are possible, indeed are not mutually exclusive, and need to be borne in mind as the narrative unfolds.

Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50, vol.

2, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 106.

Three days is a typical period of preparation for something important (cf.

; ; ).

Westermann notes that the mountain of God to which the Israelites sought to travel was three days’ journey (; ).

Indeed, the phrase “on the third day” occurs twice in the Sinai pericope ( [2x], ).

Calvin observes that the delay made Abraham’s ordeal the more painful.

“God does not require him to put his son immediately to death, but compels him to revolve this execution in his mind during three whole days, that in preparing to sacrifice his son, he may still more severely torture all his own senses” (1:565).

Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50, vol.

2, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 106–107.

The parallel with the Mount Sinai experience may again be noted: at Sinai only Moses was allowed to come to the top of the mountain; the people had to stay at the bottom (, ; ).

Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50, vol.

2, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 107.

But the final remarks to his servants are even more enigmatic.

Note in passing that Abraham simply calls Isaac “the lad” rather than “my son,” which may suggest that Abraham is trying to be detached.

He has already mentally given Isaac to God, so that in a sense he is no longer his son.

But then he continues: “so that we can worship and return to you.”

It is notable that Abraham only says “worship” rather than “offer a burnt offering.”

“Worship” (השׁתחוה) is a vaguer term than “offer”; it may simply mean “bow down” (cf.

; ).

Does this indicate a weakening of resolve or a desire to hide what was to happen from his servants, or is the term chosen simply for brevity?

Confusion about Abraham’s real meaning is worsened by his final enigmatic “We may return to you,” for he might have been expected to say “so that I may return to you.”

Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50, vol.

2, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 107.

The wood on Isaac’s back looks forward to the moment when Isaac will be lying on his back on the wood (v ), with his father, knife in hand, ready to slay him (v ).

Thus the wording here anticipates the moment of sacrifice itself.

Genesis Rabbah, the Jewish midrash, comments that Isaac with the wood on his back is like a condemned man, carrying his own cross.

Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50, vol.

2, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 108.

On the face of it, Isaac’s question, “Where is the sheep?” suggests a naiveté that makes his future death the more heart-rending.

This impression is reinforced by his docile acceptance of Abraham’s reply, which shows Isaac trusting entirely his father’s good intentions.

Or was he sharp enough to see through his father’s enigmatic answer and realize that he was the intended sacrificial lamb?

If so, his silence is again impressive, for it implies his total obedience to his father.

Either way, Isaac is shown to have those qualities of perfection always looked for in sacrificial victims (cf.

).

And either way, our appreciation of the trustful love that existed between father and son is enhanced.

Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50, vol.

2, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 108.

The organization of the story, which makes “God will provide” the turning point of the story (see Form/Structure/Setting), does favor a positive reading, i.e., as an expression of hope, a prophecy, or a prayer, though to Isaac it may well have sounded like evasion.

Unlike in v , there is now no suggestion that Abraham will disobey.

Though we might construe “we shall return” that way, “God will provide” does not suggest that Abraham is looking for an escape route.

Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50, vol.

2, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 109.

Furthermore, this remark “lets one suspect that the boy may have broken the oppressive silence only after a while.

And after the conversation the statement is repeated.

One sees that the final part of the way was traversed in silence” (von Rad, 236), “the most poignant and eloquent silence in all literature” (Speiser, 165).

Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50, vol.

2, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 108.

Isaac is “bound,” probably by his hands and feet (עקד; the verb occurs only here in the OT and gives rise to the Jewish term for this story, The Aqedah, i.e., the binding of Isaac), and placed on the altar.

Why bother to mention that Abraham bound Isaac?

Perhaps it was because Abraham might relatively easily have slit Isaac’s throat when he was off guard; that an elderly man was able to bind the hands and feet of a lively teenager strongly suggests Isaac’s consent.

So this remark confirms that impression given by vv that Isaac was an unblemished subject for sacrifice who was ready to obey his father, whatever the cost, just as his father had showed his willingness to obey God to the uttermost.

Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50, vol.

2, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 109.

“Slaughter” (שׁחט) is a sacrificial term (, ) usually indicating cutting the throat.

“His son.”

By drawing attention to the relationship of Abraham and Isaac, the full awfulness of the deed is once again underlined.

The unthinkable is about to happen.