The Binding of Isaac story (the Akeida) is familiar to most Bible readers. Yet this very familiarity can create the impression that this is a simple and straightforward tale. However; this is far from the case. As for many stories in Genesis, this story is multidimensional, and its 19 sentences contain layer upon layer of profound ideas.

 

Every story in Genesis has its own style and message. It is proposed that this account is a polemic against child sacrifice and the proposition of a new meaning for animal sacrifice. These points are conveyed through a playoff between the two aspects of God, Elohim and YHWH.

​

This story is also a jewel of literary composition. The literary format of Torah stories is little emphasized by traditional Jewish orthodox exegetes. However, its appreciation can aid considerably in the understanding of the messages it is conveying. Following this literary analysis, we will look at some of the philosophical issues arising from this account.

​

The basics of the story are as follows: As a test, Elohim calls upon Abraham to sacrifice his precious son Isaac. Just as the knife is about to be plunged into Isaac’s body, YHWH calls out to Abraham to desists and admits that this was all a test of Abraham’s fear of Elohim. Abraham is promised blessings for his descendants. The participants in this drama then depart from the scene.

 

The account reads as follows:

​

1. After these things, God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" and he said, "Here I am." (2) He said, "Please, take your son, your only one, whom you love, Yitzchak, and go forth to the land of Moriah, and raise him up as a burnt offering on one of the mountains which I will tell you." (3) Abraham rose early in the morning, saddled his donkey, took his two servant-boys with him, and his son Isaac. He split the wood for the offering and rose and went to the place that Elohim had told him. (4) On the third day, Abraham lifted his eyes and saw the place from afar. (5) Abraham said to his servant-boys: "Sit here with the donkey, and let me and the boy walk on there. Let us worship and return to you." (6) Avraham took the wood for the offering and placed it on his son, Isaack, and he took the fire and the knife in his hand, and the two of them walked together. (7) Isaac said to his father, Abraham, and said, "My father?" He said, "Here I am, my son." And he said, "Here are the fire and the wood, but where is the sheep for the offering?" (8) Abraham said, "Elohim will see to the sheep for the offering Himself, my son." And the two of them walked together. (9) They came to the place that Elohim had told him and Abraham built an altar there, arranged the wood, bound his son Isaac, and placed him on the altar above the wood. (10) Avraham stretched forth his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son. (11) An angel of YHWH called out to him from the heavens and said, "Abraham! Abraham!" and he said, "Here I am." (12) He said, "Do not stretch forth your hand against the boy and do not do anything to him! Because now I know that you are Elohim-fearing and you did not withhold your son, your only one, from me." (13) Abraham lifted his eyes and saw, and there was a ram, after it was caught in the thicket by its horns. Abraham went and took the ram, and he raised it as an offering instead of his son. (14) Avraham named that place "YHWY Yireh" as is said today, "On the mountain of YHWH, He will be seen." (15) The angel of YHWH called to Abraham a second time from the heavens. (16) He said, "By Myself, I swear",⁠ declares Hashem, "that because you did this thing and did not withhold your son, your only one, (17) I will surely bless you and greatly multiply your offspring as the stars of the heavens and as the sand on the shore of the sea. Your offspring will inherit the gates of their enemies. (18) The nations of the earth will be blessed through your offspring because you have listened to My voice." (19) Abraham returned to his servant-boys and they rose and went together to Beersheba; and Abraham dwelled in Beersheba (Genesis 22:1-19).

 

The beginning of this account is built around a three-fold repetition of three sentences of similar form. Each group consists of an exclamation by Elohim calling on Abraham by name, or in the case of Isaac him his “father,” followed by Abraham’s immediate reply hineini (הִנֵּנִי), best translated as I am fully here for you! There then follows a request by God, or a question by Isaac. After this, there is quick-fire action by Abraham expressed through a string of 5 to 6 verbs. 

 

The first of this triad in verses 1 to 3 of this chapter opens up the story and expands upon Abraham’s relationship with both God and his son:

 

Elohim says: “Abraham!” Abraham replies: “Here I am” (hineini) (הִנֵּנִי).

 

Elohim then requests from Abraham that he offer up Isaac as a sacrifice with the following words:

 

Please, take your son, your only one, whom you love, Yitzchak, and go for yourself to the land of Moriah, and raise him up as a burnt offering on one of the mountains which I will tell you.

 

It is noteworthy that this sentence bears some resemblance to the very first call that Abraham received from YHWH while still in Mesopotamia:

 

YHWH said to Abram, “Go for yourself (lech lecho) from your land, from your birthplace and from your father’s house to the land that I will show you” (ibid 12:1).

 

Here, also, he was to “go for himself” and was to proceed to a place that would only be revealed to him as he proceeded on his journey.1

 

In response, Abraham arises early, saddles his donkey, chops the wood for the sacrifice, and proceeds to the place to which he will be directed (Genesis 22:1-4). The Medieval exegete Rashi explains that these multiple verbs emphasize Abraham’s devotion in carrying out this mission. He arises “early in the morning” rather than tardily, and He himself saddles his donkey, gets the wood, and chops it, rather than subordinating these tasks to his servants as would be more befitting his status.2  

 

Elohim does not hide the fact that this will be an excruciating test for Abraham. Abraham is called upon to sacrifice the son he loves, the once for whom he was waited a hundred years, and the one on whom the future of his legacy depends. God also twice points out to Abraham that Isaac is his “only one.” Ishmael was expelled from the home many years previously, so Isaac is indeed his only son in his home. This phrase is also mentioned again when God acknowledges that he has passed the test: “since you have not withheld your son, your only one (et yechidcha) from Me” (Genesis 22:12).  

 

It is also noticeable that no emotions are displayed or described for any of the participants throughout the story. Doubtless, many thoughts are going through their minds, yet the text deliberately downplays them so that the reader has to fill in these gaps for him or herself. Nevertheless, emotions are revealed textually. For example, the word “his son” is repeated eight times, when the Bible could just as well have said Isaac. Abraham could also have acceded to God’s request by blocking from his mind the notion that Isaac still belonged to him. Isaac now belonged to God. However, this was not the way that Abraham’s mind worked. Isaac still existed in his mind as his “son.” It is via these textual insertions that the drama is constructed.

 

The second of the triad occurs in the middle of the story and it maintains the tension that has been building up regarding Abraham’s love for his precious son versus his desire to fulfill God’s request to kill him. 

 

Isaac says: “Father!” 



Abraham replies: Hineini my son.

 

Abraham is as much available for Isaac as he is for God and immediately answers “Here I am, my son.” 

 

Isaac now questions the whereabouts of the lamb for the sacrifice. However, in reply to his question, Isaac receives only an ambiguous answer — “Elohim will see (yireh lo) the lamb for for the offering, my son” (Genesis 22:8).  

 

The words “Elohim yireh lo (יִרְאֶה לּו)” mean literally “Elohim will see to Himself.” However, probably truer to its meaning may be “God will see and take appropriate action” or “God will provide.” 

 

It is very likely that at this stage Isaac has suspicions that he is to be the sacrifice. Despite this, there is no hint in the text of Isaac objecting in any way. As at the beginning of the story, he still goes “together” with his father such was the bond between them (ibid 22:6).3

 

After arriving at the designated place Abraham builds the altar, arranges the wood, binds Isaac, places Isaac on the altar, stretches out his hand, and takes the knife. (Genesis 22:7-10)

 

The story reaches its climax with the third group of the triad. God calls out to Abraham twice “Abraham, Abraham!” reflecting the urgency of the situation.  

 

YHWH says: “Abraham! Abraham!"

 

Abraham replies: “Here I am” (hineini)."  

 

God tells him: “Do not do anything to your son. . . “.

 

Abraham: raises his eyes, sees a ram, goes to the ram, takes it, and offers the ram instead of his son. (Genesis 22:11-13).

 

Finally, in the very last sentence of the Akeida story, as they wend their way home, they are still “together” - there are no recriminations.  

 

Abraham returned to the young men, and they stood up and went together (yachdov) to Beersheba, and Abraham dwelled in Beersheba. (Genesis 22:19) 

  

After offering up the ram, Abraham immortalizes the significance of the moment and gives a name to “that place” in a way connected to the word “seeing.” Different implications of the verb “to see” have occupied a prominent place in this narrative, in that Abraham has seen on two occasions and God is presumed to see in one. 

 

And Abraham called the name of that place “YHWH will see” (YHWH yireh), as it is said to this day, on the mountain YHWH will be seen (behar YHWH yeroeh) (יֵרָאֶה YHWH בְּהַר) (Genesis 22:14).

 

But what did God see to or provide?  The first of the seeing could have been the location of the mountain for the sacrifice on Mount Moriah: 

 

On the third day Abraham raised his eyes and he saw (vayar) the place (hamokom) from afar (Genesis 22:4).

 

However, it is not only Abraham who is seeing during this story but God is also presumed to be seeing. As discussed, when Isaac questions his father as to the nature of the offering, Abraham tells him:

​

 "Elohim will see for Himself (yire lo) (יִרְאֶה לּו) the lamb for the offering, my son,” and the two of them went together.” (Genesis 22:8)  

 

The third seeing is when God calls upon Abraham to desist from killing his son, and Abraham experiences yet another “seeing” — this time a ram:

 

And Abraham raised his eyes and he saw (vayar) — and behold a ram after it was caught in the thicket by its horns, and Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as an offering instead of his son. (Genesis 22:13).

 

A popular folk saying recognized a further dimension to God’s “seeing”.  

 

….. as it is said this day: on the mountain YHWH will be seen (year’eh) (יֵרָאֶֽה) (Genesis 22:14).

 

But when was “this day” on which this saying was initiated? A possible answer is that the Bible is referring to the time the Torah was presented on Mount Sinai, which implies that the Akeida was carried out on Mount Sinai. This is not geographically impossible. It does, however, contradicts a verse in the book of Chronicles stating that Mount Moriah is in Jerusalem.4

 

Nevertheless, the way this sentence is written does endow it with a certain timelessness, and the verse may well be telling us that in the future God will be seen in whatever place of worship he chooses to attach His name to.5

 

So far, we have translated this phrase as “on the mountain, God will be seen.” However, it is also possible to read it as “on the mountain of God, will be seen,” with the implied subject of the “will be seen” being not God but the Jewish people. The Jewish people are instructed to appear before God three times a year, and the Torah uses the very same word “to be seen” (yero’e) (יֵרָאֶה):

 

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch explains matters in this way:

​

Even when we, and where we, do not see, God sees, freely and willingly have we to subordinate our own judgment to His. . . .   Thrice yearly, he will be seen (יֵרָאֶה) (yeroeh), every son of Abraham and Isaac must be seen on this mount and not empty handed, with mere inner passing devotion, but with the sacrificing dedication of the whole of his being as expressed in olat re’iyah (a sacrifice of seeing).6 

 

God and the Jewish people are involved in a mutual pursuit of “seeing.” The Jewish people show ourselves on His mountain and look for Him, while He provides for the them in terms of their material and spiritual needs. While on one particular holy mountain, His presence becomes more recognized.

 

 

How could a moral God command Abraham to do an immoral act?

 

A fundamental question asked by academic writers and others is — how could God, the model for all morality, command Abraham to perform an immoral act as to kill his own son?  He then proceeded to reward Abraham for agreeing to do this evil act! 

 

I suggest two interrelated answers. As I and others have shown, many of the early stories in Genesis were written as polemics against prevailing pagan concepts. Similarly, the Akeida story is a polemic against child sacrifice. This polemic is emphasized by playing off the two names of God one against the other. Hence, Abraham was commanded to sacrifice his son by the aspect of God Elohim, but it was an angel of YHWH who ordered Abraham to desist:

 

An angel of YHWH called out to him from the heavens and said, "Abraham! Abraham!" and he said, "Here I am." He said, "Do not stretch forth your hand against the boy and do not do anything to him! Because now I know that you are Elohim-fearing and you did not withhold your son, your only one, from me" (ibid 22:11-12).

 

At this time in history, child sacrifice was not uncommon in Canaan. It was then not considered an immoral act, but the height of religious devotion.

 

Child sacrifice was not routinely practiced in the main centers of ancient civilization, Egypt and Mesopotamia. The paganism of these countries was designed to promote the interests of the ruling class, and killing their own children was not part of this self-interest. Both these countries were also well-endowed with water for drinking and agriculture, and there was no need to appease the gods for agricultural produce. The situation was very different in Canaan, in that the farmers were dependent on the vagaries of the weather for agricultural bounty. Rain and fertility were controlled by the gods.

 

Unlike gods associated with natural elements like the sun, rain, or crops, Molech was an ancient Canaanite deity whose perceived power seems to have been tied to the granting of favor, protection, and possibly prosperity for those who participated in his worship. The purpose of child sacrifice was to appease Molech by offering that which was most precious to a person — his own child. 

 

Even from a monotheistic perspective, it is possible to argue that since God is the source of all fertility, He is at liberty to request the return of that gift. This could even have been Abraham’s rationalization for following through with God’s request.  

 

From the book of Jeremiah. it is apparent that a favored place for children sacrifice in the southern kingdom of Judah during First Temple times was the Valley of Ben Hinnom, a valley just outside the walls of the present Old City of Jerusalem. (It is from the name of Ben Hinnom’s Valley and the gruesome acts performed there that the name Gehinnom (or hell) is derived). As Jeremiah explains:

 

And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into My heart. Therefore behold, the days are coming," says the Lord, "when it will no more be called Tophet, or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter; for they will bury in Tophet until there is no room” (Jeremiah 7:31-32). 

 

The Medieval commentator Rashi explains how child sacrifice to Molech was practiced in those days:

​

Tophet is Molech, which was made of brass; and they heated him from his lower parts; and his hands being stretched out, and made hot, they put the child between his hands, and it was burnt; when it vehemently cried out; but the priests beat a drum, that the father might not hear the voice of his son, and his heart might not be moved. 

 

The extent to which these rites penetrated into the southern Israelite kingdom in late Biblical times is seen from this passage in Ezekiel: 

​

And you took your sons and your daughters whom you bore to Me and sacrificed them as food to the idols. Was your prostitution not enough? You slaughtered my children and made them pass through (the fire) to the idols (Ezekiel 16:20-21).

 

The Book of Kings relates that this rite was also practiced by the monarchs of the Northern Israelite kingdom, by the echelons of society:

 

He (Ahaz) walked in the ways of the kings of Israel and also he passed his son through fire following the detestable ways of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites (2 Kings 16:3). 

 

Not surprisingly, child sacrifice in the Valley of Ben Hinnom was an immediate target during periods of religious reform in the Southern Kingdom:

​

He (King Josiah) desecrated Topheth, which was in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, so no one could use it to sacrifice his son or daughter in the fire to Molech (2 Kings 23:10).

 

The Torah’s attitude to this practice was unequivocal — child sacrifice is absolutely forbidden: 

 

Do not give any of your children to be passed through [the fire] to Molech for you must not profane the name of your God. I am YHWH” (Leviticus 18:21).  

 

It is possible that “the passing through the fire to Molech” described here did not necessarily entail certain death, but was more of a devotional trial. Nevertheless, it did run the risk of death if the child misstepped.7 The following sentences, though, describes certain death through child sacrifice:

 

You must not worship YHWH your God in their way, because in worshipping their gods they do all kinds of detestable things the Lord hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods (Deuteronomy 12:31.)  

 

 

Why was Abraham tested?

 

The opening sentence of the Akeida story tells us that it was intended as a “test.” Much has been written by Jewish exegetes and philosophers as to what exactly it was meant to achieve.

 

Two general approaches are found among the commentators.  One is that this test was entirely for Abraham’s benefit, to bring his potentiality into actuality. Nachmanides explains:

 

But the Tester, blessed is He, commands the tested party to perform a certain act in order to bring forth the matter of that person’s righteousness from the potential to the actual, so that he should have the reward of having done a good deed and not only the reward of a good heart.8  

 

There are places in the Torah that seem to support Nachmanides’ approach when discussing such testing, although within the context of the Jewish people being tested and not a single individual.

 

Hence, in Deuteronomy, Moses relates the hardships the Jewish people endured during their forty years of wandering in the wilderness and explains that these were tests of their commitment: 

 

So as to cause you hardship to test you, to know that which was in your hearts whether you would keep His commandments or not (Deuteronomy 8:12) and 9“…… so as to cause you hardship, so as to test you, to do you good at your latter end” (Deuteronomy 8:16).

 

The notion that testing is for self-improvement is also discussed in a midrash, although in this  midrash it is restricted to only those likely to pass the test:

 

It is written: “God examines the righteous one, but He despises the wicked and lover of injustice” (Psalms 11:5). Rabbi Yonasan said: the flax maker, when his flax is inferior, does not beat it too much, because it would break if he did so, but when his flax is of superior quality he beats it a great deal. And why does he do this. Because as he beats it, it progressively improves in quality. So too the Holy One, blessed is He, does not test the wicked. And why is this? Because He knows they will not withstand the test.10  

 

Another midrash, however, takes a different approach to Abraham’s test. From the verb to test comes the word “nes” (נס), meaning a flagpole, banner or miracle:

 

Rabbi Yose HaGelili said: This means that God elevated Abraham like the banner (nes) on the masthead of a ship.”11 

 

Maimonides in particular has great difficulty with the idea that God would deliberately subject an individual to hardship just to improve him, since this seems to negate His attribute of justice, and he therefore proposes a reason in line with that of Rabbi Yose Hagelili:  

​

The doctrine of trials is open to great objections; it is in fact more exposed to objections than any other thing taught in Scripture. . . .  People have generally the notion that trials consist in afflictions and mishaps sent by God to man, not as punishment for past sins, but as giving opportunity for great reward. The principle taught in Scripture is exactly the reverse; for it is said: “He is God of faithfulness, and there is no iniquity in Him (Deuteronomy 32:4). . . . The teaching of our Sages, although some of them approve of this general belief, is on the whole against it.  For they say: “There is no death without sin, and no sin without affliction.”12 

 

He continues:

 

The sole object of all the trials mentioned in Scripture is to teach man what he ought to do or believe; so that the event which forms the actual trial is not the end desired; it is but an example for our instruction and guidance. . . . The account of Abraham our father binding his son ……  shows us the extent and limit of the fear of God.”12

 

The purpose of the Binding of Isaac was not to improve Abraham, but to teach humanity the extent to which a person should extend himself in the fear of God.

 

There could be one further answer that has not found favor with Jewish sages, and this is that God does not know the future with certainty and this was a genuine test. This is why the angel of YHWH says:

 

“……… for now I know (ata yodati) that you are God-fearing (yirei Elokim) (Genesis 22:12).13 

 

It would seem from this verse that prior to the outcome of this test, God was not absolutely sure that Abraham’s devotion to Him would override the devotion to his son, but now He is sure. Admittedly, He could have strongly suspected this based on His familiarity with Abraham’s past actions. But now, it has been convincingly demonstrated.

 

This raises the deeper issue — is it is possible that God does not know in advance the result of man’s choices? He can certainly guess based on His knowledge of what has been. Doubtless, His guesses will be infinitely more accurate than human guesses — but man’s free choice is never compromised.  

 

This issue is discussed by Maimonides in his Mishneh Torah with respect to repentance:

 

One might ask since God knows everything that will occur before it comes to pass, does He or does He not know whether a person will be righteous or wicked?  If He knows that he will be righteous, [it appears] impossible for him not to be righteous. However, if one would say that despite His knowledge that he would be righteous, it is possible for him to be wicked, then His knowledge would be incomplete. . . .  we do not have the potential to conceive how God knows all the creations and deeds.  However, this is known without any doubt: That man’s actions are in his hand and God does not lead him or decree that he do anything.”14 

 

According to Maimonides, God knows the future despite everyone having free will. But can there be such a thing as free will if the outcome is known? Does this not suggest a deterministic world? For Maimonides, a question like this has no answer since no one can determine God’s ways. It is also a none-answer.

 

Rabbinic opinion is almost (but not completely) in agreement with Maimonides’ opinion that God has perfect knowledge of the future, including the results of a person’s free will. Nevertheless, it can be argued that God not knowing for certainly the results of the test of the Akeida is most compatible with the plain meaning of the text. God’s estimate of the probability that Abraham would pass the test was almost akin to a certainty, but it never overrode Abraham’s free will. In this way, Abraham’s actions became an example to all of the desired limit of the fear of Elohim. 

 

 

Does not the Akeida display love of Elohim rather than fear of Elohim?

 

The Akeida is the ultimate demonstration of Abraham’s “fear of Elohim”:  

​

And He (the Angel of YHWH) said: “Do not stretch out your hand against the lad nor do anything to him for now I know that you are an Elohim-fearing person (יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים) (yerei Elohim) since you have not withheld your son, your only one, from Me” (Genesis 22:12).

 

Abraham’s offering of his son was completely selfless. He had a choice. To either ignore Elohim’s request for the sake of the love of his son, or to sacrifice his son and sabotage the very future God had planned for him and his descendants. 

 

Having said this, would not Abraham’s actions be better described as love of God set against the love of his child?

 

Nevertheless, love of Elohim is never described in the Torah. Elohim does not seek love. As a transcendent God, He is too remote to have this type of relationship. What Elohim requires is obedience to a moral code so that the moral and material state of the world can continue unimpeded.

 

The notion of fear of Elohim occurs a number of times in the Pentateuch, even in relation to pagans. For example, in the chapter before the Akeida, Abraham arrives in the land of the Philistines and is concerned that the king Abimelech will kill him so that he can take his beautiful wife Sarah into the royal harem. Abraham therefore decides to tell everyone that Sarah is his sister rather than his wife and states the reason for doing this:   

​

And Abraham said: “Because I said, there is but no fear of God in this place and they will slay me because of my wife” (Genesis 20:11).

 

There is no indication from the Bible that Abimelech was a monotheist. How then could he be “God-fearing”?  

 

The expression that someone is “fearing of Elohim” appears to mean solely a person who acknowledges a moral direction to the world, with or without the presence of a Higher Power.   

 

Abraham felt the presence of Elohim in the universe around him, recognized that there is a moral course for the world, and was passionate about fulfilling Elohim’s every request. By contrast, YHVH desires both fear and love. Abraham doubtless felt and displayed love of God. He also loved humanity. However, love of God is not the topic of the Akeida, which is about Abraham’s fulfillment of a directive of Elohim, the God of general providence and the God concerned with the universal aspect of mankind.15

 

How to concurrently achieve the love and fear of God is described by Maimonides:  

 

What is the path to attain love and fear of Him? When a person contemplates His wondrous and great deeds and creations and appreciates His infinite wisdom that surpasses all comparison, he will immediately love, praise, and glorify Him, yearning with tremendous desire to know God’s name, as David stated: “My soul thirsts for Elohim, for the living God.” (Psalms 42:3). When he continues to reflect on these matters, he will immediately recoil in awe and fear, appreciating how he is a tiny, lowly and dark creature, standing with his flimsy, limited, wisdom before He who is of perfect knowledge.16  

 

Via the Akeida we learn how far it is possible for a human being to extend himself in fearing and obeying Elohim, to the extent that Abraham was prepared to sabotage the very future that God had promised him. From YHWH’s retracting this request, we learn that murdering one’s own son on religious grounds has no place within monotheism.

 

 

Animal sacrifice

 

A new idea in the history of religion is found in the Akeida account. 

 

In pagan times, the burnt meat of a sacrifice was considered to be food for the gods and thus a means of appeasing them.

 

This is nicely illustrated in the Gilgamesh myth when Utnapishtim exits his boat and offers a sacrifice on the occasion of his delivery from the flood: 

​

The gods smelled the odor, the gods smelled the sweet odor and they gathered together like flies over the sacrifice” (Gilgamesh, tablet XI).

 

During the duration of the flood the gods had been without food.  They now gathered around Utnapishtim’s sacrifice like flies because of their hunger!

 

By contrast, this story teaches that the purpose of an animal sacrifice is not appeasement of the Deity, but a vicarious form of self-sacrifice. The devotion attending this is on a par with sacrificing oneself or one's child. 

 

In the Binding of Isaac story an olah animal sacrifice is offered by Abraham “instead of his son.” In an olah sacrifice the entire animal goes up in flames to God. In effect, Abraham is now offering up the blood and flesh of an animal in lieu of the blood and flesh of his son.  With one notable exception, sacrifices are offered exclusively to YHWH and not to Elohim.17

 

Nachmanides explains matters in this way: 

​

All the acts are performed in order that when they are done, a person should realize that he has sinned against God with his body and his soul, and that “his” blood should really be spilled and “his” body burned, were it not for the loving-kindness of the Creator, Who took from him a substitute and a ransom, namely this offering, so that its blood should be in place of his blood, its life in place of his life, and that the chief limbs of the offering should be in place of the chief parts of his body.18

 

Support for this idea comes from the laying of hands on the sacrifice. The laying and leaning of hands on the animal’s head is a first step in an individual’s animal sacrifice and serves to transfer the persona of the individual offering the sacrifice onto the animal.19

 

Nevertheless, the expression  a “pleasing odor” to God from a sacrifice is frequently found in the Torah, as in pagan mythology, although it now has the meaning of no more than that the offering is pleasing to God. There is no thought that God is smelling the offering before eating it:

​

The Lord spoke to Moses saying: “Command the Israelite people and say to them: Be punctilious in presenting to Me at stated times the offering of food due Me, as offerings by fire of pleasing odor to Me in its appointed time …….  as a perpetual olah every day, two yearly lambs without blemish…..  It is the continual olah that was done at Mt. Sinai, for a satisfying aroma, a fire offering to God” (Numbers 28:1-6). 

 

 

 A new blessing for the Jewish people

 

As a result of Abraham’s devotion, God, through His aspect of YHWH, makes a new promise to Abraham:

​

The angel of YHWH called to Abraham a second time from heaven, and said: “By Myself I swear, declared YHWH, that since you have done this thing and have not withheld our son, your only one, that I shall increase your offspring like the stars of the heavens and like the sand on the seashore; and your offspring shall inherit the gates of its enemy; and all the nations of the earth shall bless themselves  (vehitborachu) (וְהִתְבָּרְכוּ) through your seed, because you have listened to My voice” (Genesis 22:15-18).

 

It is helpful to review the four promises made up to now to Abraham by YHWH in order to appreciate what God is adding here. These are the blessings in their chronological order:

​

#1.  And YHWH said to Abram: “Get yourself from your country, from your relatives, and from your father’s house to the land that I will show you.  And I will make of you a great nation; I will bless you and make your name great, and you shall be a blessing.  I will bless those who bless you, and him who curse you I will curse; and all the families of the earth shall be blessed through you (venivrachu) (וְנִבְרְכ֣וּ).” (Genesis 12:1-3).

 

#2. YHWH appeared to Abram and said: “To your offspring I will give this land” (ibid 12:7).

 

#3.  YHWH said to Abram after Lot had parted from him…. For all the land that you see, to you I will give it, and to your descendants forever. I will make your offspring as the dust of the earth so that if one can count the dust of the earth, then your offspring too can be counted” (Genesis 13:14-16).

 

#4.  Then Abram said: “See, to me you have given no offspring; and see, my steward is my heir…"  That one will not inherit you ….. And He (YHWH) took him outside and said: “Gaze, now, towards the heavens, and count the stars if you are able to count them” And He said to him; “So shall your offspring be!” (Genesis 15:3-5).

 

In contrast to these earlier promises, God swears an oath. Is there a difference between a promise and an oath?  Commentators suggest that whereas a promise is conditional and depends on the behavior of Abraham’s offspring, an oath is non-conditional and is forever.20 Whether or not one accepts this explanation, this oath is clearly an intensification of God’s commitment and it is referred to a number of times in the Torah.21

 

Moreover, this blessing is directed in its entirety specifically to Abraham’s offspring, whereas the previous promises were directed to Abraham.  For a moment during the Akeida, the very notion that Abraham would have offspring who would perpetuate themselves was hanging in the balance. This issue has now been resolved and God addresses Himself directly to the future of thee offspring. 

 

The blessing they would increase like the stars in the heaven and the sand by the seashore has been promised previously. Now, in addition, they will achieve victory over their enemies. There is the implication here that there will also be struggle throughout history.  

 

YHWH also promises that all the nations of the earth “through your seed will bless themselves (vehitborachu) (וְהִתְבָּרְכוּ)” (Genesis 12:3 as above), using the reflexive form of the verb.

 

Previously, God had promised that all the nations of the world would be blessed because of Abraham (Genesis 12:3 above). Now, the nations will pray to God: “Bless us as you have blessed the offspring of Abraham.”22 

 

In sum, the Akeida is only 19 sentences long, but it is one of the greatest treatises of religious writing. It is multi-dimensional and contains within it a stream of fundamental ideas. 

​

• It taught the Jewish people (and by extension the world) the extent to which a human being should extend himself in the fear of God.

 

• It taught the Jewish people about the non-permissibility of human sacrifice.

 

• It taught the Jewish people the ideal of family togetherness for the sake of maintaining the covenant.

 

• It introduced the Jewish people to new ideas about animal sacrifice.

 

• It taught the Jewish people that God will choose His own portal to heaven and that He will support His agenda on His holy mountain.

 

• It taught the Jewish people that they would have to struggle to promote their religious beliefs.

 

• It taught the Jewish people that the values they espouse would be a source of inspiration to the rest of the world.

 

But the Akeida was not only a test for Abraham. It is also a test for everyone who reads this story. It what way do we measure up to Abraham in our devotion to God’s moral code?  

 

 

References  

 

1. Cassuto suggests the meaning of go alone, or at least with those close to you, and make a break from your present situation. First Paragraph. The Lord’s Command and Promises, Chapter XII in Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part Two, from Noah to Abraham by Umberto Cassuto, p310. The Magnes Press, Jerusalem, 1977. Examples given by Cassuto include: “Then Moses let his father-in-law depart, and he went his way (vayelech lo) to his own country (Exodus 18:27). When Joshua instructs the tribes whose home is in Transjordan to take leave of the other tribes and return to their tribal possession he says: “and now turn and go on your way (lechu lachem) in the land where your possession lies” (Joshua 22:4). R’ Hirsch and R’ Joseph Solveitchik have similar explanations to those of Cassuto. (Chumash with commentary based on the teachings of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik. Sefer Bereishis, p72, OU Press). Nachmanides, on the other hand, assigns no particular significance to this form of the verb and assumes it to be common idiomatic Hebrew usage.

 

2. Rashi to Genesis 22:3. Rashi notes that Abraham himself saddled the donkey, for his love of God changed how he would normally act (by ordering a servant to do these things). (Bereishis Rabbah 55:7).

 

3. Contrary to what I have written, Rashi sees in the expression of togetherness that Isaac was not yet aware of the possibility that he was to be the sacrifice. Rashi to Genesis 22:8.

 

4. The tradition regarding the location of Mount Moriah is first recorded in the Book of Chronicles.  Mount Moriah is where God “appeared” to King David, the mountain on which David bought the threshing floor, and where Solomon built his temple: “And Solomon commenced to build the House of the Lord in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah (הַמֹּרִיָּה), where He had appeared to his father David, which he had prepared in David’s place, in the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite.” (II Chronicles 3:1) 

 

5. Rashi to Genesis 22:14.

 

6. Commentary to the Torah by Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch to Genesis 22:14.

 

7. According to Maimonides, the child was made to pass between bonfires (Mishne Torah, Laws of Idolatry 6:3).  However, Nachmanides suggests that the child was intentionally burnt to death.

 

8. Nachmanides, Commentary to the Torah to Genesis 22:1.

 

9. Of Divine Tests and a Knowing Heart by Chanoch Waxman in Torah Metzion. New Readings in Tanach. Devorim,  p131. Maggid Books, Koren Publishers, Jerusalem, Israel, First edition 2012.

 

10. Midrash Rabba 55:2.

 

11. Midrash Rabba 55:6.

 

12. The Object of Trials, chapter 24 in The Guide for the Perplexed by Moses Maimonides. Translation by M. Friedlander p 304. 2nd edition, Dover Publications Inc, New York. 

 

13. Maimonides interprets the words “now I known” to mean “now it has become known.” The words “ata yodati” (עַתָּהיָדַעְתִּי) are actually in the past test. Hence, their literal meaning is “now I have known.” The word “ata” (עַתָּה) usually has the meaning of “now,” which places its meaning in the present rather than past tense. Nevertheless, the Kli Yakar suggests it can also have the meaning of “behold!” as for example in the following sentence: “And now/behold what does YHWH your God require of you but to fear. . . .” (Deuteronomy 10.12). Clearly, the requirement to fear God was present even before Moses uttered these words. It could be suggested, therefore, that its meaning is “Behold, I have known. ” Nevertheless, the words “ata yodati” (עַתָּהיָדַעְתִּי) would seem to be an idiom in the sense of “now I have come to the realization.” There are numerous examples in the Torah of its use in the present tense in this way, see for example Exodus 36:7. 

 

14. Maimonides Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Teshuvah 5:5.

 

15. This explanation is at variance with the Talmud (BT Sota 31A), which does regard Abraham’s fear of God as stemming from love. The Talmud states: “It was taught in a Baraisa: R’ Meir says: The expression fearing of God is stated regarding Job and the expression fear of God is stated regarding Abraham. Just as the expression fearing of God that is stated regarding Abraham refers to a fear stemming from love, so too the expression fearing of God that is stated regarding Job refers to a fear stemming from love.  And regarding Abraham himself, from where do we know that his fear of God actually stemmed from love? For it is written: “But you, Israel, …the offspring of Abraham who loved me.” (Isaiah 41:8).

 

16. Maimonides’ Sefer Hamitzvot, mitzvah #4. As is sometimes the case with Jewish philosophical literature, this psalm makes no differentiation between the names of God.

 

17. Lecture 3 More about the Divine names in The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch by Umberto Cassuto, p41, Shalem Press, Jerusalem and New York, 2008.  The one exception to this rule is when Yithro, the father-in-law of Moses, offers sacrifices to Elohim. Cassuto assumes that Yithro was not Jewish. He therefore had a different more universal conception of God than did Moses. In other words, this was the first inter-faith type of sacrifice ever described! There is, on the other hand, a rabbinic tradition that Yithro converted to Judaism, which would contradict this explanation.

 

18. Nachmanides Commentary to the Torah to Leviticus 1:9.

 

19. Leviticus 1:4, 3:2,8,13, 4:4,15,24,29,33

 

20  See the Commentaries to the Torah of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch and Nachmanides on Genesis 22:16

 

21. For example: Exodus 32:13 and Deuteronomy 26:15.

 

22. This is the explanation of the Radak. See the interpretation of Rashi for ibid 18:8 for “they will be blessed.” Onkelos and Rashi do not differentiate between the hitpa’el (reflexive) and the niphal (passive) while Ibn Ezra and the Radak do.