+ THE SACRIFICE OF ISAAC Studies in the Development of a Literary Tradition ‘edited with prolegomenon and bibliography by Eli Yassif ‘Ben-Gurion University, Beer Sheva ‘The Sacrifice of Iease is one of the themes which ‘enriched human thought and art. In this volume are collected eminent studies on the subject, which ‘were printed in various and sometimes forgotten sources. The articles study the development of the theme from different points of view, from the Bible ‘up to modern thought and literature. MAKOR PUBLISHING LTD. Jerusalema A thecens te Comte, dh, he boele OF the Late Si Wa, re 19513 Socket dex tes soeee #4 DIR, wpe 18 _ Seaplane aid Tradition, Abraham’s Sacrifice of Faith A Form-Critical Study of Genesis 22 Gronae W. Coxrs Profenor of Old Testament Lexington Theologica Seminary "The obeicnce lita complements the tention centered {nthe merce and enable the good news of Ia’ elation {stand ata reafirotion of the paiiarchal promise. ENESIS 22 demonstrates an unusual skill in storytelling, a skil ‘witnessed by artists from Rembrandt to Kierkegaard! Yet, th story remains mysterious and haunting, jumping as Kierkegaard observe from the pathos of a father who faces ineffable tragedy to the heinow face of father tumed devil as he raises his knife. And the strain dupli cates itself in the image of a God who asks a father to sacrifice his mos beloved son, the same God who fulfilled a special promise by giving tha father the very same son. Form criticism provides a particular method for unraveling the stil of such a narrative. It recognizes that storytelling depends on sensitiv construction, that it does not happen automaticaly. If, for example, + storyteller captures his audience with a challenge, a situation that de ‘mands their attention, and then stretches their interest over a range o cruxes toa resolution ofthe criss, he will not have done so accidentally He will have followed some kind of plan. Moreover, if the storyelle: ‘employs competing lines in his narration, lines that develop diferent eran Ral Dat Ofer do Arcam (Mtn, Cr Kaa Vso, 71) PAa, points of denouement, different intentions, he increases the depth and ‘color of his narration.’ Form critic provides a means for understand ing the balance and depth in such a complex plan. ‘Thus, Genesis 22 invites form-critical analysis. As a story that com- bines a powerful plot line with delicate characterization, it seemed ap- propriate as an example of narrative tradition for this symposium. 1 should note, in contrast to other form-critcal studies of the same story? that the point of departure in this esay isthe received text, not a hypo- + thetical reconstruction of earlier levels. ‘The competing lines of narration ' in the story may derive from different levels in the history of the story's tradition, But the successor failure in integrating those lines in the final redaction cartes the key to the story's impact on generations of artists and other exegetss. f Structure 1. Exposition (1-2) A. Headline (10) 1B Dialogue (xb) 4. Call to attention 2 Introduction, God to Abrabam b. call Response a. Introduction, Abraham to God >. Response formula 4: Instructions for serifice 1 Introduction, Gp to Abrabam D. Instructions IL. Complication: Execution of instructions (3-10) ‘A. Tramition Narration (5-4) B Interlude Speech (5) 1. Introduction, Abraham to servants 2 Instructions for duties . Transition Narration (6) D. Gris Dialogue (7 stn spears Nekacheoer Veto1. Calltoattenton (7aa) 2. ntroductin, Isaac to Abrabam Call 2. Response (7ab) 1. Introduction, Abraham to Ine i, Response formula 5 Question (76) ‘Introduction, aac to Abraham , Request for information 4 Anwer (8a) ‘Introduction, Abraham to Tne >. Explanation E. Transition (88) F. Criss narration (9-10) TTL, esotion (11-14) A. Dialogue (11-12) 1. Call to attention 2 Tntrodaction, angel of Yahweh to Abrabam wb Call Response 1. Introduction, Abraham to angel 'b Response formula 4 Resolution of tension 1 Introduction, ange to Abraham 1 Instructions fr aubaiuton 1B Execution ofiestruction (13) ©. Aetiology (14) IV. Conclusion (15-18) ‘A. nroduction, angel of Yahweh to Abraham (15) B. Speech 1. Reason for renewed promise (16) 1. Renewed Promise (17-182) 4. Blesing tothe natlons ‘5 Reason (186) Vz Tinerary (19)a ‘A patriarchal itinerary scheme provides context for this story. Thus, Genesis 2125-34 notes Abraham's contact with Beersheba over a long period of days, while Genesis 22:19 retums the scene of ation for the patriarch to Beersheba, ‘The story itself can be readily distinguished from its itinerary frame by the opening formula in 22:1: “After these things..." Unity with the context derives, however, not simply from structural context provided by an itinerary patter, but of more impor- tance, from unity in theological perspective with other Abrahamic ra- dition (ef. the discussion below). : “This story projects a recurring motif as its principal key for unity “Take your son, your only son whom yeu love, Isaac.» (gah-na’t- Dinka “ety bidk ler “ahabtd'etyizhig). With its emphasis on second person sufies and verbs, on Abraham asthe subject ofthe action, the ‘motif appears in verses 2, 12, 16 with an opening headline, verse 14, and 4 concluding generalization in verse r8b. Structure within this frame- ‘work of unity comprises a plot built with three elements, exposition, complication, and resolution, plus @ conclusion, an anticlimax advane- ing the narration well beyond the point of complication, and its reso- lution. Significantly, each of the first three elements employs dialogue a8 a central construction device, while the fourth element, the anti climax, drops the stylized introductions to a dialogue and employs a speech addressed to Abraham without supporting complements. This shifein structure at least highlights the final element. ‘The exposition defines the purpose of the action presente in the plot line a8 atest (nitsdh) of Abraham (nota sacrifice of Isaac). As verse 1 shows, the test noted in verse 1a determines whether the object of the test maintains fear of God (yfré" “lohim). (For parallels ef. Exod. 20:20; Job 2:5.) ‘The focus of such a test falls on obedience, intesrty, loyalty. ‘The exposition ves, therefore, quite directly ito the unifying motif and sets the stage for presentation of Abrabam's obedience (ck ‘5p. v.18). However, the exposition compromises the point of tension in verses 1:2 by showing the story o be about Abraham's obedience, not Isaac's near sacrifice, It suggests that Isaac is notin any real dan- get? Verses 1b-2 make the exposition more specific, not only with the ‘lying motif in the instructions to Abraham, but aio with the content ‘sam Jn He Man (Pind, TheNN of the instructions ‘The cing point of tension ia the plot at this juncture is thus two edged: (1) a call for obedience as a test for Abra- ‘im with the patsactal promise to Abraham at sake dhoul he fll the ten, and (2) teat (theif of Abraha's nt bor, with the patriarchal praise a sake should Abraham cary theugh on the struction (thei bloody end. "Venes 9-1 compen the tension wih painstaking detail of Abra hams obedience ‘With a combination of naraion and speech, te | gamut pints paige pice father and soa moving Lowy to 8 trap desing, ‘Tae yung ten who accompany the cena par serve tnly to slow the pac of sein, a heighten the tension, Abraham must sop inthe a of hs ne her to ive hk ervants iri then the joumey coaueySigicamiy, Abrabam’s speech in verse 5 foredhadown the gual news ofthe sory einay for ina ste Bt fermon plural veri, the coming act of facie tne its eftermath are Enouneed “T and held, we thal go thre we shall wortip, and we thal rer to you,” And te tale pat, unaware ofthe good news thared only by tne toryler and No adicne, move off oper. The train tarraton in were 6 eaplucs the pathos of theme: "So they went, both of them together But js at this mete ofthe plot a problem in the structure of the try appears. Ths forettadowing eve vagy that he sop af the Story encompass Abvaban's nat saci f aa and his Yet with Tanee ane re tirigh 1 provides a brie release of tenon boone the final denoetnent Bt tbe ein it agg ithe crea gaint Inna. And the denouement i foreshadows ia pardon from the ae fal evration (ch ve tal). Obedence to the amnand fn longer 2 ue for Abraham has aleady demestated that he would obey the | ommand without a memes Heston, The ae of tein inthe plot of the story thus does not open into the antilimax in verses 15-18, with | is fous tn the patahal promise and Abrahams excmplary ebede | tnce, Yet the forhadowing docs nt excade te antlimay soe I fg at the son, who happens tobe Ueber ofthe promise wil ot fallen tothe sactlice. "The plot contruction thas complement the tomevhat state chaacier of the obedience theme, "The dialogue in verses 7-8 prodves much the same image, Ta a poignant exchange of species aching an awl destiny, yet deinee that lies beyond the principals who share it, the son asks the father about a sacrificial animal. The wood and the fire are obvious. But ‘what about a lamb? Abraham's answer is on the surface an effort to dodge the frontal pain of a straightforward reply. But again the speech foreshadows the climax of the story, a climax involving the threat to Isaac without reference to the patriarchal promise and Abraham's obedience in verses 15-18. Abrabam prophesies that God will provide his own lamb (N.B. the verb ra’ dh). Yet again, the foreshadowing of ‘Gods provision for hs servant Abraham also foreshadows reaffirmation | of the promise fulilled in Isaac. ‘The two points of tension stand in delicate balance and facilitate the depth of description for Abraham's obedience. ‘A transition narration connects the dialogue with the climax of the | plot. The transition, identical tothe one in verse 6 picks up the poignant ‘motif of unity between the father and his son. Following this transition, however, no further delays in the pace of narration appear. With rapid pounding verses 9-10 report construction ofthe altar, preparation of the ‘wood, and the final order for slaughter that would end the son’s life in| sacrifice. “Abraham put forth his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son.” The story can now move no further. ‘The tension must break With either the death of the son or his miraculous preservation, But ‘again structural delicacies appear. ‘The peak of tension in the story's plot does not involve Abraham’s obedience; that obedience is never in question. Rather, the breaking point centers on Isaac’s life. ‘The dialogue in verses 11-12, particularly the angel's speech in verse 12, marks the resolution of tension for the story. Justin the nick of time (cf. the similar timing in Gen. 98), God stops the death blow. And a substitution lamb appears, caught in a thicket by his hors (N.B. the verb ri’ah). The erss ends in a burst of good news—the first born, the ‘only son whom Abraham loves, will not have to die. Verses 13-14 then narrate the conclusion ofthe story, a bref reduction of the tension along Jess emotionally packed lines. Abraham offers the lamb in the place of his son. And an aetiology plays on the verb “to see” (ra'éh). But the story does not end with the obvious. ‘The climax speech in verse 12 is picked up again in a second speech fram the angel in verses 16-18, The changes obvious in a comparison between the two speechesnl shift the point of climax from God's intervention, prohibiting destruc- tion of the son, to Abraham's ac of faith in not withholding the son, Thus, verse 16 emphasizes Abraham's act: “Because you have done this | thing... 2” The promise following from the foundation of Abraham's | obedience renews the patriarchal covenant, guarantering posterity and blessing, as well as blessing fr all the nations of the earth. Sigaficantly, reference to possesion of a land as a part of the promise is obscured behind an allusion to the “gates ofthe enemy” (cf. Gen. 12:1-3). |The overall story builds on atest for Abraham's obedience, conclude ing in verses 15-18 with a reafirmation ofthe patriarchal promise. ‘The reaffirmation 1 would understand as an integral part of the parration developing from the test. It sems to me tobe dificult then, to elini- | nate these verses from the unt asa secondary addition to the tory If the story in view isthe story circumscribed by the arc of tension leading to a resolution in verses 11-14, then the reasons for eliminating versea 15-18 would be clear. They stand markedly as an antclimax with no intrinsic role to play in the story of the near sacrifice of Tsaac. But in | that case the other allusions to Abraham's exemplary obedience would aso drop away, particularly verse 1a with its compromise of the tension patterns? And that procedure would, I believe, destroy the depth ofthe story To the contrary the obedience letmotif complements the tension centered in the suctfce and enables the good news of Isaac's salvation to stand asa reaffirmation of the patriarchal promise. To be sure, it shifts the character of the story from a story about the near sacrifice of Isaac ewig Cintas ve ge nba as s¢10 paste Sot jrmaantihe von Go 23, St Bbtteien 1 Gata, Velag Rashes Bhool tye) 9 73 "Reet of den Soe pi Wis hak Glee pm rate std eres toh pent rer, at airy the expan Oh nary hugh the SESS ak at ee pe od td cn te {Reivene rom coerne, parzutiy when one ofr tthe eee sewer {ised toween te we angel Sper hes Ibe cond teh the Senco ren Se ‘pane fermane" Grated ht he high pint oft mare pt was sand Ia wh ‘elt e wenodspench teas the petch puters = ait ery inact prmn, Jet the cod spel ftom it ars tora of| to an account of Abraham's sacrifice of faith. But the shift is intrinsic to the shape of the story in its final layer. ‘The obedience leitmotif functions in the narrative as a means for reaffirming the validity of the patriarchal promise. It thus shares in the theological emphasis provided by the larger context of Abraham tra- ditions constructed under the programmatic stamp of Genesis 12:1-3, ‘There is no reason to assume that traditions presenting Abraham at a ‘man of obedience could not be constructed along with traditions pre- senting the same patriarch as a man of little faith, traditions such as Genesis 12:10-20.' Thus, the story of Abraham's sacrifice fils its posi tion in a larger complex of stories about Abraham and his promise from God, a complex carried by J or JE. Behind this story lies an older story, developed around the tragic custom of child sacrifice, with its conclusion in a prohibition against this particular child's sacrifice and its corres- ponding aetiology." That story would have reached its climax in verse 14. At that level the story doubtlessly did not belong to one of the Pentateuchal sources. Rather, the storyteller has appropriated an an- cient story of child sacrifice, altering it so that it becomes an example of ‘Abraham's faith and an oceasion for God's renewing the promise for great posterity, for blessing open to all the nations of the earth. Yet, precisely in the skillful combination of the two lies the genius of story~ 7 Tepienal sure wrap hs asad svn w he line Thee bs deny settle (0 see abwie laments in hear Cate Gea iho Siete rete tome mana to ). Ch fomer Menber, Abt Sn tthe aor k's "(rhe Anchor B rd Do a, T964), 106. He conclodess “Om intra! evidence, bower, hued an ulead Cone {en henry bind the ory sold be I dao ert a del gue fer, Rewer ta he hy ry eng he ae ps tes wrk Sioeyau'a parte the E source The emphans on bedince characte oft pate fete ‘eh. dcan flo And merce apa ca weak afoed atu a Se crs bah ee Sey a Segoe i lila on np as eo 5 SES ee seat ie ie et he ak ilaSied SH tt Cae Eresnin op. iy goto for Sich an ler sary beknd the Salyer of thin uston “Te! ow peeing defn ele ‘hs aoe chlaray ree fea ‘Réventigop- ty pp gan CE als Klay opty pp 6telling style so creatively displayed in this text. Genre ‘At its latest stage th story appears a a legend, By definition legend functions as a narrative designed to edily subsequent generations by emphasis on virtues displayed by the central figure As a consequence offs focus on characterization, attention for events falls into the back- ground. ‘Thus it seems to me that structural emphasis on Abraham's ‘obedience at each major stage in the movement of the naration, com- promising the are of tension centered on the near sacrifice of Tsaac, points to the generic identity of Genesis 22 as legend. Moreover, a hermeneutical problem common to all legends arses in Genesis 22 at jus this point. Te would have been nice if the legend had dlsplayed the inner tensions that Abrabarm must have felt in carrying out those grim, divine instruction. But there are no comments that would make Abraham more lie me. Rather, he appears in superhuman, tunemotional, somewhat unvealistc dres. He never objects to the un. reasonable, slightly insane commandment to sacrifice his sn, as the ‘Abraham of Genesis 12 or Genesis 16 most certainly would have done. To the contrary, he seems to move about his grim task with silent resignation, a8 if he were an automaton, Or pethaps beter, it would have been nice ifthe text had provided some more satisfying in God's character than the image provided by a God who would play a devious game with an obedient creature. But there is none. ‘The text never rases questions about what kind of God would be asking uch a horrifying confirmation of obedience and loyalty. In fact, God's char- acter isnot an issue. Isac is relatively unimportant. Even Abraham's inner tensions earry no weight. The entze scope of the legend falls on Abraham's obedienes. A point of comparison would help. Kings 13 has a similar story, although its central figure provides a negative example of obedience rather than a postive one." The man of God from Judah stands under Rowlé M. Ha “egrd: A Gu Stay OT Fora Temimben? G2 lie al Rear ou cet dese ay Ravage ee Rene nop mtn ew os fla pos Oe bln insu ein (piel Cl abo Gere We Coa a Sey ad Rosen WocanAReapraa COQ 3 (97) Tigpaate dois‘ Fomen CTikng, Mamet, 96), wm. gs, deer wddirection not to eat bread or drink water in the territory of Bethel. But another prophet intervenes and persuades the man of God to eat. His persuasion the text defines explicitly as seduction: “I also am a prophet as you are, and an angel spoke to me by the word of the Loro saying ‘Bring him back with you into your house that he may eat bread and drink water? But he lied to him.” Yet, despite the seduction built on a lic, the man of God dies at the hands of God through an attacking lion.” Was that punishment not unjust? Should the man of God not have objected strongly to the judgment (ef. v. a3). Yet the point of the story falls not on the justice of the punishment, not on the ealm reaction of the man of God, or even the relatively inane character of ‘the commandment, but on the question of virtue. God calls for obedi- ence. But the antichero disobeys. Ie does not matter what the content of the command was. And excgess soe astray if it stumbles over God's nature of the relatively unemotional reaction of the man. Tn Genesis tthe storyteller isnot primarlly interested ih playing out the tenons in full detail. At its latest stage at leat, only Abraham's obedience is at stake and all els falls into the background." ‘The story behind the legend is a story of child sacrifice, with typical structure for the plot of a saga (ef. Gen, 21:8-21).2 The tension of the plot i established by the command to sacrifice an only son, a first- thom son. And the plot develops in an arc of tension from the initial ‘complication to its resolution with God's provision for « substitute. In- deed, behind the present formulation of the saga may be a tradition bout 2 theophany to confirm the change in requirement for first-born sacrifice. Moreover, the aetiological elements, though not the substance of the saga, point toa eultic character, a concern not only for sacrificial ‘ou i iinet cept etry bate on be power Ob oe ok te ie remy He van sods poe (rf cen 39-4 Meen ritual, but also for a place. Its earliest stage thus may be identified as ccultic aetiology, perhaps hieros logos. tis significant that at this stage in the development of the story, the ‘question of God's characteris a stake. ‘The hero ofthe story understood God as a God who cals for child sacrifice. And so, according to the story, God changes his requirements. He still sks for the sacrifice of the son. But now a substitution can bear the actual point of the knife. ‘The significant point, however, is that if the question about God's char~ acter isto be raised (and it should be), then the exegete should under- stand to which level in the history of the story the question properly belongs. Setting ‘The legend seems to be the product of conscious adaptation from earlier tradition, designed to fit the story into the scope of theology about Abraham and his promise. I do not see evidence of a history of the legend prior to its incorporation into that literary construct. The prior story reflects a folk tradition, a style of storytelling that cannot easily be tied to one particular institution. It might as well have been told in the family as in the cult, for stories delight people in almost any kind of institutional setting" If the story had an even earlier form, it would Ihave focused on sacrificial ritual, particularly the institution of a sub- stitutionary sacrifice for the first-born son. As a rijual aetiology it would probably have been preserved within the culte institutions of Israel's predecessors. Ifa hieros logos lies atthe basis of the story, it would have its earliest te to a specific locale, how not clearly named. Intention ‘The legend provides an edifying example of obedience for all subse | quent devotees of Yahweh. Indeed, it emphasizes the importance of ‘obedience for Israel by making the primary saint of obedience the father + of Israel, the recipient of Yahweh's promise for posterity. ‘The legend 15,6 Gunte, Cora, pol Revenow, Opfore deinen Sha, p 36m the Sia. | wd ares 14: Clas Wevterman, “Aven er Enshung idee Gens” Fovchuag am Aten Tere med Genre Sdn (Minch, Cor. atet Veg, 1984), 7 Wesemane oswes Sete teayrtn Gen te hie Thatfunctions, moreover, as an example of Abraham's faith in contrast to his lack of faith depicted in such stories as Genesis 12:10-20 or Genesis 16. And on the bass ofthis example the promise for posterity, a slightly ‘obscured promise for land, and a designation for blessing stand reaffirmed. ‘The outcome of the faith test demonstrates the necessity Abraham faces {for recognizing Yahweh as lord of the promise. Abraham does not con- trol the life of the promise; he does not even control its death, ‘Von Rad observes that Abraham's act of faith opens the door to a sense of Godforsakenness.® The promise appears to be denied. And in this case Abraham’s sacrifice of faith would sacrifice the faith for all, generations, Yet the story does not really focus:on the Godiforsaken sage of Abraham's pilgrimage. It recounts a sacrifice, an act of obedi- ‘ence made possible by Abraham's faith, not Abraham sacrificing his faith, not even Abraham standing in lonely despair. Martin Luther picks up this point, In his commentary on Genesis he sets out his posi- tion ‘through the eyes of Hebrews 11:17-19: “Abraham . . did not give up hope in the divine promise but, believing in the resurrection of the dead, he was comforted by his faith that Gods promises must stand.” Von Rad cautions that Luther's exegesis moves well beyond an au- thentic exegesis of the story.” And perhaps insofar as the explicit af- firmation ofthe text is concerned, Von Rad is right. Yet, an affirmation ‘common to both texts remains implicit. Abraham was willing to re- Linquish not only control over his life and the life of his son (and the promise) but also his control over his own death and the death of bi ton (and the promise). He accepts his limitations as an obedient crea- ture by recognizing that he receives both death and life from his creator. in this obedience lies a reaffirmation of the promise, and indeed, a blessing for all mankind. Is that blessing so foreign to the Christian's hope in the resurrection? ‘The prior story maintains a plotline developed in the first order for suspense, thus for enjoyment, But its aetiological character, both in. ‘establishing substtutionary sacrifice for the frst born and in its foun- dation for a holy place, cannot be mistaken, 5 Vou Rad Dor’ Etter: Comoentryon Coneti ti T. Thendre Muse (Grand Rapids, Zondervan 7.Von Rad, Bat Opler 8-3,