Vetus Testamentum ISSN: 0042-4935, Online ISSN: 1568-5330 DOI: 10.1163/156853310X527860 Volume 60, Issue 4, pages 546-559 © Copyright 2010 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

 Go to section... 

Willing Obedience with Doubts: Abraham at the Binding of Isaac*Jonathan Jacobs

Bar-Ilan University

 ABSTRACTGo to section... 

Among biblical commentators and scholars, the accepted view of Abraham in the story of the Binding

of Isaac is of a one-dimensional, almost superhuman figure whose entire consciousness, on the way to

sacrifice his son, is focused solely on fulfilling the Divine will. According to this view there is no textual

evidence of any deliberation or hesitation in Abraham’s mind, and he is to be viewed as praiseworthy

for fulfilling God’s will without any doubt or misgiving.

In contrast to this prevailing opinion, I attempt to show that the biblical narrator uses various literary

devices to hint to the qualms that plague Abraham on his journey. Although he gives no voice to his

apprehensiveness, it may be uncovered through a careful and attentive reading of the text, exposing

Abraham’s inner world.

Keywords Abraham,  Binding of Isaac,  secondary characters,  Gen 22

 INTRODUCTIONGo to section... 

The story of the binding of Isaac (Gen 22) has been subjected to intense scrutiny from many and

diverse perspectives.1 The aim of the present article is to analyze just one of the myriad aspects of the

story. We shall examine Abraham’s response to the Divine command, as reflected in his words, in his

actions, and in the contributions made by the secondary characters in his environment.

For hundreds of years, the conventional reading of the narrative has detected in the text no

questioning of the Divine command on Abraham’s part. Thus, the Talmudic sages2 and medieval Jewish

biblical commentators3 alike depict Abraham as journeying to perform the binding with no doubts or

misgivings. Modern biblical scholars have also accepted this assumption almost without question.4

However, is it true that the literal text demonstrates no doubts in Abraham’s mind, or do we find some

trace of misgiving with regard to God’s command? On one hand, there is certainly ample textual

justification for the accepted view that the story of the Binding of Isaac presents Abraham as a

decisive man who fulfills God’s command unquestioningly, even though it comes at the expense of his

own future, his happiness, and his life’s work in spreading monotheistic morality. For instance, the

biblical narrative highlights Abraham’s silence in response to the Divine command, and his alacrity in

carrying it out. Throughout the three-day journey Abraham raises no objection or argument. The

following quote characterizes the approach of most biblical scholars to this narrative:

In many cases, moreover, the narrator does not let the reader share this unlimited knowledge, failing

to reveal even a fraction of the characters’ inner world. In the story of the sacrifice of Isaac, for

example, the narrator does not tell us what Abraham’s emotions were when he received the command

to go and sacrifice his son, what he felt and what he thought about during the three days’ journey and

what was going on his mind as he ascended the mountain together with his son.5

This concealment by the text and passivity on Abraham’s part is especially conspicuous against the

background of his combative reaction upon hearing of the decree to annihilate Sodom and Gomorrah

(Gen 18:23-33).6 The thematic and linguistic analogy between the story of Ishmael’s banishment (Gen

21) and the Binding of Isaac7 likewise intensifies the sharp contrast between Abraham’s opposition to

sending Ishmael away (21:11) and the absence of any protest in our narrative.

In this article I shall attempt to show that even if an initial reading of the narrative would appear to

confirm the above claims, a deeper reading exposes some subtle but recurring hints as to Abraham’s

inner world and reveal—contrary to the accepted view—his doubts and misgivings on his way to

sacrifice his son.

 STRUCTURE OF THE NARRATIVEGo to section... 

The story of the Binding of Isaac is comprised of nine brief scenes, each demarcated by means of a

change in location, indication of time that has passed, or a new character that is introduced.8

Scene 1: Verses 1-2. These verses are the exposition in which God presents his demand to Abraham.

The reader is already aware of that which becomes clear to Abraham only at the end of the story—that

the demand is only a test.9 These verses make no mention of any specific time or place.

Scene 2: Verse 3. The scene begins with an indication of time (“Abraham awakened early in the

morning”), describes his actions, and ends with a description of his journeying: “And he arose and he

went to the place which God had told him.”

Scene 3: Verses 4-6. Begins with an indication of time (“on the third day”), records Abraham’s words to

his attendants and the results of his words, and ends with a description of the continuation of the

journey: “And the two of them journeyed together”.

Scene 4: Verses 7-8. Here we find a dramatic dialogue between Abraham and his son. The scene ends,

like its two predecessors, with a description of the two of them journeying on.

Scene 5: Verses 9-10. This is the climactic and most shocking scene of the entire narrative. It opens

with a description of place (“They came to the place”) and ends with the chilling words, “And he took

the knife to slaughter his son”.

Scene 6: Verses 11-12. Here there is neither a change of location nor any jump in time. Rather, a new

character is introduced—the angel of God, who calls to Abraham from the heavens, restraining him at

the last moment from slaughtering his son.

Scene 7: Verses 13-14. These verses describe Abraham’s response to the words of the angel in actions

(verse 13) and in words (verse 14).

Scene 8: Verses 15-18. Here again there is no change in place or time. These verses record the angel’s

blessing to Abraham in the wake of his actions.10

Scene 9: Verse 19. This concluding verse contains a common “concluding” motif—the hero’s return to

his home.11

The story may be divided into two halves, the first including the first five scenes and the second

covering the other four, with a direct parallel between the scenes comprising each of the two halves.12

The first scene parallels the sixth. In both cases Abraham is called from the heavens: “And He said to

him, ‘Abraham’, and he said, ‘Here I am’” (1); “And he said, ‘Abraham, Abraham!’, and he said, ‘Here I

am’” (11). In both instances Abraham receives a Divine command pertaining to his only son: “And He

said: Take, I pray you, your son, your only one... and bring him up there as an offering” (2); “Do not set

your hand to the boy... and you have not withheld your son, your only one, from Me” (12). The second

command nullifies the first, and it therefore represents the turning point of the story.

The second and third scenes parallel the seventh. In the first half of the story we read, “Abraham lifted

his eyes and he saw the place from afar” (4), while in the second we read, “Abraham lifted his eyes

and he saw, and behold—a ram was caught by his horns in the thicket” (13). These scenes make

mention of animals: a donkey and a ram.

The fourth scene parallels the eighth. In contrast to the previous pair, the parallel here is thematic

rather than stylistic. In the fourth scene Abraham expresses his complete faith in God in his dialogue

with Isaac; in the eighth scene the angel states Abraham’s reward for obeying God.

The fifth scene is the most central and dramatic one; here Abraham stretches his hand to slaughter his

son. It corresponds to the ninth and final scene—the calm and tranquil picture where everyone returns

home. This creates a literary contrast between the dramatic climax and the easing and conclusion.13

The division into scenes helps us to keep track of the characters in the story, with a different set of

characters appearing in each scene:

Click to view

  

The table demonstrates clearly that Abraham is the main character of the story; he appears in every

scene. All the rest—God, the angel, Isaac, the attendants, the donkey and the ram—are secondary

characters who appear in only some of the scenes.14 We shall now address the role of the characters

surrounding Abraham. We shall focus on the second, third, fourth and fifth scenes, with a view to

exposing Abraham’s inner world. SECOND AND THIRD SCENES—TARRYINGGo to section...

 

What role is filled by the secondary characters surrounding Abraham in the story of the Binding of

Isaac?

God addresses Abraham three times over the course of the story. The first time He addresses him

directly, at the beginning of the story; thereafter He addresses him twice more via the angel. God’s

words activate Abraham; they cause him to set out on his journey, and they stop him from sacrificing

his son.

Isaac, who appears in four scenes, is the essential background to the story, although he is not the

main character. He is the means by which God tests Abraham.15

The attendants and the donkey, appearing in the second and third scene and then absent for the

rest of the story, are something of a mystery. What is their role? They do not cause Abraham to act,

they are not needed for the progress of the plot, and seemingly the power and message of the story

would in no way be lessened in their absence.16

We propose that the function of these characters is to shed light on Abraham’s behavior. To

understand this better, let us consider verse 3:

And Abraham arose early in the morning,

And he saddled his donkey

And he took his two attendants with him

And Isaac, his son,

And he hewed wood for the sacrifice,

And he arose and he journeyed to the place which God had told him.

At first glance, we note Abraham’s zeal and alacrity: the verse mentions him arising early in the

morning, and then squeezes in a total of no less than six successive verbs: “And [he] arose early—and

he saddled—and he took—and he hewed—and he arose—and he journeyed”. This gives an impression

of haste and obedience.

At the same time, a closer look at the actions gives rise to a question. Would it not be more

appropriate for the verse first to mention Isaac—who, after all, is the most important “baggage” that

Abraham must take with him—rather than the donkey and the attendants? Why does the text first

mention the latter?

It seems that the text hints here to Abraham’s inner doubts and misgivings. He first saddles his

donkey, then takes the attendants—as though expecting, at each stage, a new command that may

come and nullify the original one. Only after all of these preparations, and against his will, as it were,

does he take Isaac. The wording of the verse—“He took his two attendants with him, and Isaac, his

son”—conveys the impression that Isaac is almost an afterthought, appended as it were to the taking

of the attendants.

Even after he has taken Isaac, Abraham does not yet set off. Again he tarries—this time for the

purpose of hewing wood for the sacrifice. Why is the wood not prepared and ready? Why is there a

need to prepare wood at all, considering that twigs and branches can easily be gathered on the way or

at the site?17

Thus, verse 3 conveys a double message. There is evidence of external obedience and alacrity, but at

the same time the focus on the attendants, the donkey and the wood for the offering hint to some

tarrying, perhaps in the hope of receiving a Divine command canceling the existing one.

Beyond the series of activities listed in the verse, it may be that the attendants and the donkey

contribute in another way to the desire to tarry. The smaller the group that sets out on the journey, the

easier it is to get organized and to make haste. A larger group requires more time to consolidate

before setting off, and also slows progress along the way, since food and lodging must be taken care

of.18 The verse’s emphasis on the decision to take the attendants and the donkey along may therefore

also reflect the hope of some delay, perhaps bringing a solution to Abraham’s terrible anguish.

In the third scene (verses 4-6) the attendants and the donkey, as secondary characters, once again

contribute indirectly to a delay. In verse 5 Abraham halts the journey, as he catches sight of the place

from afar, to issue instructions to the attendants: “And Abraham said to the attendants: You—remain

here with the donkey, and I and the boy shall journey yonder, and we shall worship and return to you”.

Verse 6 is the direct result of verse 5. After leaving the attendants and the donkey behind, “Abraham

took the wood for the sacrifice and he placed it upon Isaac, his son, and he took in his hand the fire

and the knife”. Until now it was the donkey that had carried the wood,19 and the attendants could have

been enlisted to help carry the rest of the equipment. Now the old man and his young son take the

entire load onto their shoulders. Is this not more deliberate stalling on Abraham’s part, as they begin

to draw close to the place of which God had told him?20

 FOURTH SCENE—HESITATIONGo to section... 

This scene features only Abraham and Isaac. The dialogue that develops between them would again

appear to hint at Abraham’s inner turmoil on his way to carrying out God’s command.

Firstly, let us consider the description of the speakers. Usually, the speakers in a biblical dialogue are

named at the outset, and thereafter the narrative indicates a change in speaker with a mere “And he

said”, without specifying the speaker.21 The conversation between Abraham and Isaac deviates from

this model:

And Isaac said to Abraham, his father: (participants named at the outset)

And he said: My father;

And he said: Here I am, my son.

And he said: Here is the fire, and the wood, but where is the sheep for the sacrifice?22

And Abraham said: God will take care of a sheep for the sacrifice, my son.

The naming of the speaker in the last part of the dialogue, although we already know who is talking,

indicates Abraham’s perplexity and anguish at his son’s direct question, “Where is the sheep for the

sacrifice?” A decisive, obedient Abraham who was not plagued with doubts would not have hesitated in

answering. The Abraham who is torn between his commitment to his Creator and his commitment to

his offspring, wavers for a split second before replying.23

The content of the dialogue, too, contributes towards the impression that Abraham is battling with

himself on his difficult path. In the previous scene, Abraham referred to Isaac simply as “the boy”—

perhaps with a view to disconnecting himself emotionally from his son.24 In this scene, however,

Abraham twice concludes his responses to Isaac in a softer, more loving way: “Here I am, my son” (7);

“God will take care of the sheep for the sacrifice, my son” (8).25

 FIFTH SCENE—DELAYGo to section... 

Abraham’s attempts to put off carrying out the Divine command continue when he reaches the place

that God has indicated to him (Scene 5, verses 9-10). The text expresses this delay with another list of

six successive verbs: “And he built—and he arranged—and he bound—and he placed—and he put forth

—and he took”. This long list of actions, recalling the series of six verbs that appeared in Scene 2

(verse 3), conveys to the reader a sense of busyness, a lingering activity. At the end of this list of

actions comes the harrowing image that proves Abraham’s intention to fulfill the will of God: And he

took the knife to slaughter his son (10).

Abraham realizes that his attempts to stave off the task that awaits him have had no effect. At this

point he puts his hesitations and doubts aside, and he is wholeheartedly ready to fulfill the will of his

Creator. It seems that it is this moment of clarity that God has been waiting for, and here the angel

appears and commands Abraham to halt.

 DEVELOPMENT IN ABRAHAM’S CHARACTERGo to section... 

Thus far we have seen that the text utilizes the secondary characters, the list of Abraham’s activities,

and the mention of the speakers in the dialogue and its content, to present Abraham’s hesitation and

his attempts to delay the fateful moment of sacrificing his son. His attempts at delay start even before

he leaves home, and they continue on the journey. After Abraham takes leave of his attendants, he is

still stalling for time. Even as he binds his son he is busying himself with this and that. However, when

there is nothing left to do and it becomes clear that the moment has come, he acts decisively and with

determination.

This development in Abraham’s character is hinted at through the use of two key words throughout the

story: “הנני” (Here I am), and the verb “לקח” (to take).26

Three times over the course of the story Abraham answers, “Here I am”:

“And God tested Abraham, and He said to him: Abraham! And he said, Here I am” (1);

“And Isaac said to Abraham, his father, and he said: My father! And he said, Here I am, my son” (7);

“And an angel of God called to him from the heavens and he said, Abraham, Abraham! And he said,

Here I am” (11).

The first “Here I am” is an absolute declaration, with no doubts, with absolute submission and

readiness to fulfill any Divine command even before it is given. The second appearance—“Here I am,

my son”—shows the other side: Abraham’s loyalty to his son. It is a sort of question that he poses to

himself: “How can I do such a thing to my son? Am I capable of sacrificing my son, even if it is in

fulfillment of God’s command?”

The third instance resolves the doubt. Abraham stands ready, about to “slaughter his son” (10). The

repeated call, “Abraham, Abraham!” indicates a last-minute sense of urgency, since Abraham will

carry out the act at any moment. Abraham declares, “Here I am” with a sense of submission to the

Divine command, this time with full knowledge of what is being asked of him, and he is ready to do

it.27 With this final “Here I am”, Abraham shows that he has withstood the Divine test; he does indeed

fear God and he has not withheld his only son from Him.28

The verb “to take” appears six times over the course of the narrative:

“And He said: Take, I pray you, your son, your only one, whom you love...” (2);

“And he took his two attendants with him, and Isaac, his son” (3);

“And Abraham took the wood for the sacrifices and placed it upon Isaac, his son, and he took  in his

hand the fire and the knife” (6);

“And he took the knife to slaughter his son” (10);

“And Abraham went and he took the ram and offered it as a sacrifice instead of his son” (13).

The first appearance of the verb is in the imperative (God’s command); the other five instances

describe Abraham’s activities. Abraham is commanded only to take his son, but he takes other people

and other things, too. He takes the attendants, he takes the wood for the sacrifice, and he takes in his

hand the fire and the knife. All of these acts of taking delay his fulfillment of God’s command, as

discussed above, and testify to Abraham’s misgivings. Only when he arrives at the appointed place

does he succeed in fully reconciling himself to fulfilling the Divine command, and he takes the knife to

slaughter his son. The final appearance of the verb “to take” testifies to his acceptance of the decree;

he takes a ram for slaughter “instead of his son”. Through this statement the text tells us that

Abraham had achieved the level of being willing to sacrifice his son.

 SUMMARY: ABRAHAM AS HE ISGo to section... 

Among biblical commentators and scholars, the accepted view of Abraham in the story of the Binding

of Isaac is of a one-dimensional, almost superhuman figure whose entire consciousness, on the way to

sacrifice his son, is focused solely on fulfilling the Divine will. According to this view there is no textual

evidence of any deliberation or hesitation in Abraham’s mind, and he is to be viewed as praiseworthy

for fulfilling God’s will without any doubt or misgiving.

In contrast to this prevailing opinion, I attempt to show that the biblical narrator uses various literary

devices to hint to the qualms that plague Abraham on his journey. Although he gives no voice to his

apprehensiveness, it may be uncovered through a careful and attentive reading of the text, exposing

Abraham’s inner world.

We cannot conclude our discussion without considering an important question: does the revelation of

Abraham’s apprehensiveness detract in any way from his stature and from his complete desire to fulfill

God’s will? It would seem that Abraham’s doubts and misgivings in no way lessen his worth. Abraham

is presented as a complex, human figure who is torn between his personal and family needs and wants

and the desire to fulfill God’s command. His decision to fulfill God’s word although it conflicts so

painfully with his own needs, illuminates the patriarch of the Israelite nation not as someone who

fulfills God’s command in a mechanical fashion, devoid of thought or independent will, but rather as a

great figure who chooses to fulfill God’s word even where this entails waging a difficult inner battle.

 Notes*) A version of this paper was read at the 2009 International Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Rome, Italy. All references in the article are to the Book of Genesis; all emphases in the article are mine.

1) See e.g. M. Popovic, “Bibliography of Recent Studies”, in E. Noort and E. Tigchelaar (eds.), The

Sacrifice of Isaac, The Aqedah (Genesis 22) and its Interpretations (Leiden, 2002), pp. 211-223.

2) The Midrash views hesitation in a negative light, and therefore places it in the mouth of “Satan”—the evil inclination. Abraham is depicted in the Midrash as answering each of Satan’s arguments confidently and decisively. See Bereshit Rabba parsha 56,4, Theodore-Albeck Edition, pp. 598-599. For a discussion of the midrashic legends on the story of the Binding, see e.g. N. Leibowitz, Studies in

Genesis (Jerusalem, 1973), p. 196; L. A. Berman, The Akeda, The Binding of Isaak (New Jersey, 1997), pp. 73-77. Y. Elboim (“More on the ‘AkedahLegends”, Jerusalem Studies Heb. Literature 9 [1986], pp. 341-356 [Heb]) suggests (346-347) two possible ways of understanding Satan in these midrashic legends: either Satan actually expresses what is going on in Abraham’s mind, or Satan is depicted as having an ontological personality. For a completely different understanding of the midrashic legends of Satan in the story of the Binding of Isaac, see S. Spiegel, “Concerning the Legends of the Akedah”, Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume (New York, 1950), pp. 620-622 (Heb). He maintains that the Midrash invokes some ancient motifs, which had appeared in earlier legends, with a view to silencing any possible claims by heretics.

3) See, e.g., the commentary of Rashi: “‘And [Abraham] arose early in the morning’—he made haste to perform God’s command; ‘and saddled’—he himself; he did not command one of his servants. This shows that love blurs logic” (3); “‘on the third day’—Why did [God] wait and not show it [the place] to him immediately? So that [the heretics] would not say, ‘He shocked him and mixed him up, all at once, and he lost his mind. Had he had time overcome his emotions, he would not have done it” (4); “‘and the two of them proceeded together’—Abraham, knowing that he was on the way to slaughter his son, went with the same willingness and joy as Isaac, who was unaware” (6). The midrashic legends cited by Rashi on verses 5, 12 and seemingly depicting Abraham’s deliberations are later additions; they were not penned by Rashi; cf. Mikraot Gedolot ha-Keter Edition (Bar Ilan, 1997). Rashi himself, in his commentary on this chapter, presents Abraham as being decisive and unwavering. See also the commentaries of Rabbi David Kimhi (Radak) and Rabbi Josef Bekhor Shor on verse 1.

4) It is rare to find an article that addresses the literal aspect of the story of the Binding of Isaac that does not begin with a reference to E. Auerbach’s landmark study, Mimesis: The Representation of

Reality in Western Literature (New York, 1957), pp. 1-20. Auerbach mentions the “background” in biblical narratives, and to his view this background may be interpreted, although it is given no expression in the text: “...time and place are undefined, thoughts and feelings remain unexpressed, are only suggested by the silence and the fragmentary speeches, the whole... remains mysterious and ‘fraught with background’” (11-12.). See also G. W. Coats, “Abraham’s Sacrifice of Faith”, Interpretation, A Journal of Bible and Theology27 (1973), pp. 389-400, maintaining that the absolute obedience to the Divine command is the main motif of the story; see esp. 392-393; N. M. Sarna, Genesis—The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia, 1989), pp. 151-152; G. J. Wenham, Genesis

16-50—WBC (Texas, 1994), pp. 106-107. Abraham’s confident journey, unclouded with doubts, also stands at the center of the famous work of S. Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling, trans. H. Honig and E. Honig (Princeton, 1983), pp. 27-53. See also E. F. Davis, “Self-Consciousness and Conversation: Reading Genesis 22”, IBR Bulletin for Biblical Research 1 (1991), pp. 34-35. See also below, n. 5. A small number of scholars have noted Abraham’s agonizing in his brief conversation with Isaac. See, e.g., Leibowitz (above, note 2), p. 199; F. Polak, Biblical Narrative—Aspects of Art and

Design (Jerusalem, 1994), pp. 284-287(Heb).

5) S. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (Sheffield, 1989), p. 22. In addition to the scholars cited above, n. 4, see also: G. Von Rad, Genesis, a Commentary—OTL, first pub. 1956, Trans. by J. H. Marks (London, 1961), p. 235; J. Licht, Storytelling in the Bible (Jerusalem, 1986), p. 116 and n. 24; F. Landy, “Narrative Techniques and Symbolic Transaction in the Akedah”, Signs and Wonders (USA, 1989), pp. 12-13; S. Japhet, “The Trial of Abraham and the Test of Job: How do they Differ?”, Henoch 16, 2-3 (1994), pp. 153-172. H. Moltz, “God and Abraham in the Binding of Isaac”, JSOT 26, 2 (2001), pp. 59-69, suggests that Abraham does not question the Divine command because of his fear and awe of God. Y. Mazor (“Genesis 22: the Ideological Rhetoric and the Psychological Composition”, Biblica 67, 1 [1986], pp. 81-88) notes a number of interesting literary aspects of the narrative, but arrives at a completely different conclusion from the one I shall present below. To his view, Abraham tries to keep his mind off the task that he has been given, since he is fixed on his goal of fulfilling God’s will under all circumstances.

6) See Sarna (above, note 4), p. 151; Moltz (above, note 5), pp. 62-64; Landy (above, note 5), pp. 12-13.

7) See, e.g., R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York, 1981), pp. 181-182; Wenham (above, note 4), p. 100; U. Simon, Seek Peace and Pursue It (Jerusalem, 2002), pp. 54-58 (Heb).

8) Concerning definition of the literary “act” or “scene”, see e.g. Bar-Efrat (above, note 5), pp. 95-96; 102-103; Polak (above, note 4), pp. 109-110. Landy (above, note 5), pp. 19-28, also traces the changes of place and time in the narrative.

9) On literary irony—i.e., the situation in which the reader knows something of which the character is not aware—see Bar-Efrat (above, note 5), pp. 125-129.

10) Most scholars maintain that verses 15-18 were added to the story at a later stage. See, e.g., R. Crotty, “The Literary Structure of the Binding of Isaak in Genesis 22”, ABR 53, 2 (2005), p. 33.

11) Concerning the hero’s return to his home as an indication of the conclusion of the story, see e.g. Bar-Efrat (above, note 5), p. 130.

12) Concerning direct parallel structure see, e.g., Polak (above, note 4), pp. 221-227.

13) It should be pointed out that other opinions exist as to the division of the narrative and its structure. Many scholars maintain that the story is build on a chiastic structure; see J. L. Ska, “Genesis 22, 1-19. Essai sur les Niveaux de Lecture”, Biblica 69 (1988), pp. 324-339; J. Doukhan, “The Center of the Aqedah: A Study of the Literary Structure of Genesis 22,1-19”,AUSS 31, 1 (1993), pp. 17-28. Avishur likewise contends that in its original form the story bore a chiastic structure—see Y. Avishur, “The

Narratives of the Binding of Isaac and Abraham’s Exodus from Haran—Structure, Style and Language”, Studies in the Archaeology and History of Ancient Israel: in Honour of Moshe Dotan (Haifa, 1991), pp. 91-106, esp. 92-97 (Heb.). Polak (above, note 4), pp. 132-133 sees in the story of the Binding of Isaac an equilibrium between two systems of roles—the human level and the Divine level. Wenham (above, note 4), p. 100, divides the account into six scenes and an epilogue, built on the structure of a chiastic parallel. Crotty (above, note 10), p. 33, posits that verses 1-14 are built on a chiastic structure. For an analysis of the structure of the story in accordance with the “Criticism of Forms” approach, see Coats (above, note 4), pp. 390-391. He divides the story into three parts, on the basis of three elements: exposition, development, and solution and conclusions, with a dialogue in each part.

14) Biblical scholars have pointed to Abraham as the main character of the story on the basis of the introduction by the biblical narrator: “God tested Abraham” (22:1), diverting the reader’s attention from the question of Isaac’s fate to that of the test faced by Abraham. See, e.g., N. M. Sarna, Understanding Genesis (New York, 1966), p. 161; Z. Adar, The Biblical Narrative (Jerusalem, 1976), p. 31 (Heb); Mazor (above, note 5), p. 82.

15) Although Isaac is a secondary character, we are able to discern something of his emotions in the brief dialogue between him and Abraham. His question—“Here is the fire and the wood, but where is the sheep for the offering?” (7) conspicuously omits the knife, mentioned in the previous verse: “And Abraham took the wood for the offering... and he took in his hand the fire and the knife” (6). Does Isaac deliberately omit mentioning the threatening knife? See R. Alter, Genesis—Translation and

Commentary (London, 1996), p. 105. In any event, both before and after the dialogue the text emphasizes the shared journey: “The two of them journeyed together” (6, 8).

16) This question has been addressed by many scholars. Rashi, citing the Midrash, explains that “An important person should not set out on a journey without two attendants” (verse 3), and the same view is echoed by Radak; H. Gunkel, Genesis, Trans. by M. E. Biddle (Georgia, 1997), p. 234; Sarna (above, note 4), p. 151. This is a technical explanation; it does not address the essence of the question. Other opinions suggest that introducing the attendants is a technique aimed at preserving contact with day-to-day reality, thereby highlighting the sacrifice as an act that goes beyond life. See Adar (above, note 14), p. 34. This is an attractive hypothesis, but it fails to explain why it is specifically the attendants who are chosen to highlight the “day-to-day”, nor does it address the donkey. To Westermann’s view, the attendants represent Abraham’s household, and the fact that they are left behind highlights Abraham’s loneliness. See C. Westermann, Genesis 12-36, A Commentary, Trans. by J. J. Sculion (Minneapolis, 1985), p. 359.

It should be noted that the attendants reappear in the final scene, from which Isaac is absent. From this the Midrash deduces that Isaac did not return with them (see citations by Spiegel [above, note 2], p. 471). However, the more literally-orientated commentators maintain that Isaac did return with

them, but the verse has no special reason to mention him: “Isaac is not mentioned since he is under his father’s patronage” (Ibn Ezra); “[The text] mentions Abraham, for he is the main character” (Radak). See also Spiegel, ibid., 472; U. Simon, Reading Prophetic Narratives (Indianapolis, 1997), p. 265; V. P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, 18-50—NICOT (Michigan, 1995), p. 117.

17) It is reasonable to assume that in the vicinity of the mountain it is easy to find wood. Indeed, further on we read that a ram is caught “with its horns in the thicket” (13). This shows that the act of hewing wood is a further delay tactic, perhaps adopted in the hope of hearing God cancel His decree. Abraham broadcasts his message to the heavens: See, I am serious; I’ve taken everyone and I’ve even hewn wood for the sacrifice. Is this not sufficient proof of my willingness to obey God? Gunkel (above, note 16), p. 234, suggests that the words, “And he hewed wood for the sacrifice” may be a secondary addition that was mistakenly integrated into verse 3. Benno Jacob proposes a different interpretation: to his view, Abraham uses this time to gain control over his stormy emotions; see B. Jacob, Das erste

Buch der Torah, Genesis (Berlin, 1934), pp. 494-495. Hamilton, in contrast, maintains that the hewing of wood testifies to Abraham’s desire to carry out the sacrifice without delay; see Hamilton (above, note 16), p. 107. See also Mazor (above, note 5), p. 85.

18) Another example of a donkey representing a delay is to be found in Ex 4:20—“And Moses took his wife and his sons and placed them upon the donkey, and returned to the land of Egypt”. Rashbam comments, on verse 24: “He took the journey slowly, leading his wife and sons”. On one hand, the donkey would appear to offer the possibility of making the journey quicker. On the other hand, it also causes delays insofar as it needs food and a place to rest along the way. See Gen 42:27—“And one of them opened his sack to give food to his donkey at the lodge”.

19) “‘And he hewed wood for the sacrifice’—and placed it upon the donkey” (Ibn Ezra, verse 3).

20) Mazor (above, note 5), suggests that leaving the attendants behind helps Abraham to keep his mind off the difficult task at hand.

21) See S. Talmon, Narrative Devices in the Bible (Jerusalem, 1965), pp. 42-43 (Heb).

22) We cannot ignore the irony of the fact that the “sacrifice” is carrying on his shoulders the very wood that will be used to sacrifice him... See Sarna (above, note 4), p. 152; Landy (above, note 5), p. 15.

23) Talmon (above, note 21), brings this conversation between Abraham and Isaac as an example of his thesis, asserting that a biblical conversation usually ends by naming the last speaker. I regard this instance as an exception to the general rule and offer a different explanation for the phenomenon. Another example of a conversation that hints at hesitation on the part of one of the speakers is to be

found in Gen 18:20. The text would appear to depict Abraham as hesitating each time he addresses God, while God’s responses are recorded in the regular, brief manner.

24) For a discussion of the term “boy” as a neutral and objective appellation, see e.g. Bar-Efrat (above, note 5), pp. 36-37; Wenham (above, note 4), p. 107. Many scholars have noted the emotion bound up in the word “beni” (my son); see e.g. Westermann (above, note 16), p. 359.

25) As noted e.g. by Wenham (above, note 4), p. 108. To Doukhan’s view (above, note 13, pp. 22-24), this dialogue is at the center of the chiastic structure of the narrative as a whole, and the dialogue itself is also built on a chiastic structure.

26) Polak (above, note 4), pp. 230-232, notes the key words in the story of the Binding of Isaac, without analyzing their significance.

27) There is no possibility of suggesting that here Abraham is expecting a sudden retraction of the decree, because of what the angel goes on to state: “Now I know that you fear God, nor have you withheld your son, your only one, from Me” (12).

28) For a discussion of hinneni as a key word in a different sense from the one discussed above, see Licht (above, note 5), pp. 116-117.