Vetus

Testamentum

Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 546-559

brill.nl/vt

Willing Obedience with Doubts:

Abraham at the Binding of Isaac*
Jonathan Jacobs
Bar-Ilan University

Abstract
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 Abrahams mind, and he is
to be viewed as praiseworthy for fulfilling Gods 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 Abrahams inner world.
Keywords
Abraham, Binding of Isaac, secondary characters, Gen 22

Introduction
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 Abrahams
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 Abrahams part. Thus,
*) 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.
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010

DOI: 10.1163/156853310X527860

J. Jacobs / Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 546-559

547

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
2)
The Midrash views hesitation in a negative light, and therefore places it in the mouth of
Satanthe evil inclination. Abraham is depicted in the Midrash as answering each of Satans
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 Akedah Legends, 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
Abrahams 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 morninghe made
haste to perform Gods command; and saddledhe himself; he did not command one of his
servants. This shows that love blurs logic (3); on the third dayWhy 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 togetherAbraham, 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
Abrahams 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. Auerbachs 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, Abrahams
Sacrifice of Faith, Interpretation, A Journal of Bible and Theology 27 (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, GenesisThe JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia, 1989), pp. 151152; G. J. Wenham, Genesis 16-50WBC (Texas, 1994), pp. 106-107. Abrahams 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

548

J. Jacobs / Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 546-559

However, is it true that the literal text demonstrates no doubts in Abrahams

mind, or do we find some trace of misgiving with regard to Gods 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 Gods command unquestioningly, even though it comes at the
expense of his own future, his happiness, and his lifes work in spreading
monotheistic morality. For instance, the biblical narrative highlights Abrahams 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 Abrahams 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 Abrahams 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 Ishmaels banishment

Abrahams agonizing in his brief conversation with Isaac. See, e.g., Leibowitz (above, note 2),
p. 199; F. Polak, Biblical NarrativeAspects of Art and Design ( Jerusalem, 1994), pp. 284287(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 Gods 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.

J. Jacobs / Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 546-559

549

(Gen 21) and the Binding of Isaac7 likewise intensifies the sharp contrast
between Abrahams 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 Abrahams inner world and reveal
contrary to the accepted viewhis doubts and misgivings on his way to sacrifice his son.

Structure of the Narrative

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 storythat 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 Abrahams 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.

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 ironyi.e., the situation in which the reader knows something of which the character is not awaresee Bar-Efrat (above, note 5), pp. 125-129.

550

J. Jacobs / Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 546-559

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 introducedthe 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 Abrahams 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 angels blessing to Abraham in the wake of his actions.10
Scene 9: Verse 19. This concluding verse contains a common concluding
motifthe heros 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 beholda 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 Abrahams reward for obeying God.
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 heros 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.

J. Jacobs / Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 546-559

551

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 scenethe
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:

Scene

Verses

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

1-2
3
4-6
7-8
9-10
11-12
13-14
15-18
19

Featured characters
Abraham
Abraham
Abraham
Abraham
Abraham
Abraham
Abraham
Abraham
Abraham

God
Isaac
Isaac
Isaac
(Isaac)

attendants
attendants

donkey
donkey

angel
ram
angel
attendants

The table demonstrates clearly that Abraham is the main character of the story;
he appears in every scene. All the restGod, the angel, Isaac, the attendants,
the donkey and the ramare secondary characters who appear in only some

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
structuresee Y. Avishur, The Narratives of the Binding of Isaac and Abrahams Exodus from
HaranStructure, 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
rolesthe 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.

552

J. Jacobs / Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 546-559

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 Abrahams inner world.

Second and Third ScenesTarrying

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. Gods 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
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 readers
attention from the question of Isaacs 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 questionHere 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,
GenesisTranslation 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

J. Jacobs / Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 546-559

553

We propose that the function of these characters is to shed light on Abrahams 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 Abrahams 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 earlyand he saddledand he tookand
he hewedand he aroseand 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 Isaacwho, after all,
is the most important baggage that Abraham must take with himrather
than the donkey and the attendants? Why does the text first mention the
latter?
It seems that the text hints here to Abrahams inner doubts and misgivings.
He first saddles his donkey, then takes the attendantsas 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 verseHe took his two attendants with him,
and Isaac, his sonconveys the impression that Isaac is almost an afterthought, appended as it were to the taking of the attendants.
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 Westermanns view, the attendants represent Abrahams household, and the fact that they are left behind highlights Abrahams 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 fathers 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, 18-50NICOT
(Michigan, 1995), p. 117.

554

J. Jacobs / Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 546-559

Even after he has taken Isaac, Abraham does not yet set off. Again he
tarriesthis 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 verses 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 Abrahams 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: Youremain
here with the donkey, and I and the boy shall journey yonder, and we shall
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; Ive taken everyone and Ive 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 Abrahams 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 4:20And 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 42:27And one of them opened his sack to give food to his donkey at the lodge.

J. Jacobs / Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 546-559

555

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 Abrahams part, as they begin to draw
close to the place of which God had told him?20

Fourth SceneHesitation
This scene features only Abraham and Isaac. The dialogue that develops
between them would again appear to hint at Abrahams inner turmoil on his
way to carrying out Gods 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 Abrahams perplexity and anguish at
his sons direct question, Where is the sheep for the sacrifice? A decisive,
obedient Abraham who was not plagued with doubts would not have hesitated
19)

And he hewed wood for the sacrificeand placed it upon the donkey (Ibn Ezra, verse 3).
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.
20)

556

J. Jacobs / Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 546-559

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 boyperhaps 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 SceneDelay
Abrahams 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 builtand he arrangedand he boundand he placedand he
put forthand 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 Abrahams 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.

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 Gods 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 Doukhans 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.

J. Jacobs / Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 546-559

557

Development in Abrahams character

Thus far we have seen that the text utilizes the secondary characters, the list
of Abrahams activities, and the mention of the speakers in the dialogue and
its content, to present Abrahams 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 Abrahams character is hinted at through the use of
two key words throughout the story: ( Here I am), and the verb
(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 appearanceHere I am, my sonshows the other side:
Abrahams 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 Gods 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
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).

558

J. Jacobs / Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 546-559

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 (Gods command); the
other five instances describe Abrahams 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 Gods command, as discussed above, and testify to Abrahams 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 Is
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 Abrahams mind, and he is to
be viewed as praiseworthy for fulfilling Gods 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
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.

J. Jacobs / Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 546-559

559

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 Abrahams inner world.
We cannot conclude our discussion without considering an important
question: does the revelation of Abrahams apprehensiveness detract in any
way from his stature and from his complete desire to fulfill Gods will? It
would seem that Abrahams 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 Gods command.
His decision to fulfill Gods word although it conflicts so painfully with his
own needs, illuminates the patriarch of the Israelite nation not as someone
who fulfills Gods command in a mechanical fashion, devoid of thought or
independent will, but rather as a great figure who chooses to fulfill Gods word
even where this entails waging a difficult inner battle.

Copyright of Vetus Testamentum is the property of Brill Academic Publishers and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.