Deeper Commentary
22:1 It happened after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, Abraham! He said, Here I am- See on Gen. 24:18. Temptation comes from internal processes (James 1:13-15), but God does test, as He did Adam in Eden and Israel in the wilderness (Ex. 15:25; 16:4). The primary audience of the Pentateuch was Israel under testing; and so the example of Abraham was presented in that context. The testing was for Abraham's benefit, not God's; He doesn't need to reach understanding by experimentation. It has been observed: "In Late Bronze Age diplomatic correspondence, vassals attempt to demonstrate their loyalty by declaring they would carry out any command of the king even if it is self-destructive". Abraham was aware of this, but I suggest he loyally accepts it, and the point of the record is "obedience" rather than faith in resurrection, which I suggest is not upmost in Abraham's mind at this point. He believed he would receive Isaac back, so that the promises could be fulfilled (Heb. 11), but in what form and when were surely unclear to him. He showed the faith which is trust. And to be willing to sacrifice his son was effectively sacrificing his future, going against all basic human instinct. And that is indeed the call of Jesus to this day.
We note this [and :11] is the only time when God calls Abraham by name. It was to demonstrate the depth of His personal relationship with Him, and He repeatedly shows how He understands what He is asking of men. Likewise we note that "God" here has the article, ha. As if 'God, the God, tested Abraham'. And so Phyllis Trible translates: "God, indeed God, tested...".
That God tests man is a common theme. Ps. 26:2 “Probe me, YHWH, examine me, Test my heart and my mind in the fire”; Ex. 20:20 “Moses said to the people, ‘Do not be afraid; God has come to test you, so that your fear of him, being always in your mind, may keep you from sinning’ ”; Dt. 8:2 “Remember the long road by which YHWH your God led you for forty years in the desert, to humble you, to test you and know your inmost heart— whether you would keep his commandments or not”; Job 23:10 “And yet he knows every step I take! Let him test me in the crucible: I shall come out pure gold”; Zech. 13:9 "I shall pass this third through the fire, refine them as silver is refined, test them as gold is tested”; Ps. 17:3 “You probe my heart, examine me at night, you test me by fire and find no evil”. The testing as fire clearly alludes to probing the quality of gold and silver- and that is for the benefit of the tester, not the tested material. Yet does not God see and know all things? In one sense yes, in another, He limits His omniscience as He limits His omnipotence, in order to enter legitimate, felt relationship with us. "Surely they will reverence My Son [but they didn't]... I looked for My sons to be... [but they weren't]". Proverbs says that the spirit of man is the candle of the Lord, searching the innermost mind of man. I take that to mean that His probing of us is our probing of ourselves. We are revealed both to Him and to ourselves. And because self-examination is hard to totally achieve, He brings tests into our lives, to reveal ourselves to ourselves- and thereby to Him. This I suggest is what happened to Abraham. It is what happens to us as we come before the cross of the Lord in self examination at the communion table. If our hearts are zoned out and His death and resurrection means nothing, we are blank in feeling and response- then this is shown to God. If we feel motivated to lay down our lives, whilst admitting our humanity puts the brake on such desires... and we beg for God's patient endurance with us until we can do that... then, God sees that too.
In the end, Abraham didn't have to sacrifice Isaac; and perhaps one subtext of the story is to show that God wants us to be willing to sacrifice our children to Him, but He doesn't of course want us to do that in literal reality, and instead showed that animal and not human sacrifice was the path He chose for His people.
22:2 He said, Now take your son, your only son, whom you love, even Isaac- Isaac was not Abraham's only son. He had Ishmael, and other children by Keturah. But God is foreseeing Abraham's tendency to try to get around things; He is clarifying that He means Isaac, not Ishmael, nor Eliezer, whom Abraham had been tempted to consider his promised 'seeds'. God had always tested Abraham at the point of family relationships- leaving his natural family (Gen. 12:1), separating from Lot (Gen. 13:15-18), separating from Ishmael his son (Gen. 17:17,18); and now being willing to lose his beloved son Isaac, 'laughter', the one who had brought such joy to him and Sarah. Attitudes to family are critical; and so is the willingness to sacrifice what is nearest and dearest to us, whatever it is in our context. Clearly the incident is framed to point forward to the sacrifice of God's only and beloved Son; "the son of His love" (Col. 1:13) surely alludes back here. Perhaps we are to read the words here as meaning that Isaac was the "only" son whom he loved so much. Or it could be that Isaac is framed as Abraham's only son, just as Melchizedek is spoken of as having no parents, and no beginning nor end of life. The reference is to how the record is framed in Genesis; no genealogy nor chronological markers are provided for him. And so it might be there, with this presentation of Isaac as "your only son". But perhaps the idea is that Isaac was the only son of Abraham and Sarah. Abraham had frequently lied about her during their marriage (Gen. 20:13), and hardly comes over as willing to die for her. And yet God here speaks to Abraham as if he is Sarah, alluding to the unity which He counted as being between them. The decision to sacrifice Isaac would have ideally needed her agreement.
"Your only son" reflects how God did appreciate what He was asking of Abraham. It is stressed six times in the record that Isaac was to be offered as a "burnt offering". The emphasis reflects how God was intensely aware of the enormity of what He was asking Abraham to do. In Gen. 12:1, Abram had been asked to sacrifice his past, his homeland and family or origin- and eventually, Abram had done so. Now he is being asked to sacrifice his future- and he is willing. We naturally struggle with the idea of child sacrifice; but we must note that the later, Mosaic condemnations of child sacrifice were always in the context of forbidding the sacrifice of children to other gods. Israel were asked to give their firstborn to God: "You shall give the firstborn of your sons to Me" (Ex. 22:29). This was not literal child sacrifice; but the idea was that instead of giving your firstborn in literal sacrifice to a god, Israel were to give their firstborn in service to Yahweh, as living sacrifices.
And go into the land of Moriah. Offer him there for a burnt offering- It seems reasonable to conclude that Isaac was offered on or near the hill of Calvary, one of the hills (Heb.) near Jerusalem, in the ancient “land of Moriah" (where the temple was built, 2 Chron. 3:1). "Moriah" is a form of the Hebrew ra'a, 'to see' or provide. This is going to be a major theme; that on the mount of sacrifice, there Yahweh would provide. The ultimate 'seeing' and thereby provision of human need was in the gift of Jesus to die on Calvary. God sees our sins, and our inability in reality to put them right, nor to escape their consequence. He understood that, and His seeing is also His provision.
The command to sacrifice Isaac would apparently have meant that God's promises about the future seed through Isaac would not come true. I doubt whether Abraham was expecting to sacrifice Isaac and then see him instantly resurrected. I think his faith was rather in the sense that he trusted that God would somehow fulfil what He had promised, even though Abraham could not see how that would happen. This is where faith means trust, to believe is to trust, even when on an intellectual level we fail to see sense, justice or purpose.
It is stressed six times in the record that Isaac was to be offered as a "burnt offering". Ten times the word "son" is used in :2-16. The emphasis reflects how God was intensely aware of the enormity of what He was asking Abraham to do. The Biblical narrative is so sparse- just a small amount of text to cover decades. So when there is repetition of detail, we must see this as significant.
On one of the mountains which I will tell you of- As with the journey to the promised land, Abraham was not given specific details, and presumably an Angel in a cloud directed him to the specific spot. Abraham's earlier slow response is now far better- he gets up and goes straight away, trusting in guidance.
22:3 Abraham rose early in the morning- The flesh would naturally like to delay our response in case we can avoid the sacrifice required. But Abraham arises early in immediate obedience. He may have discussed the situation with Isaac, who would've been about 20, and he would have agreed of his own volition. However, Isaac's question in :7 suggests that he was not aware that he personally was to be offered.
And saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him- The details are added so that we can play "Bible television" with the scene and imagine it. "His young men" may refer to other sons he had had by concubines or Keturah. Perhaps he was willing to sacrifice them too if required. The fact Abraham himself does the mundane things like saddling the donkey and splitting the wood, when he heads a household of 318 trained servants, reflects how he very personally responded to the call. And we are left to infer that he did not inform Sarah. Our callings to the most intimate sacrifices are invariably faced alone. And the Abraham who elsewhere usually says something in response to God's voice... now is strangely silent throughout the three day journey. The splitting of the wood, saddling the donkey etc. are all recorded as highly calculated, consciously performed actions- all in obedience. And by those works was his incomplete faith "made perfect", the works didn't save him, but the experience of doing them matured his faith.
And Isaac his son- Continually the record reflects God's recognition of the sacrifice. Abraham had had to separate from his father's family, from Lot, he had twice been separated from Sarah his wife (Gen. 12:15; 20:3), twice from Hagar his servant girl partner, twice and finally from his son Ishmael whom he loved; and now, apparently, he was asked to separate from his beloved son Isaac. He had been well prepared for it, but all the same- he does it.
He split the wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place of which God had told him- There are examples of Abraham being progressively set up by God so that his spiritual growth would be an upward spiral. Initially, he was told to walk / go to a land which God would shew him (Gen. 12:1); when he got there, he was told to "arise", and "walk" through that land of Canaan (Gen. 13:17). And Abraham, albeit in a faltering kind of way, did just this. But this was to prepare him for the test of Gen. 22:3 in the command to offer Isaac. His obedience this time isn't at all faltering. He "arises" and 'goes' [s.w. "walk"] "unto the place of which God had told him" to offer Isaac (Gen. 22:3). This is exactly what he had been called to do right back in Ur- to arise and walk / go to a land / place which God would show him (Gen. 12:1). And so our obedience in one challenge of God leads us to obedience in others. I've elsewhere pointed out how circumstances tend to repeat both within and between the lives of God's faithful. One experience is designed to lead us to another. Nothing- absolutely nothing- in our lives is senseless chance. All- and this takes some believing- is part of a higher plan for our spiritual good, in our latter end.
The taking of wood with them is unusual, and remarkable. Because there would have been wood nearer, rather than having to take it three days journey. This unusual element in the narrative is to highlight the matter; and it becomes understandable once we perceive that the Father and Son were carrying the wood on which the son was to be sacrificed. This was exactly what happened as the Lord carried the wood of His cross to Golgotha. "Wood" and "tree" are the same word, so we picture Isaac carrying the tree on his shoulder. God was totally connected with Him in that last walk.
The record is as it were with the camera zoomed in very close upon Abraham and Isaac. We are to imagine the scene as if it were Bible television. The way the donkey was saddled, the wood split and transported, Abraham puts forth his hand, took the knife... and the silence as the two went "both together". We are being somehow invited into the unity between the Father and Son as the Lord travelled and walked to His death, in obedience to the Father's will.
22:4 On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes- The language is usually 'he looked and saw'. The mention of lifting up eyes is therefore suggestive of Abraham looking at the ground as he travelled, lost in thought.
And saw the place
far off- The
name given to the place, Yahweh-Yireh, means ‘in this mount I have
seen Yahweh’. The events of the death and resurrection of the Lord
which Isaac’s experience pointed forward to were therefore the
prophesied ‘seeing’ of Yahweh. When Abraham ‘saw the place [of Isaac’s
intended sacrifice] afar off", there is more to those
words than a literal description. Heb. 11:13 alludes here in saying
that Abraham
saw the fulfilment of “the
promises" “afar off". The Lord in Jn. 8:56 says that Abraham
saw His day or time [usually a
reference to His sacrifice]. And yet that place of offering was called
by Abraham ‘Jehovah Jireh’, ‘Jehovah will be
seen’. Note the theme of
seeing. In some shadowy way,
Abraham understood something of the future sacrifice of the Lord
Jesus; and yet he speaks of it as the time when Yahweh Himself will be
‘seen’, so intense would the manifestation of God be in the death of
His Son.
22:5 Abraham said to his young men, Stay here with the donkey. The boy and I will go yonder. We will worship, and come back to you- True sacrifice is praise of God; thus Abraham's willingness to offer Isaac was "praise" (s.w. "worship"). Israel in their repentance "will account our lips as calves" (Hos. 14:3 LXX, RVmg.), i.e. as sacrifices. The "fruit of the lips" there was repentance. Which is why the Hebrew writer says that we "make confession to his name" with the fruit of our lips (Heb. 13:15 RV). Continually we should offer this sacrifice of praise (Heb. 13:15), the thankfulness that wells up from knowing we are forgiven, the joy born of regular, meaningful repentance. And we do this "by" or 'on account of' the sacrifice of Jesus for us, which enables this forgiveness and thereby repentance (Heb. 13:12,15).
Mt. 26:36 has the Lord saying to the disciples: “Sit in this place [kathisate
autou] until going away, I pray there”, and then He takes
along with him [paralambanein] Peter. These
are the very words used in the Gen. 22 LXX account of Abraham taking Isaac
to ‘the cross’. Jesus is seeking to encourage Peter to see himself as
Isaac, being taken to share in the cross. Now whether Peter discerned this
or not, we don’t know. But the Lord gave him the potential possibility to
be inspired like this.
22:13 Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and saw that behind
him was a ram caught in the thicket by his horns. Abraham went and took
the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering instead of his son-
This was the "way of escape" of 1 Cor. 10:13, which alludes to this
incident and presents Abraham as every one of us. When the Lord on the
cross cried out "How have You forsaken Me!" (Mk. 15:34), the Aramaic
sabachthani also means "entangled". It's as if He is saying
"You have entangled me, I am not Isaac who was saved at the last
minute, I am like the entangled ram!". I have elsewhere commented
concerning the possibility that Christ felt that although He would be tied
to the cross as Isaac was, yet somehow He would be delivered. Clearly the
offering of Isaac is to be understood as prophetic of the Lord’s
sacrifice. The Lord's growing realization that the entangled ram
represented Him rather than Isaac would have led to this sense of panic
which He expressed in that cry from the cross. There is more evidence than
we sometimes care to consider that Christ's understanding was indeed
limited; He was capable of misunderstanding Scripture, especially under
the stress of the cross. Surely this incident is in view when John
says "Behold the Lamb of
God which takes
away the sin of the world"
(Jn. 1:29).
22:14 Abraham called the name of that place ‘Yahweh Will Provide’.
As it is said to this day, On Yahweh’s mountain, it will be provided-
See on Job 42:1.
Jehovah-Jireh can mean “Yahweh will show Yah", in eloquent prophecy of the
crucifixion. There Yahweh was to be manifested supremely.
Abraham comforted Isaac that "God will see for himself [AV 'provide'] the
lamb" (Gen. 22:8 RVmg.); and thus the RVmg. interprets 'Jehovah-Jireh' as
meaning 'the Lord will see, or provide'. The same word is
used when Saul asks his servants to "provide" him a man (1 Sam. 16:17).
When Hagar said "You God see me" (Gen. 16:13) she was expressing her
gratitude for His provision for her. What this means in practice is
that the fact God sees and knows all things means that He can and will
therefore and thereby provide for us in the circumstances of life; for He
sees and knows all things. Note that Prov. 28:27 and 29:7 RV speak of
‘hiding the eyes’ in the sense of not making provision for the need of
others. God’s eyes are not hidden, and therefore He makes provision. Dt.
2:7 speaks of how God ‘knew’ Israel’s journey through the wilderness, and
therefore they “lacked nothing”.
22:15 The angel of Yahweh called to Abraham a second time out of the sky- There was no Angel standing in front of Abraham to provide as it were visible backup. Really Abraham's faith in and response to the spoken word at this point is commendable.
22:16 And said, I have sworn by Myself, says Yahweh- The New Testament comments that this was because God could swear by no greater (Heb. 6:13). God was solemnly promising that all Abraham's seed would be saved because of this faith of Abraham confirmed now in his works. Because of the offering of Isaac, God confirmed His promise with this oath, by Himself. By His own life, is the idea. And God cannot die. This looked ahead to how the death of Jesus resulted in God confirming the promises to Abraham, which are the Gospel, with an oath. That by two unchangeable things [the promise and the oath], in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation and elpis, or "Hope", an absolute certainty of salvation. And not a 'hope for the best', as the English word 'hope' can mistakenly suggest. God is offering us salvation, eternal inheritance of the earth. Without conditions. And He has confirmed that. In this sense we take the cup of the new covenant "in His blood"; the new covenant was before the old covenant, it was the promises made to Abraham. The simple offer of eternity by grace alone. But the Lord's blood, the offering of the true 'Isaac', confirmed this- to us. Any doubt about the certainty of salvation was thereby removed. The Lord's blood was not per se necessary for our salvation. God who can do anything could as easily immortalize anyone at any point in time; He can forgive sin and deal with its consequences on any basis, or without any basis at all. He is not an angry deity who needed to be appeased by the blood of His firstborn. God is not a magician, neither did the blood of His Son achieve any kind of magic in removing our sin. That is the mistake of Catholicism and frankly this view is literalism's last gasp, making God's grace and forgiveness and salvation dependent upon literal blood. One of the many reasons for the Lord's death was therefore to confirm the covenant to us, to flag our attention to the certainty of the simple promises of salvation given to Abraham which are the Christian Gospel (Gal. 3:8). His death was to persuade us of the certainty of our salvation. It confirmed the covenant which was already sure and certain. That we might have strong consolation and a Hope so certain that it is the anchor of our souls. For we are heirs of the same promise (Heb. 6:17).
Because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son- According to Heb. 11:12, God’s promises to Abraham were fulfilled on account of his faith; God in some way allowed Himself to be potentially limited by Abraham’s faith. Indeed, the promised world-wide blessing of all nations was promised only “because you have obeyed my voice” (Gen. 22:16,18). In this sense the covenants of salvation were partly due to another man [Abraham] being faithful [although above all our salvation was due to the Lord Jesus]. In this sense he is the “father” of the faithful.
The offering of Isaac was without doubt an act of faith by Abraham. His trust in the invisible God, His reflection upon a series of promises which amount to no more than about 200 words in Hebrew, was balanced against his natural hope for his family, human affection, common sense, love of his beloved son, lifelong ambition... and he was willing to ditch all those things for his faith in God's promises. You can speak 200 words in a minute. The total sum of God's recorded communication with Abraham was only a minute's worth of speaking. Abraham had so much faith in so few words; and perhaps the number of words was so few so that Abraham would memorize and continually reflect upon them. Yet the total number of words God or an Angel spoke to Abraham about anything was pretty small- the total [including the words of the promises] comes to only 583 Hebrew words- which can be spoken in less than three minutes [Gen. 12:1-3 = 28 words; Gen. 12:7 = 4 words; Gen. 13:14-16 = 44 words; Gen. 15 = 117 words; Gen. 17 = 195 words; Gen. 18 = 87 words; Gen. 21 = 26 words; Gen. 22 = 82 words]. And remember that all these words, these snatches of brief conversation, were spoken to Abraham over a period of 100 years or so. His faith in God's word, His mediation upon it and following its implications, really does make him a spiritual "father of us all". We have the Bible, a whole book of God's words, which we can instantly access and read. Would we were to have a like sensitivity to every word spoken.
Spiritual ambition means that we will desire to do some things which we
can’t physically fulfil- and yet they will be counted to us. Abraham is
spoken of as having offered up Isaac- his intention was counted as the
act. And Prov. 19:22 RV appropriately comments: “The desire of a man is
the measure of his kindness”. It is all accepted according to what a man
has, not what he has not.
Faith is perfected / matured by the process of works (James 2:22,23). The
works, the upward spiral of a life lived on the basis of faith, develop
the initial belief in practice. Thus Abraham believed God in Gen. 15, but
these works of Gen. 22 [offering Isaac] made that faith “perfect”.
Through his correct response to the early promises given him,
Abraham was imputed “the righteousness of faith”. But
on account of that faith
inspired by the earlier promises, he was given “the promises that he
should be heir of the world” (Rom. 4:13). That promise in turn inspired
yet more faith. In this same context, Paul had spoken of how the Gospel
preached to Abraham in the promises leads men “from faith to faith”, up
the upward spiral (Rom. 1:17).
God ‘spared not’ His
own son (Rom. 8:32)- alluding to the LXX of Gen. 22:16, where Abraham
spares not his son.
22:17
That I will bless you greatly, and I will multiply your seed greatly
like the stars of the sky, and like the sand which is on the seashore.
Your seed will possess the gate of his enemies-
The promise Paul refers to in Rom. 4:13 was given to Abraham because of,
dia, on account of, his being
declared right with God by faith in Gen. 15:6. Perhaps Paul specifically
has in mind the promise of Gen. 22:17,18. Having been declared right with
God, Abraham was then promised that he personally would be heir of the
world- the implications of being right with God, counted righteous, were
thereby fleshed out and given some more tangible, material, concrete form.
He would therefore live for ever, because he was right with God; and the
arena of that eternity would be “the world”.
God appears to use language with no regard as to whether the people who
first heard it could understand it. God spoke to Job about snow (Job
37:6), to Abraham about sand on the sea shore (Gen. 22:17), to Noah about
rain (Gen. 7:4) – things which they had never seen. And the New Testament
concepts of grace, agape love, humility etc. were outside the ability of
first century Greek to properly express; new words had to enter the
language in order to express these ideas. Yet God is also capable of
speaking in the language of the day, bringing Himself right down to our
human level of language use. It is vital to appreciate that God uses
language in different ways in different parts of the Bible – otherwise our
interpretation of it will be inconsistent and contradictory.
In some cases God uses language in a relative sense in order to
emphasize something. Thus we read here of many being saved (Gen. 22:17), yet in
another sense few will be saved (Mt. 7:14; 20:16; Lk. 13:23). Relative to
the wonder of salvation, many will be saved; but numerically, the figure
will be small, from the perspective of this world. The way to the Kingdom
is easy relative to the wonder of what is in store for the faithful (Mt.
11:30; 2 Cor. 4:17); and yet from our human perspective it is hard indeed,
a life of self-crucifixion (Acts 14:22; Rev. 7:14). Our sufferings now are
only for a moment compared to the glorious eternity of the Kingdom (Ps.
37:10; 2 Cor. 4:17), and yet the language of the Bible also expresses
God’s appreciation that from our perspective, our time of probation is “a
long time” (Mt. 25:19). “Many” – relatively- would be converted to the
true ways of God by the work of John the Baptist (Lk. 1:16), whilst
numerically the majority of those who heard John’s message eventually
turned away from it, culminating in their crucifixion of the Messiah.
22:18 In your seed will all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice- Those seminal promises to Abraham hinged around what would be realized in, not "by", his seed. All that is true of the Lord Jesus is now true of us, in that we are in Him. Often the promises about the seed in the singular (the Lord Jesus) are applied to us in the plural (e.g. 2 Sam. 7:14 cp. Ps. 89:30-35). Baptism is not an initiation into a church. It isn't something which just seems the right thing to do. And even if because of our environment and conscience, it was easier to get baptized than not- now this mustn't be the case. We really are in Christ, we are born again; now we exist, spiritually! And moreover, we have risen with Him, His resurrection life, His life and living that will eternally be, is now manifest in us, and will be articulated physically at the resurrection.
The
Lord's later command to preach to "all nations" would ring bells in Jewish minds with
these promises to Abraham, concerning the blessing of forgiveness to come
upon "all nations" through Messiah (Gen. 18:18; 22:18; 26:4). Therefore
God's people are to preach the Gospel of forgiveness in Christ to "all
nations". The offer of sharing in that blessing did not close at the end
of the first century. Putting the "all nations" of the Abrahamic promises
together with Christ's preaching commission leads to a simple conclusion:
The Hope of Israel now applies to all nations; so go and tell this good
news to all nations, for the extent of the fulfilment of the promises
depends to some extent upon us.