His hand is even raised to slay his son when he hears the divine voice, clear and distinct,

saying that God does not desire the completion of the sacrifice, but is satisfied with the proved willingness of the patriarch to surrender even his dearest to Him. [138-9] above all, in contradistinction to Canaanite practice, the knowledge that God does not desire human sacrifices is acquired and secured for all time to come [139] It was, without doubt, of the highest importance in the struggle with this error which it was so difficult to eradicate, that the writers of the earliest history of Israel clearly taught in Abrahams life, and by his example, in what sense it is that God desires the sacrifice even of ones dearest child, and in what sense He does not; and also that they proved that the full truth on the matter in dispute had long ago been attained. [140] the narrative was originally composed by B^4 and not by C^5, although much in the language reminds us of the latter. The proofs are the prevailing use of ___ or ___, the revelation in a nocturnal vision (ver.1), the calls and replies(vv. 1, 11), in particular, the angels calling from the sky (ver. 11), the use of __in a local sense (ver. 5), and the result of a comparison of ver. 13 with ch. Xxi. 19. But vv. 15-18, to begin with, are not from B, seeing that the second angelic revelation which they contain is appended in the manner of an afterthought, instead of continuing ver. 12, and connects [140] The author does not say that Abraham was repelled by the terrible character of the sacrifice as such. Human sacrifices were usual among the people in the midst of whom Abraham lived. [143]

look out, provide, or see to. See further, ver. 14. In this word also there lies a quiet hope that God may yet determine otherwise. The author beautifully pictures the patriarch maintaining himself unshaken by the talk of the innocent boy, his only and much loved son. His obedience to God triumphs over the paternal feeling of his heart. The expressions my father, my son, bring this into prominence. [144] God is satisfied with Abrahams readiness to obey, with the disposition he has manifested; his perfect piety is demonstrated. God does not require human sacrifice. [144] --- Genesis Critically and Exegetically Expounded Dr. A. Dillmann Vol. II

Edinburgh T. &T. Clark, 1897

contextual research helps a little. Further study has traced the gods of the fatheres concept far beyond Alts Nabatean inscriptions to the early 2d millennium B.C., when the term referred to named deities, and the god El could be known as Il-aba El is father (Lambert 1981). Discussion of the various names and epithets for God in the Abraham narratives continues, revolving around the question whether they all refer to one deity or not. Apart from the (unacceptable) documentary analysis, explanations range from retrojection of a (post-) Mosaic editor to explanations of Exod 6:3 allowing the name to be known to Abraham, but not its significance) [39] --- The Anchor Bible Dictionary Vol. I A-C David Noel Freedman Doubleday New York 1992

1. It was after these events that God made Avraham pass through a great ordeal. So He said to him, Avraham. He (Avraham) replied, Im right here! 2. He told him, Please take your only son that you love, Isaac; then hurry to the Land of Moriah [60] --- Bereshit, the book of beginnings a new translation with commentary David B. Friedman WIPF & Stock Eugene, OR 2010

It poses acute questions about the nature of faith and the way of God with his faithful creature. [185]

Thus, our present text serves as a way to bring together the main affirmations of the Abrahamic tradition. [185] But in our present text, unexpected things happen. Only now do we see how serious faith is. This narrative shows that we do not have a tale of origins, but a story of anguished faith. The narrative holds rich promise for exposition. But it is notoriously difficult to interpret. Its difficulty begins in the aversion immediately felt for a God who will command the murder of a son. Erich Auerbach (Nemesis, 1953, 12) has discerned that this text, like others in Israel, is fraught with background and is presented to permit free play of interpretation. The intent is not clear. It requires some decisions by the interpreter. [185] We do not know why God claims the son in the first place nor finally why he will remove the demand at the end. Between the two statements of divine inscrutability stand verse 8, offering the deepest mystery of human faith and pathos. [187] Verse 1 sets the test, suggesting God wants to know something. (Notice the intent of God to know in 18:21, which also leads to a crisis.) It is not a game with God. God genuinely does not know. And that is settled in verse 12, Now I know. There is real development in the plot. The flow of the narrative accomplishes something in the awareness of God. He did not know. Now he knows. The narrative will not be understood if it is taken as a flat event of testing. It can only be understood if it is seen to be a genuine movement in the history between Yahweh and Abraham. The movement is from take (v. 2) to you have not withheld (v. 12), and from test (v. 2) to now I know (v. 12). The move in both forms is accomplished by the affirmation in verse 8, and enigmatic statement of unqualified trust. [187] Abraham has turned from his own way to the way of God which lies beyond his understanding [187] At the beginning, God is the tester (v. 1). At the end, God is the provider (v. 14). These two statements about God form the ultimate frame for the story. [188] Can the same God who promises life also command death? [188] The expositor must take care not to explain, for it will not be explained. But without explanation, the text leads us to face the reality that God is God. The narrative concerns Abrahams anguished acknowledgment that God is God. [189]

In what ways are we prepared for the God of Job and Abraham who gives and takes away, who promises but also commands and tests? [190] The testing of Israel by God is to determine if Israel would trust only Yahweh or if it would at the same time look to other gods. But to understand testing (or proving), it is necessary to consider not only nasah, the word used in textTesting is unnecessary in religions of tolerance. The testing times for Israel and for all of us who are heirs of Abraham are those times when it is seductively attractive to find an easier, less demanding alternative to God. [190] There are deep problems with affirming that God both tests and provides. The problems are especially acute for those who seek a reasonableness in their God. But this text does not flinch before nor pause at the unreasonableness of this story. God is not a logical premise who must perform in rational consistency. God is a free lord who comes as he will. [191] --- Interpretation (Genesis) Walter Brueggemann John Knox Press Atlanta 1982 The legend provides an edifying example of obedience for all subsequent devotees of Yahweh. Indeed, it emphasizes the importance of obedience for Israel by making the primary saint of obedience the father of Israel, the recipient of yahwehs promise for posterity. [162] ---Genesis with an introduction to narrative literature George w. coats Vol. I The forms of the old testament literature Grand rapids, michiigan William b. eerdmans publishing company 1983

Source criticism. The bulk of this passage stems from E. [233] ___ means to see what condition someone or something is in; in a religious sense, whether someone will obey Gods command or not (exod 16:4; deut 8:2; 13:4). The use of this concept in reference to God implies an anthropomorphism because, strictly taken, it excludes

omniscience. The narrator himself is unaware of this, however. E values establishing from the outset that Gods command to sacrifice Isaac was a trial of Abraham because he can explain this strange command in this way and because he wants to reprise these notions at the end (v 12). [234] The words your only, beloved make clear the weight of the self-denial. It is as though God added that he knows well what he asks. [234] Such a command presupposes that God can require anything of a person and that the person, if God commands, must obey. [234] It is fitting for God not to appear at a lesser point, but at the moment of decision. This is a beautiful and profound feature of the legends which speak, in their fashion, of the eternal comfort of all pious souls. God may be long silent, but in the final distress he will speak. [234] God wanted to test Abraham as to whether he is god fearing. This has now been determined. The performance of the sacrifice is, then, unnecessary: God does not want the procedure itself, but the attitude resolved to perform the procedure and advanced concept of spirituality. [235-6] At the same time, the legend speaks of the mercy of God who does not permit Abraham actually to kill his son. [236] --- Genesis Hermann Gunkel Mercer University press 1997 Macon, Georgia It is decisive for a proper understanding of what follows that one leave to the statement in v. I its entire weight (the word God is particularly emphasized in the syntax), and that one does not try to resolve it by a psychologizing explanation (e.g., by the assumption that Israel was here speaking her mind regarding her relation to Canaanite child sacrifice; she had come to grief over the greatness of this sacrifice and in this story answered the question whether she could justify her smaller sacrifice before God at all). One must indeed speak of a temptation (Anfechtung) which came upon Abraham but only in the definite sense that it came from God only, the God of Israel. [238-9]

The idea of an act of testing arranged for man by God leads ultimately to the realm of the cult. In the ritual of the ordeal, God is seeking to bring to light guilt or innocence On the other hand, the application of the idea of temptation or testing to the paradoxes of Gods historical leading is to be understood as a suppression of the ritual and an exit from the cultic realm, i.e., with respect to the history of faith, as a sign of positive maturity. 239-40] God does not will death, he wills life. But just as it is difficult to impute to a narrative like this any prejudice or polemic, so it is impossible to suspect it of so theoretical an occupation with the phenomenon of child sacrifice as such or to imagine it capable of such a religious programmatic character. For it describes an event that took place in the sacred history which began with Abrahams call and whose enigmatic character is qualified only by this realm. [244] --- Genesis a commentary Gerhard von Rad The Westminster press Philadelphia 1972

Here, God does just this: God asks that Isaac be sacrificed and provides and animal instead of Isaac. This issue belongs indisputably to the story, but with a metaphorical understanding of Israel as Gods firstborn. [494] From Abrahams perspective, the God who commands has filled his life with promises; he understands that God has Abrahams best interests at heart. He has already learned to trust this God. He has no reason to distrust the God from whom this word comes, however harsh and frightening it may be. [495] God commands Abraham not to kill or murder his son, but to present him on the altar as a burnt offering to God. The offering language places this entire episode within the context of the sacrificial system. The deed will be a specifically religious act, an act of faith, a giving to God of what Abraham loves (only then would it be a true sacrifice). [495] However, God does not engage in a ply, but offers a genuine command. Yet, the command pertains to a particular moment; it is not universally valid. Moreover, God does not intend that the commandment be fully obeyed. Hence, God revokes the command when the results of the test become clear and speaks a second command that overrides the first (v. 12)

[495] God intends not to kill Isaac but to test Abrahams faithfulness, which is essential if God is to move into the future with him. In responding, Abraham no doubt observes (as do all commentators) the apparent contradictory character of the command: God, having fulfilled the promise of a son, asks Abraham to sacrifice that son and the future that goes with him. [496] But nowhere does the text say that he now trusts more in God or has learned a lesson of some sortThe only one said to learn anything from the test is God: Now I know..God does not teach; rather, God learns. [496] The test raises the question of whether God can be trusted. This God promises, proceeds to fulfill that promise, and then seems to take it back. Can readers trust this God only because they know this is a test, and that God does not intend to kill Isaac? [498] If God did not provide, then that would constitute another kind of test, at a much deeper level than the one initiating this journey. [498]

---The new interpreters bible Acommentary in twelve volumes Vol 1 Abingdon press Nashville 1994