God Tests Abraham

1.

The midrash is a genre of rabbinic literature that includes homilies as well as commentaries on specific books of the Bible.

2.

This is in contrast Noah, whom our sages criticize for not speaking up when God announced his plan to destroy the world by the Flood. Moses, too, was told about God’s plan destroy the Jewish people and start a new nation from Moses’ progeny, after the sin of the golden calf (Exodus 32:1–14), and he is praised by our sages because he objected. In Jewish tradition, a prophet’s conscientious objection to a divine plan order is praiseworthy; in Jewish law, a prophet may only follow divine commands to violate God’s law if his purpose is protect the law. (See Responsum No. 652 of Razbag, Rabbi David ibn Zimka of Egypt and Palestine, renowned 16th-century halakhic interpreter.)

3.

According to the midrash, Abraham’s apparent obedience to God’s command caused Sarah’s death and Isaac’s alienation from him forever after. Although Abraham and Isaac ascend Moriah together, the Torah emphasizes that Abraham “returned to his servants” alone (Genesis 22:19); Abraham and Isaac settle in different places and never speak to each other again.

4.

There are hints in the text that Abraham never intended to kill Isaac. For example, Abraham brings along two young men on the trip, presumably to guard Isaac and him—but why take along potential witnesses to a killing, and why the need for them on a trip at God’s command? Going up Moriah, Abraham tells them: “We [Isaac and I] will…return to you” (emphasis added). When Isaac asks Abraham, “Where is the lamb for the sacrifice?” Abraham answers, “God will find for himself the lamb…” instead of “for us,” suggesting that Isaac was in no danger if the lamb was not found, but God needed the lamb in order to retain his only follower, and the founder of the world religion that would spread God’s message of ethical monotheism.

5.

Moreover, the Bible’s use of angels, instead of God, to state that Abraham did not “[intend to] withhold” his son, actually suggests the opposite conclusion. In Jewish tradition (based on the, story of creation in Genesis and other biblical and talmudic sources), angels—in contrast to man, who is born with free will—are perfect in their essence, and therefore lack the capacity for or understanding of moral choice and intent. They can comprehend only human actions (see discussion by Rabbi Chayyim Hezekiah Medini [1833–1905], in his 18-vol. quasi-talmudic encyclopedia, Sedei Chemed). Thus, for example, the angels objected to the creation of man because he is subject to sin, and they cannot forgive a repentant sinner; they lack understanding of his temptation and later change of heart (see Exodus 23:21 and the authoritative medieval biblical commentary of Rashi). The Akedah, therefore, is indirectly and subtly telling us that angels could not have known what Abraham intended to do; and is contrasting their mechanical obedience to God’s will (evident by their believing and praising Abraham’s apparent obedience to God’s command to kill Isaac) with Abraham’s silent moral response—which was to question and, if ultimately necessary, resist that terrible command.