The Exodus of Abraham
You have already read your free article for this month. Please join the BAS Library or become an All Access member of BAS to gain full access to this article and so much more.
Already a library member? Log in here.
Institution user? Log in with your IP address or Username
Footnotes
The moral ambiguity of Abraham’s actions is explained, in part, by Abraham himself during his second “wife-sister act,” described in Genesis 20. When confronted for his duplicity, Abraham explains, “She really is my sister, the daughter of my father, but not of my mother” (Genesis 20:12). Moreover, Abraham felt compelled to lie, since “I said to myself, ‘There is certainly no fear of God in this place and they will kill me on account of my wife’” (Genesis 20:11). Whether these explanations clear Abraham of wrongdoing, I’ll let the reader decide.
In Lot’s defense, some scholars have argued that his action of offering his daughters to the sex-craved crowd is extremely noble, since he is willing to sacrifice his own children in order to save those seeking protection under his roof (the ultimate demonstration of hospitality).
While Ishmael is Abraham’s firstborn son by Hagar, Isaac is Abraham’s firstborn by Sarah, Abraham’s first wife. Isaac is also the one through whom, according to Genesis 21:12 and 26:2–5, God’s promises to Abraham would be fulfilled. Ishmael’s forced departure in Genesis 21:14 further emphasizes Isaac’s formal position as Abraham’s “firstborn” and explains, in part, why God later refers to Isaac as Abraham’s “only son” (Genesis 22:1).
Endnotes
Many of the ideas presented here first appeared in a volume honoring David Noel Freedman, the “Editor-in-Chief of Biblical Studies” and one of the most influential scholars of our generation. I commend the complete volume to BR’s readership: Le-David Maskil: A Birthday Tribute for David Noel Freedman , Biblical and Judaic Studies 9, ed. by Richard Elliott Friedman and William H.C. Propp (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004).
See, for example, Midrash Genesis 40.6; Ramban; Robert Alter, Genesis (New York: Norton, 1997), p. 52; and Richard Elliott Friedman, Commentary on the Torah (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2001), p. 53. For a treatment of Exodus imagery elsewhere in the biblical text, see David Daube, The Exodus Pattern in the Bible (London: Faber&Faber, 1963).
The verb pasach , which is otherwise rare in the Hebrew Bible (see 2 Samuel 4:4; 1 Kings 18:21, 26; and Isaiah 31:5), appears three times in the Exodus account (Exodus 12:13, 23, 27), and therefore became intimately associated with the Passover. Whether the verb pasach gave rise to the Hebrew name for this holiday (Pesach) or vice versa is unclear, as is the exact meaning of this word. Some of the proposals include: “pass over,” “protect,” “skip,” “limp,” “dance,” and “halt at.” For further discussion, see William H.C. Propp, Exodus 1–18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary , Anchor Bible 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1999).
One exception is Saul’s eating unleavened bread with the medium of Endor (1 Samuel 28:24). This action, however, seems to be the exception that proves the rule. That is, Saul’s consumption of sacred food (and with a medium, no less!) seems a further slur on his character. Compare 1 Samuel 13:8–14, where Saul also violates a cultic prohibition, in this case by offering a sacrifice, which is the prerogative of priests.
Note the wealth that Joseph’s brothers take with them when leaving Egypt (Genesis 45:23), which parallels the wealth the nation takes from Egypt during the Exodus. Also, Joseph’s parting words to his brothers—“Do not quarrel on the way!” (Genesis 45:24)—seem a purposeful foreshadowing of the Israelites’ constant complaining in the wilderness after they leave Egypt.
The Hebrew phrase is ka’et chayyah, which seems to mean “the time of reviving” or, perhaps, “the time of life.” According to some scholars (see, for example, M.I. Gruber, “The Reality Behind the Hebrew Expression
Some scholars have suggested that offering one’s firstborn son was, in fact, the original intent of this law, especially in light of other biblical passages such as Exodus 22:29–30: “Do not hold back the offerings from your granaries or vats. You must give me the firstborn of your sons. Do the same also with your livestock and your sheep. Let them remain with their mothers seven days, but then give them to me on the eighth day.” For more on this theme of child sacrifice in ancient Israel and its influence on Christianity, see Jon D. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993).
I am not the first to suggest that the near sacrifice of Isaac foreshadows Israel’s subsequent paschal ransoming of the firstborn son. As early as the Book of Jubilees, a Jewish apocryphal work written in the second century B.C.E., Isaac’s near-death experience was associated with the Passover. And even within the Bible itself there are indications that Isaac’s near sacrifice was meant to be connected with the ransoming of the firstborn son. For instance, following Abraham’s offering of a ram in Isaac’s stead, Genesis reports, “So Abraham called that place ‘The LORD will provide.’ That is why it is said to this day, ‘On the Mount of the LORD [i.e., the Temple Mount] it will be provided’” (Genesis 22:14). And, in the Book of Chronicles, the place of Isaac’s near sacrifice—Mt. Moriah—is explicitly connected to the eventual location of Israel’s Temple (2 Chronicles 3:1). Thus, minimally, the biblical authors desired to connect Abraham’s activities atop Mt. Moriah with Israel’s later sacrificial system atop the Temple Mount. Yet, given the other parallels between Abraham’s ransoming of Isaac and Israel’s command to ransom its own firstborn sons, it seems most likely that Isaac’s near-death experience was intended to foreshadow the events of the Passover.