JEF Sunday School Lesson 9

February 18, 2006 | 22 comments


I am going to focus on Genesis 22 this week rather than try to provide questions for all four chapters. As you can well imagine, the scholarly literature on Genesis 22 is enormous, thousands and thousands of pages. I don’t pretend even to have dipped into that literature. At the most I’ve wetted the tip of my finger, so I cannot pretend to do much justice to the piece I’m focusing on, much less to three additional chapters.

Genesis 22

Verse 1: Chapter 22 begins by explicitly referring back to the events of chapter 21: “after these things.” It seems that Moses wants us to understand chapter 22 in relation to chapter 21. Genesis 21 tells of the promised birth of Isaac, and of Ishmael and Hagar being cast out. It also tells of the covenant that Abraham made with Abimelech. The first two of these stories are clearly background to the sacrifice in chapter 22, but are they any more than that? What insight into the story might they give us? Also, why is the story of Abraham and Abimelech included? What does that story teach us? How might it help us understand chapter 22? The story also appears to be written in such a way as to remind us of Genesis 12:1. What might that connection teach?

The word Elohim is used in the first sentence of the verse (with a definite article). Of what significance is it that he (presumably the Father), and not Jehovah (the Son), poses this test? Notice the footnote in the LDS edition of the scriptures. In 16th and 17th century English, the word “tempt” meant not only “to allure,” as it does today, but also “to test” or “to try.” Why would the Lord need to try Abraham? Does Abraham know that this is a test? Consider some other tests in the Old Testament: Exodus 15:25, 16:4, 20:20; Deuteronomy 8: 2, 16; Judges 2:22; 1 Kings 10:1; Daniel 1:12-14. Does seeing what are considered tests (or “proofs”) in those cases help us understand what the Lord means here?

“Behold, here I am” means, literally, “See me here.” In Arabic, even today a person answers a call with something similarâ€””Ready”â€”and that is part of the import of this response. In scriptures we find this phrase commonly used when prophets respond to a call. (For other examples of the phrase, see verse eleven of this chapter, Genesis 27:1, 18; 31:11; and 46:2; Exodus 3:4; 1 Samuel 3:4, 5, 6, 8, and 16; Isaiah 6:8; and 2 Nephi 16:8. We also see it in Moses 4:1 and Abraham 3:27, in the calling of the Savior and in Satanâ€™s rebellion.) Compare what happens here to 1 Samuel 12:3, where we see the same kind of language in another case, and Genesis 3:9-10 and Exodus 20:18-21, where we see cases in which people donâ€™t respond to a call from the Lord in this way. What might be the scriptural import of this response?

Verse 2: The verb translated “take” could also have been translated “please take.” That is rare in a divine command. Why is it part of this command? Is this really a command, or is it a request? Could Abraham have refused? Could he do as he did for Sodom and Gomorrah and bargained with God? If not, why not?

There is a traditional Jewish story told of this verse: God said, “Take thy son.” Abraham said, “But I have two sons!” God said, “Whom thou lovest,” and Abraham said, “But I love them both.” God said, “Even Isaac.” The writer shortened everything by giving us only Godâ€™s words. What problem is this story designed to solve? Are there other answers to that problem? Why is Isaac said to be Abrahamâ€™s only son? What about Ishmael? (The Hebrew is emphatic about him being the only son.) Similarly, why is the Savior said to be the Fatherâ€™s only son? Arenâ€™t we also the children of our Father in Heaven? Does thinking about the question in Abrahamâ€™s case help us understand the question in the second case? Why does the Lord add “whom thou lovest”? Is that written for us or for Abraham? If for us, what does it do to help us understand the story? If for Abraham, why does the Lord remind him of his love of Isaac?

Why doesnâ€™t the Lord tell Abraham which mountain he is to go to? Why wait to tell him? We don’t know for sure where the “land of Moriah” was. The temple mount is named Moriah. (See 2 Chronicles 3:1.) Perhaps the region of Moriah contained what would become the temple mount, but we don’t know. Though the Septuagint (a very early translation of the Old Testament into Greek) calls the land “the high land.” However, the temple mountain is more a hill than a mountain. Some have seen a connection between the word “Moriah” and the word “myrrh,” one of the incenses used in the temple. Why would the sacrifice of Isaac be so closely connected with the ancient temple? What connections might it have to the modern temple? Besides the possible connection between “myrrh” and “Moriah,” some connect the word “Moriah” to the Hebrew word for sight or vision (mrâ€™h). (For example, the Vulgate, an early Latin translation, calls Moriah “the land of vision.”) Does the sacrifice of Isaac have anything to do with vision? Does the ancient temple? Does the modern temple? Still others connect “Moriah” to the Hebrew word for “teaching.” What has that to do with the ancient temple? The modern? It is not uncommon for people to say that they learn a great deal in the temple? What do they mean? About what do they learn?

“Offer him there for a burnt offering”: The Hebrew says, literally, “take him up there for (or â€˜asâ€™) a burnt offering.” Though the wording is the wording one would use to tell someone to make a sacrifice, the Hebrew is more ambiguous than the English; it is less obvious in Hebrew that a blood sacrifice is demanded. Some of the ambiguity can be seen in an alternate translation: “Offer him as a burnt offering.” What do we make of this ambiguity? How does what the Lord commands here compare to what we see recorded in Judges 11:31-40, and 2 Kings 3:27 and 17:17? How would Abraham’s experience (Abraham 1:12) have made him feel about this commandment?

In English, the word “sacrifice” is closely related to “sacrify,” meaning “to make sacred.” We often think of sacrifice as giving something up, but it isnâ€™t necessarilyâ€”except that to recognize something as holy is no longer as claiming that it belongs to me. In what sense or senses was Isaac sacrificed?

Verse 3: Why does Moses tell us that Abraham rose “early in the morning”? Why doesnâ€™t he tell us anything at all about how Abraham felt or what he was thinking? This events in this verse are out of sequence: Abraham arose, he saddled the ass, he took his servants and Isaac with him, he cut some wood, he rose up, they went to Moriah. The expected sequence would have Abraham cut the wood before saddling up the ass before or leaving with the young men and Isaac. Why do you think that Moses has given the events this order? Though we see here that Abraham has at least two servants, and earlier scriptures tell us that he has many servants, Abraham saddles his own ass and cuts the wood for the sacrificial fire himself. Why? Does that tell us anything about Abraham? And, why is that an important part of the story of the sacrifice? Why does Abraham take two servants with him?

Verse 4: In this story we see only three gestures, here and in verses ten and thirteen, so I assume that when the gestures are mentioned they are important to the story. Why does it say that Abraham “lifted up his eyes”? (Is the name of the mountain relevant?) Abraham was looking at a mountain, but it was a long way off and, if the tradition is correct about it being the temple mount, it wasnâ€™t much more than a large hill, so it would not have been the physical geography that made him lift up his eyes. What is the writer telling us? Is there any significance to the fact that the trip takes three days? If so, what is it? (Compare Genesis 31:22, 40:20, and 42:18.) Given that the trip took three days, why donâ€™t we see even one detail regarding it? Are there any parallels to this that might be instructive? Does this detail tell us anything about Abraham or about the sacrifice itself?


Verse 6: Notice how the writer alternates: details in verse 3, none in verses 4 and 5, and details again in this verse. Why give us details in those places and not between? What purposes do the details serve? To help you think about the details and what they do, notice that the word translated “knife” could also be translated “cleaver.” It may mean, specifically, a butcher knife. (Compare Judges 19:29, where the same word is used.) How would that different translation change how we read this verse? For more understanding of the impact of that difference in translation, read about what was done with the sacrificial animalâ€”see, for example, Leviticus 1:3-9. Notice the parallel between Christ carrying his own cross and Isaac carrying the wood for the sacrifice. Why would such a parallel be important to Moses, the writer? Why does the writer make such a point of Abraham and Isaac being together at the end of this verse?

Verse 7: Why does the writer repeat the word “father” and then contrast it with the word “son”? What effect does that create? What does that repetition and contrast teach us? Notice that in this story Abraham consistently refers to Isaac as “my son,” rather than by name. Abraham answers his son in the same way he answered the Lord. What might that show? What is Isaacâ€™s reaction to the situation he finds himself in? When do you think Isaac understood what was to happen, now or later, in verse nine? Why? Based on the age of Sarah at her deathâ€”which occurs immediately after this storyâ€”tradition has it that Isaac was thirty to thirty-five years old at the time of the sacrifice. In verse 12 Isaac is called a n’r, which is translated “babe” in Exodus 2:6 and “young man” in 2 Samuel 14:21, so the Hebrew word doesn’t help answer the question. If Isaac was older, perhaps even as old as thirty or thirty-five, how would that change our understanding of the story?




3. It can mean what Abraham thinks it means, that Isaacâ€”provided by God in the matter of his birth, and now (Abraham thinks) provided by God in the matter of his deathâ€”will be the sacrifice.

4. It can be Abrahamâ€™s unknowing prophesy of what we read later (verse thirteen).

5. It can be a prophesy of the Atonement, provided by the Father for the redemption of all mankind.




Verse 11: In verse 1, God gave Abraham the commandment, but in this verse the commandment not to sacrifice Isaac is delivered by an angel, the angel of Jehovah. What might Abrahamâ€™s reaction have been? What kinds of things does this show us? Why is the original commandment given by the Father, but the reversal of that commandment given by an angel of the Son? Why does the angel call Abrahamâ€™s name twice? In verse 1, the Lord called him only once. What might the repetition show?




Verse 15: Why is the angelâ€™s message divided into two parts? Does the division help us focus on particular aspects of each part? Is there a difference in the messages?

Verse 16: What is the significance of the Lord saying “By myself have I sworn” (italics added)? (Compare Jeremiah 22:5 and 49:13, and Amos 4:2 and 6:8.) One medieval Jewish commentator (Nachmanides) suggests that in the phrase, “By myself have I sworn,” we see the Lord making Abrahamâ€™s calling and election sure. (Obviously, I’m using our terminology for his concepts, not his terminology.) So what? How is that relevant to us? Notice the emphasis put on Abrahamâ€™s not having withheld his only son. Why that emphasis? What does Abraham not withholding his son show? The blessing that follows in verses 17 and 18â€”already given once before (Genesis 12.2-3 and 13.14-16)â€”is said to be “because thou hast done this thing.” If it has already been given, how can it be the result of this test?

Verses 17-18: Why does the Lord say, “in blessing, I will bless thee”? What do you think the repetition of a word for blessing does for our understanding? Abraham has already received this blessing. Why repeat it? Or is this version different in some way? Why is this blessing such a desirable blessing? Why is it a blessing to have innumerable posterity? Hebrews 6:14 quotes the blessing of verse 17. Does that quotation help us understand something of what this story teaches from a Christian point of view? What does it mean to say that Abrahamâ€™s seed will possess the gates of their enemies? Who are their enemies? What are the enemies gates? What does it mean to say that all the nations of the earth will be blessed in Abrahamâ€™s seed? Compare Abraham 2:9-11 to see more clearly who Abrahamâ€™s children are. Does the end of verse 18 perhaps give us a better idea of what the Lord meant by “this thing” in verse 16?





22 Responses to JEF Sunday School Lesson 9

  1. Mike Parker on February 18, 2006 at 10:49 pm


    Jim: I don’t think it’s helpful to view the OT use of these terms in the way modern Latter-day Saints do. In fact, our own marked distinction between Elohim and Jehovah has only been in existence since the 1916 First Presidency letter, “The Father and the Son.” Before that, the terms were used much more fluidly (see, for example, D&C 109).

  2. Jim F. on February 18, 2006 at 10:58 pm

    I understand your point, Mike. Indeed, I’m constitutionally sympathetic to it. But doesn’t the 1916 letter mean that we have a hermeneutical obligation to interpret scripture in light of that letter? Similarly, one could legitimately ask whether Moses intended a parallel between Isaac carrying the wood and Christ carrying his cross. However, that interpretation has become part of the meaning of the text for Christians, so I think we have to deal with it.

  3. Mike Parker on February 18, 2006 at 11:23 pm

    I think our modern use of Elohim and Jehovah (as seen in the temple endowment) are for convenience. They’re “Mormon lingo.” However, they don’t lend themselves well to OT hermeneutics.

    For example, if we are to hold to a strict [Elohim = the Father / Jehovah = the Son], how do we deal with Psalm 110:1?

    “A Psalm of David. The LORD [Jehovah] said unto my Lord [adonai], Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.”

    In light of several NT passages — most prominently Hebrews 1:13 — the “LORD” (Jehovah) is the Father and the “Lord” is the Son.

  4. Jim F. on February 18, 2006 at 11:52 pm

    Mike Parker, would you accept this as another way to make your point: the scriptures, including those revealed in the latter-days, are not consistent about how the terms “Lord,” etc. are used. The 1916 letter makes them consistent for certain modern purposes, but we can’t map that consistency onto earlier usage.

    I think you’ve got an excellent point–so scratch that comment for verse 1. However, I’ll not change it here because then this thread would make no sense.

  5. Ariel on February 19, 2006 at 12:23 am

    I really enjoyed reading this. Thanks.

  6. Mike Parker on February 19, 2006 at 3:12 am

    Jim #4: I think that’s pretty close to how I interpret it. Thank you for articulating that so well.

    In the OT, “elohim” is simply a generic word for “god”, which can be used to refer to the one true God, or to false gods, or even to human beings who can potentially become gods. Jehovah is the name of the God of Israel, who is a “son of el” — one of many, according to the OT (Deuteronomy 32:8).

  7. Blake on February 19, 2006 at 10:59 am

    Jim and Mike: I agree that the LDS usage of the terms Elohim and Jehovah cannot map onto the Old Testament easily. I think that seeing it as a matter of convenient naming of Father and Son is accurate — tho I wonder why we just don’t say Father and Son? What impresses me most is Jim’s lack of ego and his willingness to just say that if it doesn’t work we can go with what works better. I like that a lot.

  8. Mike Parker on February 19, 2006 at 1:00 pm

    Agreed, Blake.

    Jim: I hope I didn’t come across too harshly. I really appreciate your lesson summaries. They’re very, very helpful in helping me prepare my own lessons.

  9. Julie M. Smith on February 19, 2006 at 3:24 pm

    I noticed that v11 has an angel speaking but by the end of v12, it appears that it is the Lord/God who is speaking. I know that this happens on occasion in the OT and is often dismissed as a gap/error in the text. I wonder if that is the case here or if there might be any significance to it. Or am I missing something?

  10. Jim F. on February 19, 2006 at 9:53 pm

    Mike Parker: You certainly didn’t come across too harshly. I’d like the materials to be reasonably accurate. I was aware of the difficulties of the use of the term “Elohim” in the OT, but thought that, given the 1916 letter, perhaps the distinction made sense in this case. However, your comment helped me see that wasn’t right.

    The only nit I have to pick is a very small one: I don’t see the questions as materials to use for preparing the lessons per se. Instead, I see them as materials to help class members study the material during the week. Presumably that can also help teachers, but my focus isn’t on teaching the lesson. That’s one of the reasons I’m so glad to see Julie Smith posting her materials. She focuses more on the question of how to teach the lesson.

    I welcome anyone who wants to post additional questions about the assigned sections: never too many questions in my book–though I don’t subscribe to the claim that there is no such thing as a bad question. In fact, Mike Parker has just shown that there are bad questions and I was asking one. So, Blake and Mike Parker, would you like to add some questions to these?

  11. Jim F. on February 19, 2006 at 10:00 pm

    Julie, I’m not sure why I didn’t see your comment when I wrote #10. Sorry about that. I think I better have my reading glasses checked.

    I don’t think we have to attribute these slides from God to angel and back again to textual problems. Of course, that is one possible explanation, but it seems to me that we see similar things in latter-day texts where that explanation isn’t available (though, of course, none come to mind right now).

    I don’t have a solution to the “problem,” but it seems to me that one of the interesting things about scripture is that it doesn’t seem particularly concerned to pin down the identity of the speaker: could be the Father, could be the Son, could be the Holy Ghost, could be an angel speaking for God. Given the unity of the Godhead, presumably it doesn’t matter which of them is speaking, and presumably one of God’s messengers would say the same thing that he would say. So the text doesn’t care/doesn’t know who is speaking.

  12. Blake on February 21, 2006 at 8:07 pm

    Jim: I know it’s late, but I still have a bunch of questions that I like to ponder about this story. Why does God say: “for now I know that thou feasrest God”? Why does he say “seeing that thou hast offered him up as a burnt offering”? Why is Isaac a “burnt offering” rather than a blood sacrifice and what is the importance of burrning? Was Christ also a burnt offering?

    What if Abraham had responded: “No, I will not kill my son, for it is contrary to love and life and I choose love and life”? What if Isaac had refused to go with Abraham.? What if Isaac insisted that his father was crazy and hadn’t heard God? Why didn’t Abraham wonder if it was God who was asking him to do the unthinkable?

    Why didn’t he tell Sarah? Did Sarah have any claim on God to have any say in what Abraham decided to do? Why didn’t the angel allow the knife to be plunged into Isaac and heal him on the spot? Does this text operate as an example of the type of faith we must be ready to have? If so, how can we justify the much more likely view that we all accept that anyone who is willing to sacrifice his/her own son is just crazy rather than favored of God? Why would God ask the unthinkable? Does God have some “right” or claim over against us to ultimate devotion regardless of whether it is in fact in our best interest? Or in our best interest as far as we can see?

    Did Isaac know that his life was in danger and did he go willingly as vss. 7-8 suggest? Does it matter that Isaac was apparently willing? Why didn’t the church manual cite Kierkegaard?

  13. Jim F. on February 21, 2006 at 10:45 pm

    Blake, thanks for adding your questions. I especially like the last one.

  14. BrianJ on February 25, 2006 at 10:25 pm

    Jim F: as always, your questions have been very helpful as I prepare my lesson.

    As I understand what you have written elsewhere, the way you approach the scriptures is to ask what point the writer was hoping to make. It seems like that approach is useful here in the story of Abraham and Isaac.

    Regardless of what Moses (or other recorders of Genesis 22) knew about Christâ€™s life and crucifixion from visions or revelations, the children of Israel would not recognize crucifixion symbolism (e.g. the wood laid on Isaacâ€™s back). Since this story was not written for people with our understanding or viewpoint, I wonder what was the message that the children of Israel were intended to get? Is that a different message than the one we usually get from this story?

  15. Julie M. Smith on February 25, 2006 at 11:03 pm

    Again, BrianJ, very good questions.

  16. Jim F. on February 26, 2006 at 12:26 am

    BrianJ: I, too, think your questions are very good. Of course the children of Israel couldn’t have understood crucifixion symbolism. That is one reason I found the Christian symbolism so interesting: it is obvious to Christians and seems inessential to Jews. However, on the principle that it is heremeneutically dangerous to dismiss anything as inessential, I wonder what it could have meant to those reading the ancient text before Christ and those who read it who do not believe in him today. I haven’t found a Jewish commentary on that particular aspect of the story, and I don’t have any good guesses myself.

  17. Jim F. on February 26, 2006 at 12:31 am

    BrianJ: Perhaps you meant your question to go further than the wood that Isaac carried: how did Israel understand this story as a whole before they understood about Christ? I think that the inclusion of the birth of Rebekah at the end of the chapter has a great deal to do with that reading of the chapter. I have written a very long piece in which I give a reading of the chapter from that point of view, a point of view that focuses on covenant. It isn’t presently available. (I’m still fixing it so I can deliver it in April.) So–though I doubt you need my direction on this–I suggest that we should also read the story as a story about covenant and the way in which that covenant is embodied in family.

  18. Keith on February 26, 2006 at 1:03 am


    Notice, however, that among some of Israel, they are given to understand more about Christ before Christ lived on earth: Enoch and Nephi are given to see the Lord crucified and Jacob talks about this story in terms of Father and Son (Jacob 4:5). That, of course, doesn’t answer the question of how those who don’t see Christian allegory here read the story.

  19. MullingandMusing (M&M) on February 26, 2006 at 1:20 am

    Response to Blake (#12) and other thoughts….
    -I am not sure it makes sense to wonder what would have happened if Abraham had not been obedient. I think that it is clear that Abraham knew God’s voice and knew to obey, regardless of if the command appeared “unthinkable.” This to me is a lesson on learning how to feel and recognize the Spirit in very unmistakable ways!
    -I think it’s also sobering to realize that the Lord says we all will need to be tried even as Abraham (D&C 101:4; 132:37, 51). Joseph Smith was heard to say that God will test our very heart-strings. Faith is no small thing.
    -We don’t know that Sarah didn’t know about this! I have heard at least one person suggest that it is unthinkable that she didn’t know. In a partnership relationship, wouldn’t that make sense?
    -According to the BD, all offerings included burning the offering, but from what I understand, all offerings also included blood sacrifice as well. Read under “Sacrifices” for more detailed info.

    Incidentally, it is extremely interesting to read about sacrifices in the BD and in the OT (piggybacking off another comment made above) and to consider what can be learned about the temple. The OT student manual for Institute has some very interesting information that helped me study this in more detail.

    I think it’s also interesting, as a general comment, that Isaac is referred to as the “only son.” I read in the BD last nite that Ishmael “was the child ‘born after the flesh’ (Gal. 4: 23) and not the child ‘by promise.’” Perhaps I’m sharing something that is common knowledge here, but this was something I had not known or remembered.

    One last thought re: the wood and BrianJ’s and others’ thoughts…do we KNOW the children of Istrael didn’t know about the crucifixion? Given the fact that “plain and precious truths” are missing from the Bible, and that the Book of Mormon contains pre-Christ prophecies of Him being “lifted up” and crucified, I don’t think we can assume that the children of Israel knew nothing of the symbolism of the wood or many other aspects of the law of Moses. Think of how much the BOM people knew of the purpose of the law of Moses…that it pointed their souls to Christ, etc. This is one reason why the Book of Mormon is such a treasure for us. It helps fill in gaps where truths are missing from the Bible, and tells me the children of Israel probably knew a lot more about the law of Moses than we see in the OT.


  20. BrianJ on February 26, 2006 at 9:16 pm

    Jim F: I am very interested in your work on Ch 22 as a focus on covenant; can I look forward to April for the full analysis? When I read that part about Rebekah at the end, I took it as something like, “And it’s a good thing that Isaac was saved because he needs to have children–and speaking of children, let’s introduce his future wife.” My reading seems very bland, so I will have to spend some time using your view.

    When I tried to read Ch 22 without a Christian understanding, I found myself changing the symbolism: the wood became a symbol of willingness rather than a symbol of the cross, Isaac became a symbol of me rather than a symbol of Christ, and other changes. I haven’t been able to spend the time I would like on this so I don’t know that I would call my “new interpretation” a conclusion, but I enjoyed the excercise.

    Also, you wrote: “Soâ€“though I doubt you need my direction on thisâ€“I suggest….” I want you to know how much I appreciate the time you spend entertaining my questions and posting your own.

  21. BrianJ on February 26, 2006 at 9:23 pm

    M&M and Keith: I admit that I don’t have a good idea how much the children of Israel knew about Christ. I don’t see much evidence in the text that they did, and I think people like Enoch could be the exception (as Keith alludes). The Nephites are a very different story also, because they had prophecies and experiences that the Jews did not and they lived hundreds of years after Moses would have written Genesis. Again, I need to study this some more.

  22. Jim F. on February 26, 2006 at 11:53 pm

    Keith: Thanks for the reminder. Is important for us to remember that part of what we learn from the Restoration is that the prophets have known the gospel from the beginning. We don’t know how much the Israelites knew or, frankly, what they knew at the various points of their history, but we ought not to forget that the prophets knew.

    M&M: I have heard at least one person suggest that it is unthinkable that she didnâ€™t know. In a partnership relationship, wouldnâ€™t that make sense? I understand and agree with the sentiment, but that makes Genesis 22 all the more remarkable for not mentioning Sarah. It is equally unthinkable that God would ask Abraham to sacrifice his own son, but he did. So it is a weak argument to say that it is unthinkable that Abraham didn’t tell Sarah. All we know is what the text tells us, and it doesn’t say anything about Abraham telling Sarah.

    BrianJ: When I finish the chapter 22 piece, I’ll try to remember to say something so that you’ll know to ask for a copy. I like the exercise you propose: suppose we didn’t understand chapter 22 as Christians; how we would understand it?

    All: wow! 22 comments. That is almost impossible to believe, even if a good number of them are mine.