The Binding of Elohim more

Stephen Landry Question 2 1200 words The Binding of Elohim The story of the binding of Isaac in Genesis 22: 1-19 raises some interesting questions about what exactly happened on that mountain of Yahweh. The story has the reader believe that Abraham was called by God to sacrifice his son Isaac but before the deed is carried out God intervenes and stops the ritual. Isaac is saved and Abraham has affirmed his faith and obedience once again. A closer reading of this breaks the story apart and reveals a more intricate plan laid out by the writers and redactors of the story in Genesis. Taking the story apart actually reveals that Abraham does indeed sacrifice Isaac to God. The first part of the text is attributed to the Elohist source but from Genesis 22: 1116a the text has been redacted by the Jahwist source. This can be seen in its change from using the name God or Elohim to using LORD or Yahweh. At the end of the sacrifice God even blesses Abraham for what he did in his obedience, “Because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will indeed bless you, and I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars.” (Genesis 22: 16b-17a) This asserts that the sacrifice has been carried out and that God will reward Abraham for his obedience. The language also matches the original Elohist source which the story was written in, “Take your son, your only son Isaac,” (Genesis 22: 2) compared to “and have not withheld your son, your only son…” (Genesis 22: 16b) The latter dialogue marks exactly where the Jahwist source ends and the Elohist source resumes. Followed by this is the fact that Abraham comes down the mountain alone and returns home without Isaac, “So 1 Abraham returned to his young men, and they arose and went together to Beer-sheba.” (Genesis 22: 19) The young men do not seem to question Isaac’s disappearance and accept that God has taken him without question. The question then becomes why did the Jahwist source feel it necessary to alter the story and make Isaac live instead of being sacrificed? The Jahwist source comes from the Southern Kingdom of Judah and the Elohist source comes from the Northern Kingdom of Israel. After becoming the dominant kingdom, the south took it upon themselves to label the northern kingdom as idolaters. While it was true that the northern kingdom had put statues up in different parts of their country worshipping a form of Elohim, they were still following similar practices to the southern kingdom. The south probably did not see it that way and took the north’s idea of child sacrifice as some kind of an offence. Therefore they felt it necessary to change the original story to support their own beliefs. The belief that the younger child always succeeds over the elder. The narrative refers to Isaac as Abraham’s only son, Genesis 22: 2 and 16b, when in fact he has two. Ishmael was Abraham’s first son, born from Sarah’s servant Hagar. It is actually the Jahwist source that narrates this story, “And the angel of the LORD said to her, “Now you have conceived and shall bear a son; you shall call him Ishmael for the LORD has given heed to your affliction.” (Genesis 16: 11) This provides a younger and an older sibling with which to compare to each other. As the rest of Genesis demonstrates, Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau, and Joseph and his brothers are all stories of the younger being dominated by the elder. By changing the story for Isaac to live, Isaac dominates while Ishmael is sent away and not even considered a son to Abraham 2 anymore. This may reflect what the southern kingdom believed about the northern kingdom. Israel representing the elder nation while Judah represents the younger nation which survives and surpasses its brother. By changing the Isaac story, the old god of the north is suppressed by the true god of the south and the instance of child sacrifice is erased from the story. The Jahwist story also makes reference to Yahweh providing for his nation, “So Abraham called that place “The LORD will provide”; as it is said to this day, “On the mount of the LORD it shall be provided.” (Genesis 22: 14) They may be a reference to Mount Sinai where Yahweh provides for his people the laws which they need to survive and a covenant to ensure the promise. This way the old god or gods of the north which may be derived from other surrounding ancient near eastern gods are no longer needed because Yahweh, the god of the south will provide. His name was revealed and the use of El or Elohim was no longer needed. The question of Abraham’s obedience is another instance in this narrative which seems to be based on two different sources. The binding of Isaac story shows a god with little or no mercy and simply expects Abraham to do as he is told without any questions. The original story obviously being Elohist is not necessarily demonstrating Abraham’s obedience though but possibly representing what kind of rituals were being used in the north. In Exodus 22, an example of this kind of law or ritual is given, “You shall not delay to make offerings from the fullness of your harvest and from outflow of your presses. The firstborn of your sons you shall give to me.” (Exodus 22: 29) When the north was destroyed and the people dispersed, the priests from the north could have come to the south and inserted rituals and or laws like this one into the narrative to preserve what was left of their tradition. The southern tradition is less explicit than the north. 3 The incident of Sodom and Gomorrah is a Jahwist story where Yahweh is written in a more anthropomorphic way. Yahweh having human characteristics allows Abraham to deal more easily with him and appeal to his sense of mercy, thus allowing Lot and his family to live. No sacrifice is made on that day except on Yahweh’s part who rids the world of non-believers. Relating this to Isaac’s story, the Jahwists take this opportunity to get rid of the practice of child sacrifice and insert the practice of animal sacrifice. (Coogan, 68) There is a sacrifice made that day but an animal one, not a human one thus changing the moral of the story. This insertion by the Jahwists demonstrates their dominance over the Elohists but mixing the stories together like they did make it more difficult to understand what the character of Abraham is doing in relation to God. Abraham’s obedience comes into question but can be understood as a confusing mix of sources, forcing the character to act differently in various situations. The moral though is that the south won out over the north and that their rituals and laws were to be respected and followed while the north’s traditions were to be ignored and forgotten. Although some of the north’s traditions and laws still survived and got written into the Covenant Code in Exodus, they were not viewed as major laws and thus easily disregarded. Michael D. Coogan (ed.), The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001). 4