Purpose of Akeidat Yitzchak/2/en

Purpose of Akeidat Yitzchak

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Overview

Given the centrality of the story of the Akeidah, it is perhaps surprising that commentators do not agree regarding even the most basic question emerging from the story: what was the purpose of the whole ordeal?  Ralbag reads the text according to its most plain sense to mean that Hashem was truly testing Avraham in order to evaluate the extent of his devotion.  His reading, however, assumes that Hashem's foreknowledge is limited, thus leading the vast majority of exegetes to disagree. 

Many commentators claim that the test was not aimed at Hashem, but at Avraham himself.  The Ran asserts that it was meant to help Avraham develop on a personal level and actualize his inner potential.  Acting on one's values serves to strengthen them and merits one greater rewards as a result. Rashbam reads the story in an almost opposite way, uniquely viewing the test as a punishment rather than a means to reward.  He suggests that the harshness of the trial served to teach Avraham that he had sinned in making a pact with the Philistines.

A final approach suggests that, through the Akeidah, the world learned about the proper service of Hashem. Until then it was assumed that child sacrifice was a desirable mode of worship, and a people which did not practice it would have been deemed as lacking in devotion to their God. Through the Akeidah, Hashem taught that the practice is really an abhorrent and immoral one, and that fact, rather than a lack of love on the part of His followers, is the reason that His people do not practice it.

For Hashem: Evaluating Avraham

Hashem needed to test Avraham in order to evaluate the extent of his faith as, until the Akeidah, Hashem did not know the extent of Avraham's devotion to Him.

Sources:RalbagBereshit Beur HaMilot 22:1Bereshit Beur HaParashah 22:1-5, 7-8, 10-13Bereshit Toalot 22About R. Levi b. Gershom

Hashem's knowledge – According to Ralbag, Hashem's knowledge of particulars is incomplete.  While He knows all the choices available to a person, He does not know, in advance, which path the individual will choose to follow.¹ As such, Hashem did not know whether or not Avraham would acquiesce to sacrifice his child.²

Meaning of "נִסָּה" – Ralbag understands the word to refer to a literal "test".  Hashem was examining Avraham in order to gauge his level of reverence and obedience.³

"עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי כִּי יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים אַתָּה" – Ralbag is able to explain this verse according to its simple sense; only "now" ("עַתָּה"), after the trial, did Hashem know with certainty how God-fearing Avraham was.⁴

Why did Hashem need further proof? At the time of our story, Avraham is already older⁵ and had demonstrated his faith and loyalty on multiple occasions. Ralbag does not explain why, then, Hashem felt a need to further evaluate Avraham's character. Moreover, Hashem had already promised Avraham the Land of Israel and to be a father of many nations, blessings which were not made contingent on his passing this test.  Would Hashem have subsequently done something differently had Avraham not passed the test?  Ralbag leaves this question unanswered.

Ambiguity of "וְהַעֲלֵהוּ שָׁם לְעֹלָה" – Ralbag asserts that Hashem intentionally worded His directive ambiguously⁶ so that it could be understood as either to sacrifice Yitzchak as an Olah offering, or, alternatively, to bring Yitzchak along in order to sacrifice an Olah.⁷ Since the second, less obvious, possibility is one which a person would consider only if they found the first and simpler reading to be objectionable, Hashem was testing to see if Avraham was so willing to abide by Hashem's word that he would not even contemplate following the alternative understanding.⁸

Avraham's emotions – Ralbag presents an Avraham whose love for Hashem and desire to obey Him was so strong that all else paled in comparison, enabling him to be at ease even with sacrificing a beloved son.⁹  Avraham's eagerness to comply with Hashem's words is demonstrated by his rising early to do God's bidding and his refraining from questioning the Divine command.¹⁰ Ralbag further claims that the fact that Avraham achieved prophecy while awake proves that, even in the moment of the actual slaughter, he was neither anxious nor sad about the act.¹¹

"אֱלֹהִים יִרְאֶה לּוֹ הַשֶּׂה לְעֹלָה בְּנִי" – Ralbag maintains that these words of Avraham constitute a prayer¹² that Hashem's command to him would ultimately turn out to mean¹³ that a sheep (and not Yitzchak) would become the burnt offering.  Ralbag, thus suggests that Avraham recognized that there was a second way to comprehend Hashem's words, but that, nonetheless, he was unwilling to act upon it without a direct clarification by Hashem.

How can Hashem command murder? According to Ralbag, Hashem had never intended for Avraham to actually sacrifice Yitzchak,¹⁴ which is why He worded the command in a way which allowed for the second (and ultimately correct) possibility that Yitzchak was brought to the mountain only to witness an Olah offering.  As such, Hashem had never commanded an immoral act.  Ralbag's reconstruction is nonetheless difficult since if Hashem intended that Avraham understand that he was to sacrifice his child (as Ralbag maintains), then the morality of the command and Avraham's ready agreement is still in question.

Immutability of the Divine word? It is probably this issue rather than the ethical one which prompts Ralbag to suggest that Hashem worded the test ambiguously.  This allows him to say that not only did Hashem never intend for Avraham to sacrifice Yitzchak, but also that He never even commanded such a thing, and consequently never retracted His word.

Recycled Rewards? According to Ralbag, all Divine promises are implicitly dependent on the continued righteous behavior of the recipient.¹⁵  Thus, Avraham and his descendants needed to continue to fulfill Hashem's expectations in order to merit His continued blessings,¹⁶ and Avraham through his actions at the Akeidah was reaching for a higher level of devotion to Hashem and ensuring that Yitzchak would learn from him how to properly serve Hashem (and thus be worthy of Divine providence).

For Avraham

Avraham, rather than Hashem, was supposed to learn from the experience. This position subdivides regarding whether the test was beneficial or punitive in nature:

Benefit

Acting on Hashem's directives brought Avraham to new levels of faith, and merited him rewards that he would not have received had Hashem not tested him.

Sources:R. Saadia GaonCommentary Bereshit 22:1-2About R. Saadia Gaon,¹⁷ Ibn EzraBereshit First Commentary 22:1About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, RambanBereshit 22:1Bereshit 22:12Bereshit 22:16About R. Moshe b. Nachman, RanBereshit 22About R. Nissim Gerondi, Sefer HaIkkarim4:13About R. Yosef Albo, SefornoBereshit 22:1-12About R. Ovadyah Seforno, BiurBereshit 22:1About the Biur (Netivot HaShalom)¹⁸

Meaning of "נִסָּה" – These commentators differ as to how they understand this word:

• Test – Both R. Saadia and Ramban explain that the word "נִסָּה" means tested, but suggest that a test need not be for the tester.  It is the person being tested who gains from the experience.¹⁹
• Accustom – According to R"Y Albo and the Biur, on the other hand,  the root "נסה" means to accustom.²⁰  By commanding Avraham to sacrifice his son, Hashem trained his heart towards proper fear and service of God.²¹

Hashem's foreknowledge – As these sources agree that Hashem gained no new knowledge from the test, the verses pose no theological issue regarding Hashem's omniscience and foreknowledge.

What did Avraham gain from the trial? Most of these sources assert that the point of the experience was for Avraham to actualize his potential, changing his thoughts into actions.²²  This accomplished two things:

• Self-development: Ran, R"Y Albo, and the Biur explain that acting on a belief serves to strengthen that belief.²³ Though Avraham's willingness to do Hashem's bidding and sacrifice his son was not in question, having to actively bind Yitzchak and raise the knife brought his fear of God to new levels. Undergoing a trial changes a person in a way that merely thinking can never do.²⁴ 
• Increased reward: Ramban and R"Y Albo²⁵ maintain that after the trial, Avraham could receive a reward not only for his good intentions, but also for his positive actions. R. Saadia points out that Hashem often presents the righteous with many trials on Earth in order to later merit them with redoubled rewards.²⁶

"וַיְהִי אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה" – According to R. Saadia, the "things" mentioned refer to the previous trials that Avraham had undergone.  He²⁷ claims that Hashem tests only a person who has proven that he will not fail.²⁸ As such, the increased trials can only lead to reward.

Avraham's emotions en route – R. Soloveitchik²⁹ portrays an Avraham who is filled with dread and suffering while en route to fulfill Hashem's command. It was this suffering, he claims, which was crucial for Avraham's growth.  If he was to strengthen his connection to Hashem, Avraham needed to feel the anguish of self-sacrifice .³⁰

"עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי כִּי יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים אַתָּה" – These sources differ in how they understand the verse:

• Made known / was known – R. Saadia suggests that the word "יָדַעְתִּי" should read as if written, "והודעתי".‎³¹ Through the akeidah, Hashem announced to the world the level of Avraham's righteousness.  Ramban similarly rereads the verb "יָדַעְתִּי", but turns it into the passive, "נודעה".  Now that Avraham actualized his potential, his awe of God was known in practice.
• Speech of angel – Seforno, instead, claims that it is the angel speaking in his own name who declares, "now I know that you are more God-fearing [than me, the angel]."³²

Immutability of the Divine word? These sources maintain that Hashem did not go back on His word:

• The text prefaces that this was a test – Ibn Ezra asserts that this is not the only place where Hashem appears to have changed His mind, pointing to the replacement of the firstborns with the Levites as another example.  Nonetheless, he explains that in this story, the fact that the narrative opens with the words "And Hashem tested Avraham" proves that from the very beginning Hashem had no intention of Avraham's carrying through with the slaughter.
• Hashem never really commanded a sacrifice – R. Saadia deals with this question at length, offering four possible explanations of how Hashem did not really go back on His word. Some of these are somewhat similar to Ralbag's reading above, and posit some ambiguity in the wording of the original command,³³ which allows for the possibility that Hashem never really asked that Yitzchak be sacrificed.³⁴  R. Saadia's comments are explicitly polemical, responding to Moslem claims that if God can command one thing and then retract it, it is also possible that He can command the Torah and then replace it.³⁵ R. Saadia distinguishes between Hashem's private instructions to Avraham and the Torah's mitzvot which were explicitly given to be permanent.

Morality of the command and Avraham's agreement – Most of these source do not speak about the issue explicitly, but may assume, like R. Soloveitchik, that, by definition, any command of Hashem must be moral.  Avraham recognized this, and thus did not question the command even though he did not understand how a directive to perform child sacrifice could possibly be ethical .³⁶

Punishment

The experience was meant to punish Avraham for having made a covenant with the Philistines.

Sources:RashbamBereshit 22:1Bereshit 22:12About R. Shemuel b. Meir

"וַיְהִי אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה" – Rashbam maintains that these words serve to connect our unit with the immediately preceding one, and are Tanakh's way of linking the two stories.³⁷  The opening, thus, suggests that Avraham's making of a treaty with Avimelekh is what prompted the command to sacrifice Yitzchak.³⁸ Hashem was upset that Avraham made peace with the Philistines since their land was included in His promise to Avraham, and thus the prohibition "לֹא תְחַיֶּה כׇּל נְשָׁמָה" applied to them as well.

Meaning of "נִסָּה" – According to Rashbam, the word "נִסָּה" in our verse means to distress or provoke rather than to test.³⁹ Since Avraham's interactions with the Philistines went against Hashem's will, Hashem punished Avraham by commanding that he sacrifice his son.  Rashbam presents the trial in measure for measure terms, having Hashem say: "You were proud of your son, making a pact between him and Avimelekh's descendants, now go and sacrifice him, and see what is to become of such a treaty!"⁴⁰

Hashem's knowledge – Since Rashbam does not understand the story as a test at all, he eliminates the question of why Hashem, in his omniscience, would need to test someone in order to know how they will act.

Avraham rewarded – The fact that Avraham is rewarded and deemed to be "God-fearing" at the end of the experience is hard to reconcile with the view that the whole ordeal was a punishment. However, it is possible to suggest⁴¹ that the akeidah served to not only punish Avraham, but also as an opportunity for him to correct his mistakes.⁴²  If the pact with Avimelekh demonstrated a lack of obedience to Hashem's will, Avraham's utter submission during the akeidah proved that he was once again God-fearing and, as such, deserving of reward.⁴³

"כִּי עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי כִּי יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים אַתָּה"

• Rashbam understands the verse to mean that, after the event, Avraham's fear of God became public knowledge, apparent to the entire world.⁴⁴ It was not Hashem who gained new knowledge, but rather the public.
• Alternatively, Hashem might be speaking of His own knowledge. Earlier, in his interactions with the Philistines, Avraham had not acted in a God-fearing manner, but now, once again Hashem can recognize Avraham's obedience. This is not theologically difficult, since according to this reading Hashem did not lack knowledge which was then supplied, but rather Avraham lacked fear which he then achieved.

How can Hashem command murder? According to this approach, Hashem had never intended to allow Avraham to carry though with the plan,⁴⁵ but He intentionally gave Avraham an overly harsh command so that he would suffer as a result.  It is unclear, though, why Avraham did not argue with Hashem over the directive.

Polemical motivations – It is possible that Rashbam's interpretation is at least partially polemically motivated:

• As Christians viewed the story as a prefiguration of Jesus's death on the cross, Rashbam might have wanted to cast the story in a much more negative light, suggesting that it describes not the epitome of Avraham's relationship with Hashem, but a punishment.
• Y. Bin-Nun⁴⁶ alternatively suggests that Rashbam might be combating the idealization of the akeidah common among those in the Middle Ages who were forced to martyr their children for God, and looked to Avraham's action as a model to emulate.⁴⁷

For Others

The primary objective of the trial was not for its actual participants, but to teach others looking in from the outside enduring lessons about Hashem's ways and/or worship.

Explanation of Choice of Avraham

The Akeidah was meant to demonstrate Avraham's worthiness and why he merited to be selected by Hashem to be the father of the chosen nation.

Sources:Jubilees17:19-2518About Jubilees, Pseudo-Philo32:3About Pseudo-Philo, Bavli SanhedrinSanhedrin 89bAbout the Bavli, Bereshit Rabbah55:1-656:7About Bereshit Rabbah, R. Saadia GaonCommentary Bereshit 22:1-2About R. Saadia Gaon,⁴⁸ RashiBereshit 22:1-2, 6, 8, 12About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, Lekach TovBereshit 22:2Bereshit 22:12About R. Toviah b. Eliezer, R. Yosef Bekhor ShorBereshit 22:1-2, 12About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, Rambam3 24About Rambam Moreh Nevukhim, RadakBereshit 22:1Bereshit 22:12About R. David Kimchi, Keli YekarBereshit 22:12About R. Shelomo Ephraim Luntschitz, ShadalBereshit 22:1About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto

Meaning of "נִסָּה"

• Test – Most of these sources understand the word according to its simple sense, to mean "to test" or "try" but claim that a test is sometimes aimed not at the tester, or even at the one tested, but rather at the audience who watches or hears of the trial.⁴⁹ 
• Raise as a banner – Bereshit Rabbah, AbarbanelBereshit 22:3About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, and Keli Yekar⁵⁰ assert that the word "נִסָּה" is related to the word "נס", or banner. Through the akeidah, Hashem set up Avraham as a sign for others to emulate.

"כִּי עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי כִּי יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים אַתָּה"

• והודעתי – According to Bereshit Rabbah, R. Saadia, Lekach Tov, Rambam, and Keli Yekar,⁵¹ Hashem is not saying, "now I know" but rather "now I have made Avraham's fear of God known to others."  
• דברה תורה בלשון בני אדם – R"Y Bekhor Shor, instead, claims that Hashem simply spoke in common parlance ("בלשון בני אדם"), acting as if He had not known Avraham's extraordinary awe until Avraham passed the test, even though He had known of it all along.

Hashem's knowledge – This approach can maintain Hashem's perfect knowledge since it does not assume that He learned anything new from the experience.

What was the public supposed to learn? Though these sources agree that the akeidah was supposed to demonstrate Avraham's worthiness, they disagree regarding the specific message it was supposed to impart:

• Avraham's unique fear and obedience – Most of these sources claim that the trial was meant to prove to all the extent of Avraham's love of and obedience to God.  Avraham's willingness to sacrifice his only, beloved child at Hashem's behest, proved why Avraham merited to be Hashem's choice.
• Avraham worthy despite not practicing child sacrifice – Shadal, in contrast, suggests that through the akeidah Hashem wanted to teach both Israel and other nations of the time that the fact that His followers do not practice child sacrifice is not a sign of lack of devotion to God.  Avraham's readiness to sacrifice Yitzchak proved his love of God and demonstrated that had Hashem so desired, the Children of Israel, too, would be willing to give up their loved ones.  Hashem, though, has no desire for child offerings.  As such, Israel has no reason to feel inferior, and other nations should not view themselves as superior.

For whom? Ibn Ezra questions this whole approach on the grounds that no one but Avraham and Yitzchak were present at the event.  As such, how could these sources claim that it was intended for others?

• Satan and other angels – Jubilees, Pseudo-Philo, Bavli, Bereshit Rabbah, Rashi, and R"Y Bekhor Shor suggest that the test was aimed at the Satan and/or other angels who had questioned Avraham's loyalty and obedience to Hashem.⁵²  [Such beings need not have been physically present to see the event.]
• Other people – Most of the other sources more simply suggest that the lesson was for the other nations (or, according to Shadal, Israel as well) living in or after Avraham's generation who had heard of (even if they did not witness) the event.⁵³  Radak points out that word of the experience spread due to its being recounted in the Torah.⁵⁴ 

What made Avraham's sacrifice so special? Philo brings up the question: If many people in Avraham's day practiced child sacrifice, why did Avraham's actions prove him more worthy than others?

• Avraham not unique – For Shadal this is not a question, as he does not suggest that the story's goal is to show Avraham's uniqueness, but only that he is no less devoted than others.
• No ulterior motive – Philo On AbrahamAbout Philoasserts that most people who offer their children in sacrifice do so with an ulterior motive in mind, stemming either from a desire for glory or out of fear or hopes of preventing some catastrophe.⁵⁵  Avraham, though, had neither purpose in mind, only the desire to do Hashem's bidding. Moreover, Avraham was not offering any child, but his beloved, only child,⁵⁶ who had been granted to him miraculously in his old age.⁵⁷
• Full awareness – Rambam adds that the fact that Avraham first bound Yitzchak three days after receiving the Divine directive means that he was not acting in a state of shock or bewilderment in which he could not think through the action's consequences, but rather with full cognizance of the meaning of the deed. He acted out of neither desire for reward nor fear of punishment, but solely out of love and awe.

How can Hashem command murder? How can Avraham comply? According to Shadal's understanding of the story,⁵⁸ the whole trial was set up with the purpose of teaching both Avraham and the world at large that child sacrifice was immoral. Until then, the practice was viewed as as the epitome of spiritual worship,⁵⁹ so that no one, Avraham included, would have thought to question it.  It is precisely because of the messages learned from the akeidah, that today we not only find the act abominable, but go so far as to question how Hashem could command such a thing.  In fact, though, it turns out that Hashem's seemingly "immoral" directive was a lesson in morality.

Can Hashem change His word? To lessen this theological difficulty many of these sources⁶⁰ suggest that there was an ambiguity in Hashem's command.  Thus, Bereshit Rabbah suggests that Hashem says "וְהַעֲלֵהוּ" but not "שחטהו", and, as such, Hashem had never commanded that Yitzchak be slaughtered to begin with.

"וַיְהִי אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה"

• According to the Bavli⁶¹ the verse is referring to events not written in the Torah, which led to the need to demonstrate Avraham's righteousness to the world. R. Yochanan suggests that the phrase refers to the complaints of the Satan against Avraham,⁶² while R. Levi suggests they refer to Yishmael's claims that he was more worthy than Yitzchak.⁶³
• Alternatively this approach could say that the phrase serves to link the akeidah to the previous chapter's description of the miraculous birth of Yitzchak and the promise "כִּי בְיִצְחָק יִקָּרֵא לְךָ זָרַע", both of which contributed to the difficulty of the trial.

Emotions en route

• Contemplative – Rambam suggests that the three day trek gave Avraham time to consider all the ramifications of Hashem's command.  The fact that he still chose to act on Hashem's directive is what demonstrates his greatness.
• Happy – Rashi presents an Avraham who is filled with happiness at fulfilling Hashem's command. His eager "הִנֵּנִי" attests to his readiness to do all that Hashem directed him, and therein lies his uniqueness.

Model of How to Worship Hashem

The episode teaches how to properly serve God and about the need to completely submit ourselves to His will.

Sources:R. David Zvi HoffmannBereshit 22 IntroductionAbout R. David Zvi Hoffmann, R. S.R. HirschBereshit 22About R. Samson Raphael Hirsch, R. K. ShapiraAish Kodesh, p. 68, modern scholars⁶⁴

Meaning of "נִסָּה" and Hashem's knowledge – This position, like the above, posits that the test was not for Hashem, whose knowledge is complete, but for those who heard about it.

What lessons were to be learned? These sources all suggest that the episode taught important lessons about the proper service of Hashem, but differ in the details:

• Willingness to sacrifice for God – R. D"Z Hoffmann asserts that the akeidah teaches that when asked, one must be ready to sacrifice one's self (or, what is even more difficult, one's child) for Hashem.  Though Hashem does not demand this all the time, and has no need for pointless sacrifices of the self,  there are certain circumstances when martyrdom is expected of an individual. Proper service of Hashem entails a constant recognition of that fact.  Thus, every time an individual offers an animal sacrifice for Hashem, he makes the same declaration as Avraham that he is submitting and surrendering his entire being to God.⁶⁵
• Priority of Divine will over human ethics – In a similar vein,⁶⁶ many modern scholars suggest that the point of the akeidah was to teach that when human ethics seem to conflict with the Divine will, priority must be given to Hashem's command.⁶⁷ There is no such thing as an independent human morality.⁶⁸ In the words of the Aish Kodesh: "The nations of the world think that truth exists in and of itself and that God commanded truth because it was of itself true... not so the nation of Israel who say... all truth that is in the world is only because God commanded it."⁶⁹

How can Hashem command murder? According to R. Hoffmann, the assumption that Hashem cannot demand human sacrifice is simply wrong. Though Hashem prohibits such sacrifice as a consistent mode of worship, that does not make such individual demands unethical.  Moreover, if Hashem's word defines morality, whatever He commands must be just.  As R. Shapira writes, "When Hashem commanded Avraham our forefather that he bind his son Yitzchak, it was true to bind him, and had He not said "do not do unto him anything" it would have been true to slaughter him."

The immutability of the Divine word – According to this position, there is absolutely no problem with Hashem changing His word. The concept of a "הוראת שעה" (a teaching or command for a specific time), suggests that it is possible that in one situation Hashem can prohibit a certain act, and in another situation command the very same deed, and both directives will still be ethical.

"עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי כִּי יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים אַתָּה" – This position might understand the phrase "יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים" to mean ethical rather than God-fearing.⁷⁰  Through Avraham's willingness to sacrifice Yitzchak, he made it known that true ethical behavior means abiding by Hashem's will, and not one's own moral compass.

¹ According to Ralbag, Hashem's lack of foreknowledge of what people will choose to do is necessary in order for man to have free will. Ralbag also maintains that this limitation of God's knowledge is not an imperfection, since what is impossible does not constitute a deficiency. For more about Ralbag's understanding of God's omniscience, see Ralbag and Free Will.

² Cf. Ibn KaspiTirat Kesef 1:30About R. Yosef ibn Kaspi who suggests that the Torah uses the term "נסה" since that is the "language of men" (דברה תורה בלשון בני אדם), but really Hashem's testing of a person and human testing are distinct, since Hashem, as opposed to humans, does know in advance what a person is thinking and willing to do.  Nonetheless, Ibn Kaspi, like Ralbag, simultaneously implies that perhaps Hashem's knowledge is not complete. He asserts that Hashem had "theoretical knowledge" (ידיעה שכלית) regarding the extent of Avraham's fear of God, but not "practical knowledge" (ידיעת ניסיון) thereof. He writes, "אע"פ שה' ידע ידיעת שכל טרם זה המעשה שאברהם היה ירא ה' הנה עתה רצה לדעת זה ידיעת ניסיון".

³ Ralbag is not always consistent in explaining the root "נסה" in this manner.  In Shemot 20:16 and in one explanation of Shemot 15:25, he instead says that it means "lifted up or exalted", as if the word were written "נשא".

⁴ One might question how it is possible that Hashem gained new understanding; does that not mean that Hashem changed?  Ralbag, though, does not find this problematic. From his perspective, since Hashem had always known that Avraham's choice was a possibility, this had always been a part of His knowledge.

⁵ The Torah does not provide a precise date for the story, but Avraham had to have been at least 103, given that Yitzchak is old enough to be carrying the wood for the offering.  Some Midrashim (see Seder Olam Rabbah 1, Bereshit Rabbah 58:5, Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 32) assume that he was 137, connecting the event to Sarah's death in the next chapter.

⁶ Cf. Bereshit Rabbah56:7About Bereshit Rabbah, R. Saadia GaonCommentary Bereshit 22:1-2HaEmunot VeHaDeiot 5:2-3About R. Saadia Gaon, Ibn JanachSefer HaRikmah Gate 6About R. Yonah ibn Janach, RashiBereshit 22:1-2, 6, 8, 12About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, Rashbam according to the TurLong Commentary Bereshit 22:1About R. Yaakov b. Asher, R"Y Bekhor ShorBereshit 22:1-2, 12About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, Abarbanel, and MalbimBereshit 22:1-2About R. Meir Leibush Weiser who all suggest that Hashem's words were ambiguous (though they differ regarding the details). While Ralbag explicitly states that Hashem intended for Avraham to misconstrue his words, according to Ibn Janach and Malbim, it is unclear if that was God's intent, or if Avraham simply erred. If so, the problem of how Hashem could command murder is easily solved (He had not), but Avraham's actions in the story no longer make sense.  If he misunderstood Hashem's request, how did he pass the test, and why did Hashem not correct his misconception?

⁷ The למ"ד of "לְעֹלָה" can be understood to mean either "as" or "for the purpose of".

⁸ In other words, Hashem tested Avraham to see if he was willing to abide by the more obviously intended command, despite having an alternative, but more dubious, understanding to fall back upon as an excuse.

⁹ He points out that one who is able to cleave to Hashem in the manner of Avraham will never miss other worldly benefits, because the good achieved through clinging to Hashem and following in His path far surpasses all else.  This idea has been used to understand the theological problem posed by the suffering of the righteous.  The truly righteous never suffer, since the benefits gained by their love of Hashem are so great that all else is as if nothing. See Theodicy – צדיק ורע לו for more.

¹⁰ Ralbag points out that Avraham did not even question Hashem's previous promises that Yitzchak would carry on Avraham's line.  He suggests that Avraham recognized that Hashem's promises are always contingent on continued merit, and therefore it is always possible that they might no longer be deserved.

¹¹ Otherwise, he would not have been in a state fit for prophecy. Ralbag (following the Bavli Shabbat 30b) points to Elisha's request, "וְעַתָּה קְחוּ לִי מְנַגֵּן וְהָיָה כְּנַגֵּן הַמְנַגֵּן וַתְּהִי עָלָיו יַד י"י" (Melakhim II 3:15) as proof that distress prevents one from receiving prophecy.

¹² Thus, Avraham was not lying to Yitzchak or misleading him.

¹³ Ralbag claims that the word "יִרְאֶה" is related to understanding rather than showing, as in the verse "וְלִבִּי רָאָה הַרְבֵּה חׇכְמָה וָדָעַת" (Kohelet 1:16).

¹⁴ Cf. Bavli Taanit 4a which also suggests that Hashem never meant for Yitzchak to be sacrificed: "אשר לא צויתי ולא דברתי ולא עלתה על לבי... ולא עלתה על לבי זה יצחק בן אברהם."

¹⁵ Ralbag here references his fuller discussion of this subject in his commentary on Bereshit 32:8.

¹⁶ See the note above that thus according to Ralbag, the promise of "כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע" was not a lifetime guarantee.

¹⁷ R. Saadia combines this approach with the next one, suggesting that in addition to increasing Avraham's reward, the test served to demonstrate Avraham's worthiness to the rest of the world.

¹⁸ See דברי השקפה, ed. Moshe Krone, (Jerusalem, 1992): , based on lectures given by R. Soloveitchik.

¹⁹ Hashem, in contrast, knew all along what was to happen.

²⁰ For other verses where the word might take on this meaning, see Shemot 20:16 and Shemuel I 17:39.  See also RashbamShemot 16:4About R. Shemuel b. Meir on Shemot 16:4.

²¹ Cf. R. Hirsch who connects the word "נסה" to the root "נשא" but also suggests that the verse means that Hashem brought Avraham up to a higher level.  By being given this task Avraham's spiritual level was raised.

²² Or, in the words of these sources: "להוציא דבר מן הכח אל הפועל".

²³ This fits the idea that "אחרי הפעולות נמשכים הלבבות".

²⁴ In contrast to these exegetes, R.Soloveitchik (See דברי השקפה, ed. Moshe Krone, (Jerusalem, 1992):254-255, based on lectures given by R. Soloveitchik) focuses not on how thoughts must be actualized, but simply on what the act of self sacrifice does for man. He asserts that every religious act must begin with the sacrifice of the self, and claims that this must be filled with suffering and anguish.  It is this suffering which helps man grow.

²⁵ R. Saadia and Ibn Ezra agree that the point of the trial was to reward Avraham but do not speak of the difference in reward for positive intentions and actual deeds.

²⁶ Both R. Saadia and R"Y Albo suggest that this, in part, explains the phenomenon of "צדיק ורע לו".  See Theodicy – צדיק ורע לו for more.  The Rambam3 24About Rambam Moreh Nevukhim attacks this position, finding it unjust that someone who did not sin should suffer only so as to get a reward later.  He claims that despite the fact that many assume this concept to be true, the idea has no basis in Torah.

²⁷ See Ramban as well.

²⁸ As proof that Hashem only tries the righteous, he points to the verse, "י"י צַדִּיק יִבְחָן " (Tehillim 11:5).  The negative parallel to the rest of the verse, "וְרָשָׁע וְאֹהֵב חָמָס שָׂנְאָה נַפְשׁוֹ" further suggests that the test of the righteous is a test of love, meant to reward and not punish.  [The word "test" is opposed to the words "hate", suggesting that the test is an example of ייסורין של אהבה.]

²⁹ See above note.

³⁰ He writes, "the religious act begins with the sacrifice of one's self, and ends with the finding of that self. But man cannot find himself without sacrificing himself prior to the finding."

³¹ See below that R. Saadia thinks that the Akeidah served two purposes, not only to increase Avraham's rewards but also to teach others why he was chosen.

³² In order to have the angel speak in his own name Seforno is forced to play with the syntax of the verse.  According to him the word "מִמֶּנִּי" is not attached to the phrase "וְלֹא חָשַׂכְתָּ אֶת בִּנְךָ אֶת יְחִידְךָ" (which would imply that the angel is speaking in Hashem's name) but to the phrase "עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי כִּי יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים אַתָּה".  The verse then reads as if written "עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי כִּי יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים אַתָּה [מִמֶּנִּי] וְלֹא חָשַׂכְתָּ אֶת בִּנְךָ אֶת יְחִידְךָ".

³³ Thus, he suggests that one can read "וְהַעֲלֵהוּ... עַל אַחַד הֶהָרִים אֲשֶׁר אֹמַר אֵלֶיךָ" to mean "and offer him on one of the mountains if (not that) I tell you".  Alternatively, he suggests that "וְהַעֲלֵהוּ" refer to an unnamed subject, and not Yitzchak.

³⁴ R. Saadia adds that precisely because this was a test, Hashem had to allow Avraham to think He meant one thing when He intended another and therefore could not have explicitly revealed his true intentions.

³⁵ See R. Saadia's discussion in HaEmunot VeHaDeiot 3:9 as well.

³⁶ See R. Soloveitchik, Abraham's Journey, (New York, 2008): 190.  He speaks of Avraham as "suspending judgement" (as opposed to Kierkegaard's suspension of the ethical, discussed below).  Though Avraham could not himself understand how the command was ethical, he suspended judgement knowing that Hashem is a moral God and therefore all His directives must be moral as well.

³⁷ He claims that every time that the phrase "וַיְהִי אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה" appears, it serves a similar purpose.  Thus, the similar opening in Bereshit 15 links Hashem reassurance to Avraham "אַל תִּירָא אַבְרָם" with his war against the four kings described in the previous chapter.

³⁸ See Y. Bin-Nun, "עקידת יצק: עונש או ניסיון" in "פרקי האבות : עיונים בפרשיות האבות בספר בראשית", (Jerusalem, 2003): 100-119, who points to several other points of contact between the Avimelekh stories and the akeidah:

• In Bereshit 20, we are told " וַיַּשְׁכֵּם אֲבִימֶלֶךְ בַּבֹּקֶר", matching Bereshit 22:3, "וַיַּשְׁכֵּם אַבְרָהָם בַּבֹּקֶר."
• Avimelekh asks Avraham, "מָה רָאִיתָ כִּי עָשִׂיתָ אֶת הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה", while the angel later tells Avraham, "יַעַן אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתָ אֶת הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה".
• Hashem tells Avimelekh, "גַּם אָנֹכִי יָדַעְתִּי כִּי בְתׇם לְבָבְךָ עָשִׂיתָ זֹּאת וָאֶחְשֹׂךְ גַּם אָנֹכִי אוֹתְךָ מֵחֲטוֹ לִי".  Hashem uses similar language when speaking to Avraham, "כִּי עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי כִּי יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים אַתָּה וְלֹא חָשַׂכְתָּ אֶת בִּנְךָ אֶת יְחִידְךָ מִמֶּנִּי".
• When in Philistine territory, Avraham feared a lack of "יִרְאַת אֱלֹהִים".  After the akeidah, Hashem says of Avraham "כִּי יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים אַתָּה".

³⁹ As evidence of such a usage he points to Iyyov 4:2. "הֲנִסָּה דָבָר אֵלֶיךָ תִּלְאֶה", and Shemot 17:7, "עַל רִיב בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְעַל נַסֹּתָם אֶת י"י" where the root is connected to weariness and strife.

⁴⁰ Chagai Ben-Artzi, in מבט חדש על העקידה, elaborates on Rashbam's approach and suggests that in making an oath and covenant with Avimelekh, Avraham had nullified the covenants of "land" and "seed" promised him by Hashem.  As such, Hashem demanded that he return the "seed" that was given him, Yitzchak.  See also R"Y Medan, "כי קרוב אליך" (Tel Aviv, 2014): 139-140, who explains similarly.

⁴¹ Rashbam, however, does not say this.

⁴² R"Y Medan (see above note) suggests that Hashem's forgiveness of Avraham on Mt. Moriah points to the future role of the altar to be built there - atonement for sin and Hashem's granting of mercy rather than justice.

⁴³ Chagai Ben-Artzi (see note above) explains that with Avraham's obeisance to Hashem's directive, Hashem was able to renew the covenants that had been nullified.  He thus blessed him once again with seed and conquest. Ben-Artzi suggests that it is Yitzchak who serves to totally correct his father's deeds when he insists on living and working specifically on Philistine land, despite their attempts to chase him away.

⁴⁴ See the many commentaries below who explain the verse in a similar fashion.

⁴⁵ According to Chagai Ben-Artzi (see above note), in contrast, Hashem might originally have in fact intended that Yitzchak be killed, and thus given back to Hashem.  Since Avraham broke his covenant with Hashem, Hashem planned to retract his side - Yitzchak.  It is not clear,however, why Hashem would need Avraham to be the instrument through which Yitzchak was returned to Hashem..

⁴⁶ See above note.

⁴⁷ See S. Spiegel, "מאגדות העקידה: פיוט על שחיטת יצחק ותחייתו לר' אפרים מבונא" in "ספר היובל לכבוד אלכסנדר מארכס" (New York, 1950): 471-547, who discusses the various aggadot which present Yitzchak as actually dying during the akeidah, (and later being resurrected)  and how these were adapted by people and poets during the Crusader period who attempted to come to terms with the mass martyrdom in their communities.

⁴⁸ R. Saadia also claims that the trial was intended to increase the rewards designated to Avraham.

⁴⁹ Thus, Hashem learned nothing from the trial, but rather taught others.

⁵⁰ See also the annotation in R"Y Bekhor Shor.

⁵¹ He also raises the possibility that the verse should be read as if it says "הנה ידעתי" rather than "עתה ידעתי".  Hashem, thus, is declaring, "Behold, I always knew that you were God fearing..."

⁵² R"Y Bekhor Shor has the angels echo the complaints the Satan makes regarding Iyyov as they question why Avraham's fear of God is considered so special; after all he is protected by God and admired by others so he had no reason not to be God-fearing.

⁵³ For Shadal the fact that there were no witnesses to the event though is somewhat difficult. If one of the points was to prove to the pagans of his own time that Avraham, too, was ready to sacrifice his son, hearsay regarding the event should not have sufficed.

⁵⁴ He therefore suggests that the main target were future generations rather than Avraham's own generation.

⁵⁵ Thus, Mesha, the king of Moav offers his first born as a sacrifice only when he fears defeat in war. (Melakhim II 3).

⁵⁶ Philo claims that offering one out of ten children is much less distressing than offering your only child.

⁵⁷ This is why the verse emphasizes "קַח נָא אֶת בִּנְךָ אֶת יְחִידְךָ אֲשֶׁר אָהַבְתָּ אֶת יִצְחָק".

⁵⁸ Cf. Ibn Kaspi who says this explicitly. He thinks that animal sacrifice is only a concession to humans and not ultimately the desired form of worship. He, thus, points out that it is Avraham on his own, and not via Divine command, who decides to replace Yitzchak with the ram. For more on his understanding of sacrifices, see Purpose of the Sacrifices.

⁵⁹ This demonstrates exactly why it is difficult to say that there are "absolutes" in morality.  Not in every generation and every culture is it agreed under which circumstances killing another is "murder" and when it is an act to be lauded.

⁶⁰ See Bereshit Rabbah, R. Saadia Gaon, Rashi, Lekach Tov, and R. Yosef Bekhor Shor.  See above points regarding the polemical motivations for suggesting this.

⁶¹ See also Bereshit Rabbah and Rashi.

⁶² The Satan tried to cast doubt on Avraham's love of Hashem by pointing out that at the party in honor of Yitzchak's weaning Avraham did not think to honor Hashem through a sacrifice. In response, Hashem showed the Satan that Avraham would be willing to offer him even his son.

⁶³ Yishmael gloated that he was at a higher level since he consented to be circumcised, while Yitzchak had no choice. Yitzchak responds that he would be willing to give not just one limb, but even his whole life, if asked.

⁶⁴ For a review of some of the literature and variations of this approach, see A. Sagi, יהדות: בין דת למוסר (Tel Aviv, 1998): 257-26 and M. Navon, The Binding of Isaac, Hakirah 17 (2014): 233-256.

⁶⁵ He thus suggests that the animals that are chosen as sacrifices are those which can most closely represent humans.  For elaboration on R. Hoffmann's understanding of the sacrificial system and how it relates to the akeidah, see Purpose of the Sacrifices.

⁶⁶ They, too, speak of surrender of the self, but of one's thoughts and values rather than one's life.  Thus they do not limit the lesson to one of martyrdom.

⁶⁷ This, of course, is contingent on being certain that it is Hashem's word which one is heeding. The Rambam3 24About Rambam Moreh Nevukhim, in fact, claims that one of the messages of narrative of the akeidah is that true prophets have no doubts at all as to the veracity of their prophecies. Avraham knew with certainty that it was Hashem speaking to him, or he would never have done the deed.
Cf. E. Kant, in The Conflict of the Faculties (Nebraska, 1992) whose position diametrically opposes the one presented here.  He claims that in face of a conflict between individual morality and the voice of God, one must listen to the self.  That murder is wrong is a certainty; whether one has truly heard the word of God is in doubt.  He, thus, concludes that Avraham failed the test, a conclusion which obviously does not match the simple sense of Bereshit 22.

⁶⁸ This was expressed by Kierkegaard in his work, Fear and Trembling, as "the suspension of the ethical".  Cf. R. Hirsch who writes similarly: "Saying, 'הנני', saying "we would serve God" implies completely giving up all one's own ideas, one's own will, and without any further ado placing all one's powers at the disposable of God's insight..."

⁶⁹ See A. Sagi, יהדות: בין דת למוסר (Tel Aviv, 1998): 257-267 who suggests that R. Shapira's approach is his attempt to justify Hashem in face of the atrocities of the Shoah.  R. Shapira viewed his generation as modern day Yitzchaks who were slaughtered according to the Divine will.

⁷⁰ For other places in Tanakh where this connotation might be implied see Bereshit 20:11, Shemot 1:17, Vayikra 19:14,32, 25:17, Devarim 25:18, Iyyov 1:1, and 2:3. See N. Leibowitz, Iyyunim Chadashim BeSefer Shemot (Jerusalem, 1970): 32-33 and N. Sarna, Exploring Exodus (New York, 1986): 25-26, 120-121 who elaborate on this point.