Some have struggled with a fundamental question about Abraham's personality, a question which is posed by this week's teaching. When G-d comes to Abraham to inform him that the city of Sodom is to be destroyed for its wickedness, Abraham responds aggressively. He seems to be almost shaming God into agreeing to spare the city if fifty righteous can be found within it, saying, "Far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?" (Genesis 18:25). Then, with a bargaining style that would be the envy of any used-car salesman, teenager, or trial lawyer, he lowers the number to forty-five, to thirty, to twenty, to ten. In contrast, when God comes to Abraham and commands him, "Take your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and offer him as a burnt offering" (Genesis 22:2), Abraham does not respond and heads off to do God's will. How could Abraham care so deeply for strangers, and not fight for the life of his own son? I stand further in awe of the zeal and single-mindedness that Abraham brings to his assignment. Rather than prolonging goodbyes, he does not delay -- arising and setting out first thing in the morning.

When God summons Abraham to offer up his son, (Genesis 22:1) God calls his name once, and Abraham responds Hinneni -- here I am. In contrast, when God's messenger calls upon Abraham to stop, at the last moment, (22:11), it is with a twofold repetition "Abraham, Abraham" -- Abraham must be asked only once to raise the knife, but twice before he will stay it. I think the sages were trying to soften that perception when they re-imagined each phrase of God's command to Abraham as one side of a conversation, with Abraham taking the other side (Sanhedrin 89b): "Take your son" "But I have two sons!" "Your only son"-- "This one is the only child of his mother, and this is the only child of his mother."

"Whom you love"-- "I love both of my sons." "Isaac." And Abraham is unable to respond further. The tone of this conversation sharpens the question in a different way, because it puts these events into the context of Abraham's treatment of his older son. When Sarah demands that Ishmael be sent away after Isaac is born, Abraham is deeply distressed. It is only after God reassures him that all will be well with his eldest son that Abraham sends him off to risk death in the dangerous desert. There are many approaches to the resolution of this paradox. For instance, many Hebrew sources (e.g. Pirkei Avot 5:3) understand that the banishment of Ishmael and the binding of Isaac were the culmination of the ten "tests" of Abraham's faith. Some would argue that seen in this context, the changing responses show a progression of deepening faith. At first Abraham had challenged God's wisdom aloud (in the case of Sodom) or required reassurance, even though his doubts were unspoken (in the case of Ishmael).

Abraham's willingness to give up his own son could then be seen as an example of having reached the most profound level of faith, a deep appreciation that indeed everything belongs to God. Abraham's behavior makes sense in light of his cultural background. Archaeologists may debate the actual prevalence of the custom of child sacrifice in the ancient Near East, but the Biblical text portrays it as a norm of religious expression that was a temptation for Israelites even long after Abraham's day. If the false, powerless idols received human sacrifice, why should Abraham give any less to the one true God, a God who had already given, and demanded, so much? Some modern thinkers have suggested that the true test was not whether Abraham would indeed offer up his son, but whether he would not!