Why did Abraham bind his son Isaac?

Question

Genesis 22:9 reads:

“When they came to the place of which God had told him, Abraham built the altar there and laid the wood in order and bound Isaac his son and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood.” (Genesis 22:9, ESV, emphasis mine).

Why did Abraham bind his son Isaac? Was this a standard way to prepare a sacrifice?

Answer 1

Was this a standard way to prepare a sacrifice?

No. The verb used to describe the binding of Isaac is ʿqd, a term used only here in the Hebrew Bible. There are other terms that could be used to describe a similar action, but none of them is used to describe the preparation of the burnt offering, related most elaborately in Leviticus 1.¹ There the basic procedure is:

• slaughter (šḥṭ) the animal,
• drain the blood,
• throw the blood against the sides of the altar,
• flay and cut the animal into pieces,
• arrange (ʿrk) the wood on the fire,
• arrange (ʿrk) the pieces on the wood, and
• burn all of it.

The sequence is similar in Leviticus 8-9. The account of Genesis 22 is quite different. The slaughter (šḥṭ) is represented by the same term (which is specific to slitting the throat, see Milgrom), but it is shifted to the end of a modified sequence. We are told that Abraham

• built the altar,
• arranged (ʿrk) the wood,
• bound (ʿqd) Isaac,
• lay Isaac on the altar,
• reached out his hand, and
• took the knife
• (in order to) slaughter (šḥṭ) his son.

From a narrative point of view, the act of šḥṭ is delayed to build suspense, pulling the reader forward in slow motion through the horror of the Abrahams's ordeal.² In the words of Von Rad:

[O]ne can only answer all plaintive scruples about this narrative by saying that it concerns something more frightful than child sacrifice. It has to do with a road out into Godforsakenness, a road on which Abraham does not know that God is only testing him.

So,

Why did Abraham bind his son Isaac?

1. On a banal level: because Isaac was applied to the altar alive and needed to be tied down for slaughter.
2. On a narrative level: in order to delay the decisive moment of death and escalate the suspense of the relentless march into "Godforsakenness".
3. On a thematic level, the basic point of the aqedah is Abraham's unqualified obedience to God, although the reader is not privy to the details of his instructions. The particular act of ʿqd is no different: Abraham bound Isaac because God told him to.⁴

---

_Notes

_{1. Another answer rightly pointed out that Psalm 118:27 may provide evidence that sacrifices were bound. This passage uses a different term for "bind", but it means something similar. The difficulty is that the apparent object -- ḥag -- doesn't normally mean "burnt-offering" (rather "festival" or "feast"). That the Hebrew is obscure is witnessed by the fact that good, modern translations differ.³ (Contrast ESV with NRSV and NIV.) Also, if this were a standard way of going about it, one would like to see some mention in the instructions of Leviticus or at least in the reports of sacrifices that occur throughout the Hebrew Bible. To my knowledge (based on lexical searches and a brief survey of Psalms and Leviticus commentaries, below), this method of preparation is nowhere else attested. (And why would it be necessary to bind what is already dead? unless the whole sequence is to change.) If Ps 118:27 indeed describes binding of a sacrifice to the altar, it seems to have been an unusual way to go about it.}

_{2. Hebrew students are taught not to translate narrative sequences "...and....and...and...", but the relentless sequence of seven "and" verbs in these two verses isn't fully conveyed in the good English style achieved by the variation in conjunctions and syntax of most translations. See Young's Literal Translation or your interlinear of choice.}

_{3. The LXX translator was also almost certainly looking at this same Hebrew when he wrote "συστήσασθε ἑορτὴν ἐν τοῖς πυκάζουσιν" ("celebrate the feast with thick branches" [Brenton; NETS gives the (no doubt appropriately) unintelligible, "arrange a feast with the thick ones"]).}

_{4. I think this should apply whether one takes this at face value as an historical account or assumes it is a literary creation and applies whatever variety of redaction paradigm.}

_{Helpful Commentaries}

_{Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101–150 (WBC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 160-168.}

_{Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16 (AYB; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), 154-155.}

_{Gerhard von Rad. Genesis: A Commentary (OTL; Westminster John Knox Press, 1973), 244. I unfortunately have only been able to see the limited Google books preview of this.}

_{Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 109.}

Answer 2

It is quite arguable that the reason Abraham bound Isaac was to simply ensure that Isaac wouldn't try to escape under the stress of impending death.

Pain motivates the individual to withdraw from damaging situations, to protect a damaged body part while it heals, and to avoid similar experiences in the future https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-preservation

Lets look at the following argumentation. In all the Biblical narrative preceding the discussed event, we can notice that Abraham did not disobey God even once, and can therefore be hypothesised to always, at least since his first encounter with God mentioned in the Bible, to have been diligent in never allow himself to disobey God. To strengthen this hypothesis, we can have a look at the fact that sin nature, which dwells in people [1], would always try to get Abraham to disobey. So his mental process therefore had to continuously fight against his own sin nature. If he did not diligently and at all times strive against his sin nature, we would be the more likely to have read of one or more mishaps that he had committed, but we do not find even one, at least in relation to the holistic image of righteousness that is presented by the Bible. But, the strengthening of the hypothesis that Abraham sought to diligently ensure that his obedience to God would not be compromised, logically leads to the strengthening of a hypothesis that it was not an exception in the discussed Biblical event, namely the one concerning Abraham's intention to obey God by slaying his own son. And because the risk of his son running away was real, as was shown earlier, a hypothesis that Abraham could have tied his son for the reason of preventing this (i.e. the running away of his son) from happening gains at least some ground.

As a side-note, we can also notice a parallel here with the nailing of Jesus to the Cross. The Cross was used as a tool for the self-Sacrifice of Jesus (Romans 3:25), who is also called Lamb (John 1:29). So a parallel, however obvious or clear, can be drawn here between the Cross and an altar, since it was on the altar that priests sacrificed animals (Exodus 20:24). And given the richness of symbolism used in the Bible [2], a hypothesis that the nails of the cross represented the cords with which Isaac was tied, gains at least some ground. As for the parallel between Isaac and Jesus, one can indeed be drawn, however obvious or clear, based on noting that Isaac had twelve sons, just as Jesus had twelve apostles, as well as based on the fact that Isaac was placed by Abraham on the "altar" too, as we can read:

When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood (Genesis 22:9).

Annotations:

[1] See Romans 7, especially verses 14 and 15-25; the term sin nature or "original sin" is used by at least some denominations, including Orthodox and Catholic, to denote an evil kind of nature everpresent in human beings, there to provide an opposibg force to their attempted practice of righteusness, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin#Eastern_Orthodoxy

[2] Matthew 13:34; also The A to Z Guide to Bible Signs and Symbols by Neil Wilson, ‎Nancy Ryken Taylor

Answer 3

Psalm 118:27 speaks of binding the sacrifice with cords. So yes, it appears to have been somewhat standard to prepare sacrifices by binding them first.

Matthew Poole also refers to this in his commentary:

and bound Isaac his son, partly, because burnt-offerings were to be bound to the altar; of which see Poole on "Psalms 118:27"; partly, to represent Christ, who was bound to the cross. And that Isaac might be the more exact type of Christ, he was bound by his own consent, otherwise his age and strength seem sufficient to have made an effectual resistance. It is therefore highly reasonable to think that Abraham, having in the whole journey prepared Isaac for such a work by general but pertinent discourses, did upon the mount particularly instruct him concerning the plain and peremptory command of God, the absolute necessity of complying with it, the glorious reward of his obedience, and the dismal consequences of his disobedience; the power and faithfulness of God either to prevent the fatal blow, or to restore his life lost with infinite advantage. Upon these, and such-like reasons, doubtless he readily laid himself down at his father’s feet, and yielded up himself to the Divine will.