John Calvin Commentary Genesis 22:2

"And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son, whom thou lovest, even Isaac, and get thee into the land of Moriah. And offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of." — Genesis 22:2 (ASV)

Take now your son. Abraham is commanded to immolate his son. If God had said nothing more than that his son should die, even this message would have most grievously wounded his mind, because whatever favor he could hope for from God was included in this single promise: In Isaac shall your seed be called.

From this he necessarily inferred that his own salvation, and that of the whole human race, would perish unless Isaac remained in safety. For he was taught by that word that God would not be gracious to man without a Mediator. For although the declaration of Paul that all the promises of God in Christ are yea and Amen (2 Corinthians 1:20) was not yet written, it was nevertheless engraved on the heart of Abraham.

How then, however, could he have had this hope, but from Isaac? The situation had reached this point: that God would appear to have done nothing but mock him. Yet not only is the death of his son announced to him, but he is commanded with his own hand to slay him, as if he were required not only to throw aside, but to cut in pieces or cast into the fire, the charter of his salvation, and to have nothing left for himself but death and hell.

But it may be asked, how, under the guidance of faith, he could be brought to sacrifice his son, since what was proposed to him was in opposition to that word of God on which it is necessary for faith to rely? To this question the Apostle answers that his confidence in the word of God remained unshaken, because he hoped that God would be able to cause the promised blessing to spring up, even out of the dead ashes of his son (Hebrews 11:19).

His mind, however, must necessarily have been severely crushed and violently agitated when the command and the promise of God were conflicting within him. But when he had come to the conclusion that the God with whom he knew he had to deal could not be his adversary, although he did not immediately discover how the contradiction might be removed, he nevertheless, by hope, reconciled the command with the promise. Because, being undoubtedly persuaded that God was faithful, he left the unknown issue to Divine Providence.

Meanwhile, as with closed eyes, he goes where he is directed. The truth of God deserves this honor: not only that it should far transcend all human means, or that it alone, even without means, should be sufficient for us, but also that it should surmount all obstacles. Here, then, we perceive more clearly the nature of the temptation which Moses has pointed out.

It was difficult and painful for Abraham to forget that he was a father and a husband; to cast off all human affections; and to endure, before the world, the disgrace of shameful cruelty by becoming the executioner of his son. But the other was a far more severe and horrible thing: namely, that he perceives God to be contradicting Himself and His own word; and then, that he supposes the hope of the promised blessing to be cut off from him when Isaac is torn away from his embrace.

For what more could he have to do with God when the only pledge of grace is taken away? But as before, when he expected seed from his own dead body, he, by hope, rose above what it seemed possible to hope for. So now, when, in the death of his son, he perceives the life-giving power of God in such a way as to promise himself a blessing out of the ashes of his son, he emerges from the labyrinth of temptation. For, in order that he might obey God, it was necessary that he should tenaciously hold the promise, which, had it failed, faith must have perished.

But with him the promise always flourished, because he both firmly retained the love with which God had once embraced him and subjected to the power of God everything which Satan raised up to disturb his mind. But he was unwilling to measure by his own understanding the method of fulfilling the promise, which he knew depended on the incomprehensible power of God.

It remains for each of us to apply this example to ourselves. The Lord, indeed, is so indulgent to our weakness that he does not so severely and sharply try our faith; yet he intended, in the father of all the faithful, to propose an example by which he might call us to a general trial of faith.

For the faith, which is more precious than gold and silver, should not lie idle without trial; and experience teaches that each will be tried by God according to the measure of his faith. At the same time, also, we may observe that God tests his servants not only when he subdues the affections of the flesh, but when he reduces all their senses to nothing, that he may lead them to a complete renunciation of themselves.

Your only son Isaac, whom you love. As if it were not enough to command in one word the sacrifice of his son, he pierces, as with fresh strokes, the mind of the holy man. By calling him his only son, he again irritates the wound recently inflicted by the banishment of the other son; he then looks forward into the future, because no hope of offspring would remain.

If the death of a firstborn son is usually grievous, what must the mourning of Abraham be? Each word which follows is emphatic and serves to aggravate his grief. Slay (he says) him whom alone you love. And he does not here refer merely to his paternal love, but to that which sprang from faith.

Abraham loved his son, not only as nature dictates and as parents commonly do who take delight in their children, but as perceiving the paternal love of God in him. Lastly, Isaac was the mirror of eternal life and the pledge of all good things. Therefore, God seems not so much to assail the paternal love of Abraham as to trample upon His own benevolence.

There is equal emphasis in the name Isaac, by which Abraham was taught that nowhere else did any joy remain for him. Certainly, when he who had been given as the occasion of joy was taken away, it was just as if God should condemn Abraham to eternal torment. We must always remember that Isaac was not an ordinary son, but one in whose person the Mediator was promised.

Go into the land of Moriah. The bitterness of grief is greatly increased by this circumstance. For God does not require him to put his son immediately to death but compels him to ponder this execution in his mind for three whole days, so that in preparing himself to sacrifice his son, he may still more severely torture all his own senses.

Besides, he does not even name the place where he requires that dire sacrifice to be offered: Upon one of the mountains (he says) that I will tell you of. So before, when he commanded him to leave his country, he held his mind in suspense. But in this affair, the delay which most cruelly tormented the holy man, as if he had been stretched upon the rack, was even less tolerable.

There was, however, a twofold use of this suspense. For there is nothing to which we are more prone than to be wise beyond our measure. Therefore, in order that we may become docile and obedient to God, it is profitable for us to be deprived of our own wisdom, and that nothing should be left for us but to resign ourselves to be led according to his will.

Secondly, this also tended to make him persevere, so that he should not obey God by a merely sudden impulse. For, as he does not turn back in his journey nor ponder conflicting counsels, it thus appears that his love for God was confirmed by such constancy that it could not be affected by any change of circumstances.

Jerome explains the land of Moriah to be ‘the land of vision,’ as if the name had been derived from rahah (ראה). But all who are skilled in the Hebrew language condemn this opinion. Nor am I better satisfied with those who interpret it as the myrrh of God. It is certainly acknowledged by general consensus that it is derived from the word yarah (ירה), which signifies to teach, or from yarai (ירא), which signifies to fear. There is, however, even at this time, a difference among interpreters, some thinking that the doctrine of God is here specially emphasized.

Let us follow the most probable opinion: namely, that it is called the land of divine worship, either because God had appointed it for the offering of the sacrifice, so that Abraham might not dispute whether some other place should not be chosen instead, or because the place for the temple was already fixed there. I prefer to adopt this second explanation: that God there required a present worship from his servant Abraham because, already in his secret counsel, he had determined in that place to fix his ordinary worship.

Sacrifices properly receive their name from the word which signifies fear, because they give proof of reverence to God. Moreover, it is by no means doubtful that this is the place where the temple was afterwards built.