SOUTHEASTERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

THE CURIOUS CASE OF THE LONE IMPERFECT:

A LITERARY AND LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF GEN 22:1–19

A PAPER SUBMITTED TO

DR. DAVID ALAN BLACK

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF

GRK 9600: GREEK LINGUISTICS

BY

DOUGALD MCLAURIN III

WAKE FOREST, NC

NOVEMBER 10, 2010

 INTRODUCTION

The movie 500 Days of Summer portrays the story of Tom Hansen and the 500 days that he knew

Summer Finn. The tale is given anachronistically with day 342 coming before 42, which is

followed by day 83, and so on. Tom is clearly in love with the girl, and he even declares this to

be the case. Even though large portions of the movie have the two main characters in a romantic

relationship, the audience is informed from the very beginning that, “This is not a love story.”1

This background statement placed at the very beginning of the narrative cues the

audience that they should be looking for a different theme in the movie rather than the

chronological development of the relationship. The storyline focuses on the two views of love

held by the two main characters. By the end of the movie, Tom has changed his position on what

he believes about love.2

But, what does this movie, or any movie for that matter, have to do with Greek

linguistics? The answer is simple—a great deal. The Greek language, especially in narratives,

has several parallels to modern movies in the devices it uses to communicate its central theme.

The author is the personal guide of the reader and he highlights certain features of the story—

perspectives, events, and themes—in order to emphasize his main purpose. Like a camera

                                                                                                               
1
500 Days of Summer, directed by Marc Webb, Fox Searchlight Pictures, 2009, opening
scene.
2
It is also important to note that the perspective of the movie is from Tom’s perspective.
Therefore, the change in his view is the one that is highlighted and, perhaps, the view that the
author wants the audience to adopt.

  1  
focusing on one particular object while leaving the rest of the picture unfocused,3 so the author

focuses his reader on whatever he desires. The movie allows the audience to see the events from

a certain perspective. Information is left out of the main story so that only that which develops

the story remains. So too, the author of a text provides what information he believes to be

pertinent to the story and its development. The author uses grammatical and linguistic devices in

order to accomplish this, and by observing these clues the reader discovers the focus intended by

the author.

Gen 22:1–19 shares one major parallel to the movie 500 days of Summer. That parallel is

the use of the background statement to drive the narrative that follows in order to reveal the

author’s main point. Instead of the background statement guiding the thoughts of the audience

through an entire movie, here the background statement governs an act within a larger episode of

a book.4 This background statement is the major focus of this paper. Through literary and

linguistic analysis of the overall passage it will be shown that the translator of the LXX uses the

imperfect to focus his reader on Abraham—his beliefs, actions, and how he passed God’s test.

The purpose of this paper is not to give a detailed analysis of each clause in Gen 22:1 –

19. Rather, the intention is to look at the overall structure in general and emphasize how the

author weaves his text together in order to accomplish his goal, and, perhaps, to show the simple

                                                                                                               
3
Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, (Sheffield: Almond
Press, 1983), 44.
4
Some of the terminology of the movies is used in my analysis of the Pentateuch. The
Pentateuch would be the largest syntagmeme—referred to as a book. A book is made up of
episodes. Our episode is Gen 11:27–25:11. An episode is made up of smaller acts, acts of scenes,
and scenes of sentences, clauses, words, and morphemes. See, Shawn C. Madden, 1 Kings 1–11:
A Handbook on the Hebrew Text (Waco: Baylor Press, forthcoming), 12.

  2  
beauty of this narrative. Hopefully, this paper will aid readers of biblical texts to read the closer

to the way the author intended them to be read.5

Special Issues

Before analyzing this passage a few special issues need to be considered concerning this text.

There may be other special features that also may affect the discussion that follows, these three

will be primary issues that the reader should keep in mind while reading what follows. First, the

LXX is a translation from either the Hebrew that we find in the Masoretic text (MT) or a Vorlage

that is no longer extant. The LXX is the most literal of all the Greek translations when compared

with that of the Old Greek text.6 Therefore, the question of how this literal rendering affects the

overall linguistic structure of the Greek is important in the discussion of Greek linguistics of any

                                                                                                               
5
While, this passage has historically received some attention, most notably, and
somewhat recently, Kierkegaard use of this passage to support Christian existentialism. He
believed that this passage tells of Abraham’s leap of faith and his subsequent salvation.
Kierkegaard’s leap is largely built upon aspects of the story that are absent from the biblical
narrative but that are explicated from Kierkegaard’s imagination. See, Søren Kierkegaard, Fear
and Trembling: A Dialectical Lyric (trans. W. Lowrie; Princeton: Princeton, 1941), 17–29. As
Francis Schaeffer points out, Kierkegaard’s conclusions do not come from a close reading of the
Abrahamic narratives. See, Francis Schaeffer, The God Who is There (vol. 1 of The Complete
works of Francis A. Schaeffer; Wheaton: Crossway, 1985), 15–16. So too, the same argument
can be made against Immanuel Kant whose main supposition is that the moral conscience should
have informed Abraham to question whether it was God who was really speaking to him. For
Kant the answer should have been no because it is morally wrong for anyone to sacrifice their
child. Therefore, it could not have been God speaking to Abraham. See, Immanuel Kant, The
Conflict of the Faculties (trans. M. Gregor; Lincoln; University of Nebraska Press, 1992), 115–
17. This abandons the proper reading of the text that will be shown here. The goal in mentioning
these philosophers here is twofold: first, is that these men were not reading the text carefully.
They did not follow the guidance of the author for their conclusions; second, this issue illustrates
how Greek linguistics should not just be confined to biblical studies, but it can also be used in
philosophical discussions.
6
The distinction should be made between that of the LXX, and the Old Greek. The
translation of the Pentateuch referred to in the Letter of Aristeas is the LXX proper. The Old
Greek would refer to the translation of the remainder of the Old Testament (OT). See, Karen H.
Jobes and Moises Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 33.

  3  
passage. However, this does not take away from studying the Greek linguistic structure alone in

its own right.7 This study will focus on the Greek linguistic structure without much attention

given to translation technique.

Second, Gen 22:1–19 is a narrative text. A good portion of Greek linguistics studies has

focused on different genres other than narrative. In narrative there are different principles at

work. Robert Longacre says, “every language has a system of discourse types…each discourse

type has its own constellation of verb forms that figure into that type. The uses of given

tense/aspect/mood/form are most surely and concretely described in relation to a given discourse

type.”8 Other features that affect narrative are the concepts of narrative time, perspective, and

whether the narrator is omniscient or not will have an effect on the linguistic data present in the

text.9

One note concerning the literary structure is that the narrative genre of the Greek text is

driven by the aorist tense. The aorist is “narrative tense par excellence.”10 In the indicative

mood it provides the structure from which the entire narrative hangs.11 In other words, the aorist

                                                                                                               
7
Anneli Aejmelaeus, “What We Talk about when We Talk about Translation
Technique.” SCS 51 (1998): 206; repr. In On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators: Collected
Essays (Leuven: Peeters, 2007). The point in mentioning this is to prepare for any objections that
may arise due to the lack of discussion concerning this topic in this paper.
8
Robert E. Longacre, Joseph: A story of Divine Providence A Text Theoretical and
Textlinguistic Analysis of Genesis 37 and 39–48 (2d ed.; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 57.
9
For a general introduction to literary analysis see, Shimon Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art and
the Bible (JSOTSup 70; Sheffield: Sheiffield Academic, 1984). Also, Robert Alter, The Art of
Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981).
10
A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical
Research (Nashville: Broadman, 1934), 840.
11
See, Constantine R. Campbell, Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 84, and T. V. Evans, Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural

  4  
indicative brings the narrated action to the foreground of the text, in much the same way as the

wayyiqtol does in Hebrew narrative.12 Each aorist moves the story along to the next action of the

characters and thus moves the story from one point to the other. The story plows ahead on the

back of the aorist tense—a punctiliar measuring of time much like a clock.

Finally, the definition of Greek linguistics (or discourse analysis) assumed here is the

broad definition for discourse analysis given by George Guthrie, which is, “a wide array of

linguistic dynamics that interplay in language, various forms of discourse expressed within

languages, and specific contexts in which those forms are expressed. Essentially, it concerns

language as used as a tool of human communication.”13 The goal of Greek linguistics is to

recognize the communicative devices used by the author to indicate his main purpose. The

purpose in assuming such a broad definition is to allow for freedom in the explanation of the

discourse structure of this passage and to allow for discussion concerning literary devices,

without taking sides in the verbal aspect debate.14

To summarize, this passage from the LXX should be analyzed in its own right, The

linguistic structure, as well as the use of particular verb clusters, helps linguists to classify the

genre of the text. In Gen 22:1–19 we find the narrative genre. Finally, the goal of Greek

linguistics is to understand the communicative devices that the author uses to convey his

message. This includes literary devices that may not always be linguistically coded.

                                                                                                               
Greek Usage and Hebrew Interface (Oxford: Oxford, 2001), 164, 214–16. Evans notes that the
aorist indicative is used most often to translate the wayyiqtol. This is true for Gen 22:1–19.
12
Longacre, Joseph, 63.
13
George H. Guthrie, “Discourse Analysis,” in Interpreting the New Testament: Essays
on Methods and Issues (ed. By D. Alan Black & D. Dockery; Nashville: Broadman, 2001), 255.
14
For a brief introduction to the debate see, Campbell, Verbal Aspect, 32.

  5  
 AN ANALYSIS OF THE TESTING OF ABRAHAM

The narrative of Gen 22:1–19 tells the story of the testing of Abraham. In this story there are five

major scenes along with an introduction and a conclusion. The introduction provides the

pertinent background information needed to focus the reader on the testing that is about to take.

The next three scenes build tensions towards the climax in Scene 4. Scene 5 gives the outcome of

the climax as the tension in the texts begins to dissipate. Finally the conclusion ties up a loose

end and prepares the reader for the next act in the Abrahamic episode.

Introduction: 22:1a
Scene 1: Abraham’s Obeys 22:1b–3
Scene 2: Abraham’s Arrival 22:4–6
Scene 3: Abraham Answers Faithfully 22:7–8
Scene 4: Climax—Abraham Offers Isaac 22:9–14
Scene 5: Dénouement: God Blesses Abraham 22:15–18
Conclusion: 22:19

Why 22:1–19?

Why consider Gen 22:1–19 as one act? The boundaries of the act are formed by the use of two

temporal markers found here and at the beginning of the next and in 22:20. Both acts begin with

a similar temporal marker15—Kai« e˙ge÷neto meta» ta» rJh/mata tauvta. Such a temporal marker

is used several times in the Pentateuch to mark a change from one act to another.16 These two

clauses, juxtaposing two acts, clearly delineate the boundaries of this act. Although this marker

in 22:1 divides this act from the previous one, it also serves to connect this act with the previous

                                                                                                               
15
Kai« e˙ge÷neto translates y#Ih◊yÅw which is a temporal marker in Hebrew. Cf. Longacre,
Joseph, 64.
16
This phrase is introduced twice with the conjunction kai and three times with de. For
the former here and Gen 39:7, for the latter Gen 22:20; 40:1; 48:1. See also, John William
Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis (SBLSCS 35; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 52;
316. For a in depth discussion on kai egeneto and the various ways in which this same idea can
be expressed, see Robertson, Grammar, 1042.

  6  
ones by providing a chronological timeline of the Abrahamic episodes, placing this act in the

overall narrative flow.

Introduction: The Background: Gen 22:1b

The strong temporal marker already mentioned is followed by the use of the imperfect indicative.

This section will discuss the second part of the verse, oJ qeo\ß e˙pei÷razen to\n Abraam. This

verse serves as an abstract,17 or as the overall focus of this act. It is the thought to keep in mind

throughout the remainder of the act—and it drives all that follows. Just as in the 500 Days of

Summer where the audience is to keep in mind that they are not watching a love story, the reader

of Gen 22:1–19 should keep in mind that God is testing Abraham.

There are two reasons for reading it this way. First, the verb in this sentence is the lone

imperfect in this passage. This has a tremendous effect on the narrative that follows. The

imperfect tense is generally used in narrative to give offline material18 or as Constantine

Campbell puts it, “[the author] is able to provide related material with use of an imperfect

context. This related material may be supplemental information that explains why certain events

are taking place…information that provide[s] the reader with a wider understanding than simply

that these events took place.”19 Stating that this information is offline does not mean that it is

unimportant information. Quite the contrary, it is highlighting this information for the reader

because it is important to the narrative.

                                                                                                               
17
Berlin, Poetics, 102.
18
Campbell, Basics, 62.
19
Campbell, Verbal Aspect, the Indicative Mood, and Narrative: Soundings in the Greek
of the New Testament (SBG 13; New York: Peter Lang, 2007), 91–90.

  7  
 Second, a brief glimpse at the narrative timeline will also indicate that this is background

information. The narrative would not make sense if the reader read it this way: “And God tested

Abraham, then, afterwards, God said to Abraham, and Abraham said to God, etc.” Rather, the

use of the imperfect focuses the reader on what comes next. The meaning is better understood as,

“God tested Abraham, and what follows is how he did it.” God’s testing continues throughout

the passage and his testing is not confined to 22:1a.

This aperture sets the stage for the act and the reader should look for clues that will shed

light on how God will accomplish this. The reader is not left to his own devices in order to see

this development. Rather, the author has provided clues to direct the reader to the answer of this

question throughout the narrative (e.g. the suspension of Abraham’s obedience to the last

command for several verses). The author also focuses his attention of the reader squarely on

Abraham’s perspective throughout the narrative.20 The narrative does not give the reader the

perspective of the young men or Isaac. The narrative comes to the reader through Abraham’s

perceptions (e.g. it is Abraham who sees the mountain). Both the test and the one being tested are

at the center of this narrative.

Scene 1: Gen 22:1b–3

This scene begins with the initial interchange between God and Abraham. This is followed by

God’s command and Abraham’s obedience to them. God gives three commands. (1) Abraham is

to take his son, (2) go to the land which he will show him, and (3) offer up his son as a sacrifice.

The narrative proper begins in 22:1b with the first use of the aorist in its natural narratival

function. This brief exchange between Abraham and God in 22:1b should not be passed over

                                                                                                               
20
Berlin, Poetics, 44.

  8  
blithely. The importance of this interchange is found in its connection with another section of the

narrative. The exchange between God and Abraham is repeated nearly verbatim:

v.2 kai« ei•pen pro\ß aujto/n Abraam, v. 11 kai« ei•pen aujtw◊ˆ Abraam, Abraam.
Abraam: oJ de« ei•pen Δ∆Idou\ e˙gw¿. Abraam.oJ de« ei•pen Δ∆Idou\ e˙gw¿.

This repetition of the introductory statements by both characters emphasizes the events that come

immediately after them. The commands follow the initial interchange in 22:2, while the

provision of the sacrifice follows in 22:11.

After the interchange, the initial speech from God begins in 22:2. Here God gives three

commands, all in the aorist tense.21 The three commands are Labe«, poreu/qhti,22 and

aÓne÷negkon. Abraham immediately follows the first two commands and this is indicated by the

specific synonymous verbs used to describe Abraham’s actions. But, the final command

Abraham does not immediately obey. The remainder of the narrative moves toward Abraham’s

obedience to the final command—the climax.

The importance of the third command is also highlighted by the list of descriptors given

to Isaac (to\n ui˚o/n sou to\n aÓgaphto/n, o§n hjga¿phsaß, to\n Isaak).23 Bar-Efrat states that

                                                                                                               
21
The aorist imperative usually means that the command “involves a specific agent
performing [an] action within a specific situation.” Campbell, Verbal Aspect and Non-Indicative
Verbs: Further Soundings in the Greek of the New Testament (SBG 15; New York: Peter Lang,
2008), 84. However, Robertson points out that a great deal of attention does not need to be
devoted to this since the use of the aorist imperative was frequent. Robertson, Grammar, 855.

MT renders the place that Abraham is to proceed to as h¡D¥yîrO;m. The LXX as th\n
22  The

uJyhlh\n which is a literal rendering of the meaning of the Hebrew. This removes the word play
that is continued throughout this passage in the Hebrew between h¡D¥yîrO;m and h`Ra∂r´y . This also
removes another strong world play that happens between Gen 12:1 and 22:2 the only other place
in the OT where $ÔKVl_JKRl appears. There is also another wordplay between 12:1 with h¡D¥yîrO;m as
well. The collocation of this word play and the imperative links this passage with the beginning
of the Abrahamic narrative in 12:1ff. See, Wevers, Notes, 316–17.
23
The standard LXX text has, hjga¿phsaß, for the Hebrew, dyjy. Susan Brayford holds
that this addresses the problem introduced by the MT because Isaac was not Abraham’s only son.

  9  
this list of descriptors concerning Isaac is a gradation from less specific to more specific.24 Even

if Bar-Efrat’s statement is not accepted, one has to admit that the author is emphasizing the

special relationship between Abraham and his son. This emphasis builds tension in the story as

the weight of God’s request is highlighted for the reader by the emphasis on Abraham’s

relationship to Isaac.

As already mentioned, the scene ends with Abraham immediately following the

commands of God. Notice that there is no time reference to when Abraham follows the

commands. This seems to indicate that Abraham wasted no time to obey God. Also, the use of

aorist participles in conjunction with the aorist indicative supports this idea because this type of

construction usually implies contemporaneous action.25 In accordance with these commands,

Abraham exits the scene with ai« h™lqen e˙pi« to\n to/pon, o§n ei•pen aujtw◊ˆ oJ qeo/ß. This phrase

serves as transition to the next scene as the main character exits the stage and he arrives at a new

place, at a new time.26

Scene 2: Gen 22:4–6

                                                                                                               
There was Ishmael. See, Susan Brayford, Genesis (SCS; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 329. However,
there is manuscript evidence that uses monogenhv. See the textual apparatus for Gen 22:2 in John
William Wevers ed., Genesis (vol. 1 of Septuaginta; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1974), 213. See also, Wevers, 318. For an more in depth discussion see, Hans Ausloos, “‘Your
Only Son, Your Beloved One’ (Genesis 22): When Septuagint and Messianism Meet,” in
Interpreting Translation: Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust (BETL 192;
ed. F. Martinez et. al.; Leuven: Leuven University, 2005), 19–31.
24
Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art, 217.
25
Campbell, Non-Indicative Verbs, 19–22. In a number of places where this occurs in the
NT the participle occurs before the main verb (cf. Luke 1:19; 14:3). Also, the function of
sci÷saß does not appear to be the same as the other aorist participles in 22:3.
26
Stephen H. Levinsohn, Discourse Features of New Testament Greek: A Coursebook
(Dallas: SIL, 1992), 14.

  10  
This scene begins with a temporal and topical shift. First, the text says thvØ hJme÷raˆ thvØ tri÷thØ,

indicating the length of the passage of time between God’s command to Abraham and his arrival

at the to\n to/pon, o§n ei•pen aujtw◊ˆ oJ qeo/ß. This introduces the reader to a new scene—a scene

which slows down the narrative in order to build tension.

The scene tells of Abraham’s arrival at the place which God would show him, as well as

the exchange between Abraham and his two servants. Here Abraham tells his servants to have a

seat and wait. It is the next statement of the text that seems curious. Abraham says, “e˙gw» de« kai«

to\ paida¿rion dieleuso/meqa eºwß w—de kai« proskunh/santeß aÓnastre÷ywmen pro\ß

uJma◊ß.” Despite the fact that God told Abraham that he will offer up his son as a sacrifice,

Abraham indicates that both he and his son will return. This is brought out by Abraham’s words.

Here the main verb used is a future indicative, dieleuso/meqa, followed by the aorist participle,

proskunh/santeß, as well as the aorist subjunctive, aÓnastre÷ywmen. There are a few

observations about this construction that need to be made. First, quite often the future indicative

is used in direct speech in both the OT narratives as well as the NT.27 Second, quite often the

future indicative occurs with the subjunctive,28 especially with the aorist subjunctive.29 This

construction “indicates a point in the future at which a new situation is inaugurated or a standing

situation is brought to an end.”30 In other words, the tenses that Abraham uses (and subsequently

                                                                                                               
27
Campbell, Narrative, 129. For more on the aspect of the future tense see, Stanley E.
Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek New Testament with Reference to Tense and Mood (SBG 1;
New York: Peter Lang, 1993), 404–39. Also see, Robertson, Grammar, 848.
28
Evans, 35.
29
Campbell, Non-Indicative Verbs, 58. Especially in negative constructions. The negative
constructions do not match the construction here as this text lacks a negation. Campbell will
continue to discuss the matter and will illustrate constructions that do not have a negative
function.
30
Ibid., 60.

  11  
how the LXX translator translates the MT) indicate that Abraham was fully expecting that his

statement of the return of both of them would be proven true.

The scene concludes with Abraham taking the materials for the sacrifice and laying them

upon Isaac. With each article laid upon Isaac the reader is reminded of what is Abraham is going

to do. This, as well as the entire scene, serves to slow down the narrative time and to build

suspense. After Abraham has laid the materials on his son and taken the fire and the knife, the

text says, kai« e˙poreu/qhsan oi˚ du/o a‚ma. This last statement has them exiting the scene and it

prepares the reader for beginning of the next scene.

The reader has been horrified at the idea that Abraham is going to sacrifice his own son.

But now, the reader is met with a new idea—an idea straight from the mouth of Abraham—that

he and the lad will return. The tension is building for the reader, will Isaac be sacrificed and the

line promised to Abraham be snuffed out? Or will something miraculous happen?

Scene 3: Gen 22:7–8

The insertion of this short discussion between Abraham and Isaac further slows down the

narrative and builds suspense, as speech often does in narrative.31 In this case, the plot thickens

as Isaac now asks the question, “where is the sacrifice for the offering?” What if Isaac perceives

what is about to happen to him? Could this complicate Abraham’s attempt to obey God’s

command?

Abraham, however, answers again with a future indicative, saying, “ÔO qeo\ß o¡yetai

e˚autw◊ˆ pro/baton ei˙ß oJloka¿rpwsin, te÷knon.” In the previous scene, Abraham’s expectation

that he and Isaac would return to the servants is given more specificity—God will provide the

                                                                                                               
31
Campbell, Narrative, 54.

  12  
sheep for the offering. Abraham’s answer once again shows that he has faith that God’s promises

concerning Isaac will come to pass.32 At each step along the way the tension builds. At at each

step Abraham continues to expect the miraculous. In the end, Abraham’s words ring true. God

will provide the sheep for the sacrifice.

The scene ends with the Abraham and Isaac traveling on together (poreuqe÷nteß de«

aÓmfo/teroi a‚ma). Although the wording is a bit different from the end of 22:6, the comment

that the two traveled on together resumes the mainline of the narrative, which is driving towards

the impending sacrifice. The two are on a journey to the place where Abraham is to sacrifice his

son Isaac. And this reconnection to the purpose of that journey ends this aside.

Nothing happens in a narrative that is not important to the goal of it. This is especially

true of these two scenes. They are included to develop the perspective of Abraham and his belief

that God would act. They also build the tension towards the climax. There are elements in these

two scenes that will be revisited in the climax.

Climax: Gen 22:9–14

Finally, the two sojourners have arrived at their destination. The tension builds as Abraham

prepares to sacrifice his son. Seven verbs, in quick succession, are used to describe each step

leading up to the offering of Isaac. Abraham builds the altar, lays the wood, binds his son, and

lays him upon the altar. He then stretches out his hand to take the knife to slay his son. The

suspense is building as the reader awaits the fate of Isaac. Here is the climax.

There are two points that indicate that this is the climax of the story. First, is that the

narrative time slows down with the list of these verbs. With each tick of the aoristic clock the

                                                                                                               
32
Adele Berlin says that Abraham is being ironic here. Berlin, Poetics,53. However, a
contrary conclusion seems to be present itself in the text.

  13  
author focuses the attention of the reader on every detail that would go into the offering, thus

bringing the narrative speed to a grinding halt.33 A second point emphasizes the linguistic

evidence. The increase in the number of verbs in the foreground over a short number of clauses

is a way that a language linguistic codes the peak, or climax, of the narrative.34 So, on the one

hand, each action that is mentioned slows down the narrative, allowing the tension to build, and

at the same time it linguistically codes that the reader is arriving the peak of the narrative.

For a second time in this act God speaks to Abraham. This time he speaks through his

angel. The dialogue between the angel and Abraham harkens of the initial dialogue between God

and Abraham at the beginning of the narrative (Abraam, Abraam. oJ de« ei•pen Δ∆Idou\ e˙gw¿). It

is interesting that at the climax this interchange begins in the same way. It indicates that the

original tension that began with God’s initial commands is coming to an end.

The angel’s speech interrupts the climax and he says, nuvn ga»r e¶gnwn o¢ti fobhvØ to\n

qeo\n su\. The use of the aorist e¶gnwn with fobhvØ is interesting. Here the reader finds the

construction of an aorist indicative with a present indicative. However, this construction is often

used in direct speech to refer to an event that just took place.35 This construction brings vividness

to the actions that have just occurred. Therefore, it could be said that Abraham’s fear of God can

be clearly seen. This is the object of the test. Does Abraham fear God? The answer is most

certainly a resounding “yes!” The angel’s speech goes on to include how Abraham’s fear was

displayed. He says, “kai« oujk e˙fei÷sw touv ui˚ouv sou touv aÓgaphtouv diΔ∆ e˙me÷.” Here the

                                                                                                               
33
Bar-Efrat, 150.
34
Robert E. Longacre, “Discourse Peak as Zone of Turbulence,” in Beyond the Sentence:
Discourse and Sentential Form (ed. by J. Wirth; Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers, 1985), 96.
35
Robertson, Grammar, 842.

  14  
aorist tense is resumed as usual. This emphasizes the unique quality of the present indicative

mentioned above. It points to it being the central point of the angel’s speech.

After the angel’s speech Abraham looks up and sees with his eyes, a second time.36 But

this time, instead of seeing the mountain where he would offer the sacrifice, he sees the actual

sacrifice “kai« i˙dou\ krio\ß ei–ß kateco/menoß e˙n futw◊ˆ sabek tw◊n kera¿twn.” With the use

of i˙dou the reader is called to “see” the ram as well. The tension is released at this point. Isaac

will not be sacrificed because God has, as Abraham said, provided the sacrifice himself. Once

again the reader comes across a present verb amongst the aorist tense—the present participle

kateco/menoß. The use of the present participle points to the simultaneous occurrence of

Abraham looking up and the ram being caught in the thicket. Fanning says, “The present

participle may be progressive in function, denoting a specific occurrence viewed as it is taking

place and thus emphasizing either the simultaneity of the participial occurrence with the main

verbal occurrence or portraying it with greater vividness in description…it is especially common

in cases of the supplementary participle after verbs of perception or cognition.”37 Here, the

reader finds such a construction as Abraham saw with his eyes. Therefore, the linguistic structure

of the passage indicates the importance of this event to the narrative.

This scene ends with the speed of the narrative picking up speed. Instead of the slow, the

verb-laden narrative that preceded the offering of Isaac, the ram is sacrificed almost immediately

without many details except that it happened. After this, Abraham pronounces his judgment on

                                                                                                               
36
Cf. Gen 22:4.
37
Buist M. Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990),
409. Emphasis his.

  15  
the ordeal that it was on that mountain that the Lord provided. Abraham uses this same verb in

22:13 when he replies to Isaac saying that the Lord will provide the sacrifice.38

Two linguistic and literary features indicate that the narrative reaches its climax here.

First, the use of several key words that already appeared in the narrative. The repetition of to\n

to/pon, o§n ei•pen aujtw◊ˆ oJ qeo/ß, the repetition of the verb aÓnable÷yaß in key places, and the

repetition of the initial interchange between Abraham and the angel of the Lord. Second, the use

of particular linguistic constructions add vividness to the account and emphasize the fear of

Abraham as well as the sacrifice that was provided by God.  

Dénouement: Gen 22:15–18

While the narrative is not completely over, the climax has passed; God provided the sacrifice and

Abraham passed the test, yet there is still more to be said about the event. The reader knows that

Abraham fears God. Consequentially the reader also knows that God provided the sacrifice just

as Abraham had said. What benefit was there to Abraham for passing the test?

The dénouement begins with the angel of the lord speaking from heaven—a second time.

The second speech of the angel of the Lord has several features to it that are important to this

particular passage and beyond.39 The angel begins his second speech with a very strong divine

                                                                                                               
38
The loss in the wordplay between the various words used for sight, Moriah, and fear is
missed in the Greek. This wordplay is profound in the MT.
39
Both in the LXX and the MT themes that have already been introduced in the
Abrahamic narratives are dense. Specifically, the Abrahamic blessing from Gen 12 is placed on
Abraham’s seed. There is also the idea of multiplication. The somewhat new idea that is found
here is the idea that the seed will possess the gates of his enemies. This concept is picked up later
in Genesis (e.g. Gen 24:60; 48:8; Nu 24:8; 2 Sam 7:11) While, this goes beyond the bounds of
this paper. It is important to see how concepts here are continued throughout the rest of the
Bible.

  16  
oath formula.40 The angel follows this with the reason the blessing is being given—namely

because Abraham was willing to offer up his own son.

The first line of the blessing proper introduces it with a structure that increases its

intensity of the divine oath41 Translations usually capture the intensity of this construction with

“And I will surely bless.” The blessing itself is ordered around four conjunctions:

h™ mh\n eujlogw◊n eujlogh/sw se

kai« plhqu/nwn plhqunw◊ to\ spe÷rma sou wJß tou\ß aÓste÷raß touv
oujranouv
kai« wJß th\n a‡mmon th\n para» to\ cei√loß thvß qala¿sshß,
kai« klhronomh/sei to\ spe÷rma sou ta»ß po/leiß tw◊n uJpenanti÷wn:
kai« e˙neuloghqh/sontai e˙n tw◊ˆ spe÷rmati÷ sou pa¿nta ta» e¶qnh thvß ghvß

The first two conjunctions actually contain the objects of the first verbal cluster.42 The first

promise of God is that he will greatly multiply Abraham’s seed as the stars and as the sand on

the seashore. The third conjunction promises that Abraham’s seed will posses the cities43 of his

enemies. The final conjunction promises that Abraham’s seed will be a blessing to all the nations

of the earth.

There is a dramatic shift here. Most of the narrative has focused on Abraham and his

perspective. He has been the subject or the object of the majority of the verbs in the narrative.

But here, in the second speech delivered by the angel of the Lord, Abraham’s seed is now

                                                                                                               
40
Wevers, Notes, 325.
41
Both the verbal construction and the conjunction (or interjection) support the intensity
of the blessing. See, F.C. Conybeare and St. George Stock, Grammar of Septuagint Greek: With
Selected Readings, Vocabularies, and Updated Indexes (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995), 74, 91;
and Mark S. Krause, “The Finite Verb With Cognate Participle in the New Testament,” in
Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics (JSNTSup 80; ed. By S. Porter and D. A. Carson;
Sheffield: Sheffield, 1993), 201.
42
Once again the verbal intensity is found here with the use of the present participle and
the future indicative.
43
“rAo¶Av” in the MT.

  17  
becomes the subject and object.44 The shift of God’s blessing that is given to Abraham is now

laid squarely on his seed. The importance of this is that at the closing of the Abrahamic episode a

great shift occurs. As the reader continues in the Genesis narratives their attention should be

placed on the seed. It is the seed that will be blessed with the promises that were given to

Abraham.

Conclusion: Gen 22:19

The final scene in this narrative ties up one loose end and concludes the scene. Abraham does as

he said he would do—he returns to his servants with Isaac by his side. The act ends with the

departure of Abraham, Isaac, and his servants to Beersheba. This marks the end by the shift in

time and place.

CONCLUSION

This paper has not attempted to be exhaustive. There are still some questions left unanswered. Is

verbal aspect different when direct speech is used than in it is in narrative? If so, how would this

aid this particular discussion? How does this narrative fit into the overall narrative structure of

Genesis? Does the translation technique of the author greatly affect the linguistic structure found

in the LXX?

However, this paper has hopefully shown that the use of the imperfect in Gen 22:1 brings

Abraham and his actions into tight focus. The fact that this clause is placed at the beginning of

the narrative allows it to govern all that follows. The literary and linguistic devices work together

to show that the chief area where Abraham is being tested is in his relationship to his son and

                                                                                                               
44
Notice that the seed is singular throughout the passage. As opposed to Gen 17:8. Since
this word is a collective noun in both Hebrew and Greek it would be helpful to look at the way
collectives function in both languages. Such a study for sperma has already been done. See,
Jack Collins, “A Syntactical Note (Genesis 3:15): Is the Woman’s Seed Singular or Plural?” (Tyn
48.1: 1997): 140– 48.

  18  
with God. This is indicated by the development of tension, the repetition of words and phrases,

and the verbal cluster found at the climax of the narrative. In the end, Abraham is shown to fear

God more than he loves his son. As a result of Abraham passing the test, God blesses him. The

tension has been relieved and the act ends.

  19  
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aejmelaeus, Anneli. “What We Talk About When We Talk About Translation

Technique.” X Congress of the International Organization for Septuaint and Cognate
Studies, Oslo 1998, (1998): 531–552. Repr. pages 205–22 in On the Trail of the
Septuagint Translators. Leuven: Peeters, 2007.

Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981.

Ausloos, Hans. “‘Your Only Son, Your Beloved One’ (Genesis 22): When Septuagint
and Messianism Meet.” Pages 19–31 in Interpreting Translation: Studies on
the LXX and Ezekiel in Hounour of John Lust. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum
lovaniensium 192. Edited by F. Martinez et. al. Leuven: Leuven University, 2005.

Bar-Efrat, Shimon. Narrative Art and the Bible. Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament Supplement Series 70. Sheffield: Sheffield, 1984.

Berlin, Adele. Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative. Sheffield: Almond

Press, 1983.
Brayford, Susan. Genesis. Septuagint Commentary Series. Leiden: Brill, 2007.

Campbell, Constantine R. Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek. Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, 2008.

__________. Verbal Asdpect and Non-Indicative Verbs: Further Soundings in the Greek
of the New Testament. Studies in Biblical Greek 15. Edited by D. A. Carson. New York:
Peter Lang, 2008.

__________. Verbal Aspect, The Indicative Mood, and Narrative: Soundings in the
Greek of the New Testament. Studies in Biblical Greek 13. Edited by D. A. Carson. New
York: Peter Lang, 2007.

Collins, Jack. “A Syntactical Note (Genesis 3:15): Is the Woman’s Seed Singular or
Plural?” Tyndale Bulletin 48.1 (1997): 140–48.

Conybeare, F. C. and St. George Stock. Grammar of Septuagint Greek: With Selected
Readings, Vocabularies, and Updated Indexes. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995.

Fanning, Buist M. Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990.

  20  
Evans, T. V. Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew
Interface. Oxford: Oxford, 2001.

Guthrie, George H. “Discourse Analysis.” Pages 253–71 in Interpreting the New

Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues. Edited by D. Alan Black & D.
Dockery. Nashville: Broadman, 2001.

Jobes, Karen H. and Moises Silva. Invitation to the Septuagint. Grand Rapids: Baker,
2000.

Kant, Immanuel. The Conflict of the Faculties. Translated by M. Gregor. Lincold:

University of Nebraska Press, 1992.

Kierkegaard, Søren. Fear and Trembling: A Dialectical Lyric. Translated by W.

Lowrie. Princeton: Princeton, 1941.

Krause, Mark S. “The Finite Verb With Cognate Participle in the New Testament.”
Pages 187–206 in Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics. Journal for the Study of the
New Testament Supplement Series 80. Edited by, S. Porter and D. A. Carson. Sheffield:
Sheffield, 1993.

Levinsohn, Stephen H. Discourse Features of New Testament Greek: A Coursebook.

Dallas: SIL, 1992.

Longacre, Robert E. “Robert E. Longacre, “Discourse Peak as Zone of Turbulence.”

Pages 83–98 in Beyond the Sentence: Discourse and Sentential Form. Edited by J. Wirth.
Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers, 1985.

__________. Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence. A Text Theoretical and

Textlinguistic Analysis of Genesis 37 and 39–48. 2d ed. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,
2003.

Madden, Shawn C. 1 Kings 1–11: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text. Waco: Baylor
Press, forthcoming.

Porter, Stanley E. Verbal Aspect in the Greek New Testament with Reference to Tense
and Mood. Studies in Biblical Greek 1. Edited by D. A. Carson. New York: Peter Lang,
1993.

Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical

Research. Nashville: Broadman, 1934.

Schaeffer, Francis. The God Who is There. Volume 1 of The Complete Works of Francis
A. Schaeffer. Wheaton: Crossway, 1985.

Webb, Marc. 500 Days of Summer. Fox Searchlight Pictures, 2009.

  21  
Wevers, John William. Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis. Society of Biblical
Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 35. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993.

___________. Genesis. Vol.1 of Septuaginta: Göttingen. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,

1974.

  22