Genesis 22:8: 'God will see' or 'provide'?
An HSC student is preparing a translation commentary on Genesis 22:8. The consonantal text reads: אֱלֹהִים יִרְאֶה־לּוֹ הַשֶּׂה לְעֹלָה בְּנִי. The student’s three drafts are: (A) 'God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.' (B) 'God will see for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.' (C) 'God will see to the lamb for a burnt offering for himself, my son.' The teacher asks the student to defend one rendering and to explain what the Hebrew syntax does and does not settle. The student notices that the next verse has a different phrase and that Abraham’s answer is spoken to Isaac, who has just asked where the lamb is.
1. Identify the form and syntactic function of יִרְאֶה־לּוֹ. Which draft is most defensible, and why?
Read the worked answer
Parse. יִרְאֶה is Qal imperfect 3ms of ראה, 'see'. The suffix ־לּוֹ is a preposition with 3ms suffix, literally 'to him/for him', most naturally a dative of advantage: 'for himself'. Syntax. The verb 'see' can extend idiomatically to 'see to, provide for', especially with a dative and an object. Draft A is therefore defensible, but it resolves an ambiguity that the Hebrew leaves open. Draft B is literal, yet English 'see for himself the lamb' sounds as if God is inspecting an existing lamb. Draft C misparses the lamb as the object of 'see to' and produces awkward English. Context. Abraham is answering Isaac’s question without naming Isaac as the lamb; 'my son' is vocative. A defended rendering is: 'God himself will provide the lamb for a burnt offering, my son', with a note that the Hebrew verb is 'see'.
2. How should a translator handle the fact that the Hebrew says 'the lamb' although no lamb has yet been identified? Does this support a symbolic reading?
Read the worked answer
The definite article need not imply that Abraham has a particular lamb in view. It can be anticipatory or generic: 'the lamb [needed] for a burnt offering'. Abraham’s words are deliberately oblique; he does not say 'you are the lamb', and the narrative preserves tension. A translation should not over-specify by adding 'a lamb' if that removes the pointed definiteness, nor should it explain the symbolism in the main text. A symbolic reading-Isaac as the intended offering, or later Christian readings of substitution-is an interpretive move, not a grammatical requirement. The best commentary distinguishes what the syntax permits from what later traditions infer.