Paradox in the Binding of Isaac

Following a previous episode, the Binding of Isaac.
You have cited several times the question (from Captain Kirgoor, I think) about the contradiction between the act of binding and "And Isaac shall call you seed," and why did Abraham choose the second revelation and not the first (which also aligns with natural instinct)?
 
I was thinking of perhaps settling this based on another principle that you presented several times in the courses.
You argued that a distinction should be made between a "fact" and a "verb." The latter can be given to a command, since "fact" is a term – which cannot be included in the equation of a "command." (You cannot command that "this is a wall," whereas "go there" is.)
Could this perhaps explain why Abraham chose the revelation that commands the binding?
The first revelation is nothing more than an abstract fact, "And Isaac shall call you seed." It is not a commandment or commandment of any kind, but rather a passive event in which Abraham is supposed to believe that in one way or another this will happen.

1. In contrast to the revelation, "Go, bind up Isaac" – which actually deals with a mitzvah, which has an active characteristic, an imperative to action.

This part Abraham understood he had to *do*, the experience? 1. The emotional, instinctive difficulty. 2. The promise from which there would be a seed.