The Euthyphro Dilemma and the Sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham

[JontheMaronite]

How would one explain Abraham’s sacrifice and intentions of taking the life of his son, in obedience to God’s command?

A atheist/agnostic will sometimes see that normally immoral acts when commanded by God or carried out in the name of god are still immoral. They see the divine command theory (in the sense of God’s order as always morally right) as dangerous because it gives people a motive to do evil and not even recognize it as evil. (Islamic suicide attacks in the name of religion).

God clearly has domain over life and death, and Abraham’s obedience to God’s command is commendable, not his intention of taking the life of Isaac (which some would deem murder since Isaac’s life is innocent). I understand the source of our societies’ sense of morality is based on Christian principles which originate in God, the God that may act in ways that are beyond our ability to understand and judge as right or wrong, although we should have an innate conception of God’s moral order through our conscience.

The Judaic religion’s sense of God as having just wrath and the Christian understanding of God as fully merciful also seem to clash in the minds of some disbelievers and I struggle to clarify and explain the Catholic teaching in this area to them.

Any articulations and explanations of this scenario and the “dilemma” would be most appreciated.

 

[JontheMaronite]

I’m not sure if this is the right section for the topic. Any moderator may feel free to move it to another section, such as the main apologetics section. Thanks!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

How would one explain Abraham’s sacrifice and intentions of taking the life of his son, in obedience to God’s command?

A atheist/agnostic will sometimes see that normally immoral acts when commanded by God or carried out in the name of god are still immoral. They see the divine command theory (in the sense of God’s order as always morally right) as dangerous because it gives people a motive to do evil and not even recognize it as evil. (Islamic suicide attacks in the name of religion).

God clearly has domain over life and death, and Abraham’s obedience to God’s command is commendable, not his intention of taking the life of Isaac (which some would deem murder since Isaac’s life is innocent). I understand the source of our societies’ sense of morality is based on Christian principles which originate in God, the God that may act in ways that are beyond our ability to understand and judge as right or wrong, although we should have an innate conception of God’s moral order through our conscience.

The Judaic religion’s sense of God as having just wrath and the Christian understanding of God as fully merciful also seem to clash in the minds of some disbelievers and I struggle to clarify and explain the Catholic teaching in this area to them.

Any articulations and explanations of this scenario and the “dilemma” would be most appreciated.

In Genesis 1, God speaks the universe into existence, and then evaluates it: “It is good.” There is no evaluation without a standard, so God is saying that creation is good with reference to some standard. Is creation good by God’s fiat? If so, then anything God commands is right, simply because God commands it.

But that can’t be right, for the reasons you imply. God’s commands are right because God recognizes what is good, not because he arbitrarily calls things good.

In the Abraham and Isaac story, we are clearly supposed to draw out from the story that (1) Abraham had faith, and (2) Abraham obeyed God. I am not sure, however, whether Abraham “did the right thing”. The story clearly implies that Abraham valued his son as his own possession – thus God mentions that Abraham “has not withheld his only son” from Him – but it is unclear whether Abraham truly respected Isaac’s dignity. Perhaps here, as elsewhere in the Bible, God used a person’s imperfection and sinfulness to make a larger point. (In this case, a point in which Isaac prefigured Christ).

But why would God tell someone to do something wrong? Two answers: (1) God stopped Abraham from doing the wrong. If he hadn’t, then we would have some even more serious interpretative problems. (2) The Bible isn’t mostly concerned with morality. God cares more about faith than righteousness, on the Christian view. Indeed, consider Paul on this point: perhaps Abraham did everything wrong except having faith, but God credited Abraham with righteousness for his faith. (See Romans 4).

Good question! Hope I’ve helped, at least a little.

 

[po18guy]

I’m not sure if this is the right section for the topic. Any moderator may feel free to move it to another section, such as the main apologetics section. Thanks!

Moral theology.

 

[po18guy]

I see nothing wrong in this incident whatsoever. God is all good and incapable of evil - no matter what is is that He does. Any appearance of evil is a mis- or lack of understanding (on our part) of an inscrutable God. Abraham had no intent to kill Isaac, only to obey God, which is a righteous thing. God had no intent to kill Isaac, only to test Abraham’s faith, also a perfectly good thing. There is no evil in any of this.

 

[valentino]

Simply put God is to be put before all things.Even you’re dearest possession.God gives life and God can take it away.God created all things even man and man must see that his existence depends on God.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Abraham had no intent to kill Isaac, only to obey God, which is a righteous thing.

This won’t do. I might beat my child with the intent to teach him to do right, but this does not justify my action. Even if my intentions are pure, I ought to carefully consider the ramifications of my action.

 

[po18guy]

This won’t do. I might beat my child with the intent to teach him to do right, but this does not justify my action. Even if my intentions are pure, I ought to carefully consider the ramifications of my action.

Are you applying human reasoning to God’s actions? We must attempt to look at this from God’s viewpoint, rather than from man’s. God credited this obedience to Abraham as righteousness, since the event was a foreshadowing of the sacrifice of Christ. In spite of human reasoning we may apply to it, the event remains beyond human reasoning or understanding. Was God immoral or abusive to send Jesus to die for us?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

How would one explain Abraham’s sacrifice and intentions of taking the life of his son, in obedience to God’s command?

A atheist/agnostic will sometimes see that normally immoral acts when commanded by God or carried out in the name of god are still immoral. They see the divine command theory (in the sense of God’s order as always morally right) as dangerous because it gives people a motive to do evil and not even recognize it as evil. (Islamic suicide attacks in the name of religion)…

If anyone actually said that, I would point out that Islam is a false religion and therefore they cannot be following Divine Commands by definition.

 

[tonyrey]

Abraham was mistaken! He **believed **God commanded him to sacrifice Isaac but God would never ask a father to murder his own son. Abraham was inspired on many occasions but that does not mean he was infallible. The fact that he was prevented from committing a terrible crime proves that it was never God’s Will. Nor would He deceive Abraham into believing it was His Will simply to test his faith.

The moral is that we should have faith but also heed our conscience. Many atrocities have been - and still are - committed in the name of religion. The Father didn’t sacrifice His Son. Jesus chose to sacrifice Himself for us of His own free will - not to appease the wrath of a monstrous deity…

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Are you applying human reasoning to God’s actions?

No. We are talking about what Abraham had an obligation to do, not what God had an obligation to do. There is an interesting question of whether God was deceiving Abraham, but I will leave that path untraveled, for now.

We must attempt to look at this from God’s viewpoint, rather than from man’s. God credited this obedience to Abraham as righteousness, since the event was a foreshadowing of the sacrifice of Christ.

I agree. But it does not follow that Abraham’s action was righteous, only that God credited him with righteousness. Similarly, my five-year-old daughter might give two dollars to a drug addict, out of generosity – but actually the action itself (enabling a drug addict) is wrong. Nevertheless, the Lord might see my daughter’s good intentions and “credit her” with righteousness.

There is a distinction between act and intention. Moreover, faith may well be more important than justice.

In spite of human reasoning we may apply to it, the event remains beyond human reasoning or understanding. Was God immoral or abusive to send Jesus to die for us?

No, because Jesus agreed to die. Is there any implication that Isaac agreed to the sacrifice?

 

[po18guy]

No. We are talking about what Abraham had an obligation to do, not what God had an obligation to do. There is an interesting question of whether God was deceiving Abraham, but I will leave that path untraveled, for now.

It is not possible. End of story.

I agree. But it does not follow that Abraham’s action was righteous, only that God credited him with righteousness. Similarly, my five-year-old daughter might give two dollars to a drug addict, out of generosity – but actually the action itself (enabling a drug addict) is wrong. Nevertheless, the Lord might see my daughter’s good intentions and “credit her” with righteousness.

Au contraire! Abraham’s act, in spite of what it may appear to be in man’s eyes, was in fact, pure obedience to God. And this pure obedience - obedience above all else, is righteousness. Again, a foretaste of Jesus’ pure obedience to the will of the Father.

There is a distinction between act and intention. Moreover, faith may well be more important than justice.

I think you are complicating this. No concept of human justice, or of earthly right or wrong applies here. This was God’s test of Abraham, His creation, involving Isaac, another of His creations. It was a test of both Abraham’s love as well as his fear of God - and the obedience which that love and fear produced.

No, because Jesus agreed to die. Is there any implication that Isaac agreed to the sacrifice?

Isaac is a red herrring. There clearly was no intent to harm, only to test. Isaac was the object, not the subject.

Do we forget that our lives are not our own? They are a pure gift from God, and He does with them as He wills. Any sense of right or wrong on our part is judgment against our Creator. His ways are so far above our ways as the heavens are above the earth. We cannot comprehend, in this life, and with our limited capacities, the import of what was done in this test.

 

[tonyrey]

There is an interesting question of whether God was deceiving Abraham, but I will leave that path untraveled, for now.

If God asked Abraham to kill his son and did not intend to let him do so He was clearly deceiving him. That is why I believe Abraham was mistaken.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Isaac is a red herrring. There clearly was no intent to harm, only to test. Isaac was the object, not the subject.

Do you have a son?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

If God asked Abraham to kill his son and did not intend to let him do so He was clearly deceiving him. That is why I believe Abraham was mistaken.

To be clear, you seem to be saying that the Bible is wrong, not Abraham. For the Bible does not tell us that Abraham *thought *that God said this, but rather that “God said to Abraham…”. Now, surely the authors of Scripture are susceptible to error, but isn’t this a rather major error? Or should we take Genesis, as some interpreters do, as only an inferior and primitive picture of the truth about God?

 

[po18guy]

Do you have a son?

So, do you mean to imply that Abraham should have said “Are you crazy? I’m not going to even think about hurting my son!”? The lesson in this is extremely simple: Obedience to God is righteousness and will bring blessing. Conversely, the message throughout scripture is that disobedience to God will ultimately bring His justice. And, it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Hebrews 10:31).

It is not what man, with strictly human thoughts, logic and morals, perceives here. This is a revelation of what God does and how He does it. If something appears amiss in this scripture story, we have two choices: God is wrong, or we are. We complicate truth when we insert human opinions, desires or preferences into the purity of revelation.

 

[po18guy]

If God asked Abraham to kill his son and did not intend to let him do so He was clearly deceiving him. That is why I believe Abraham was mistaken.

Obedience to God is never a mistake, and cannot be a mistake. Only from our worldly, human perspective does it appear to be error.

 

[tonyrey]

To be clear, you seem to be saying that the Bible is wrong, not Abraham. For the Bible does not tell us that Abraham *thought *that God said this, but rather that “God said to Abraham…”. Now, surely the authors of Scripture are susceptible to error, but isn’t this a rather major error? Or should we take Genesis, as some interpreters do, as only an inferior and primitive picture of the truth about God?

Do you interpret every statement in Genesis as **literally **true?

 

[tonyrey]

If God asked Abraham to kill his son and did not intend to let him do so He was clearly deceiving him. That is why I believe Abraham was mistaken.

Obedience to God is never a mistake but we are not infallible. In some circumstances we can be mistaken about what we believe to be God’s Will…

 

[po18guy]

Obedience to God is never a mistake but we are not infallible. In some circumstances we can be mistaken about what we believe to be God’s Will…

That is why we defer to the Magisterium. However, in this case, scripture spells out that it was a test and that it was credited to Abraham as righteousness that he did not withhold even his own son.