The Euthyphro Dilemma and the Sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham

[TimothyH]

God was not tricking Abraham. Abraham was not mistaken. Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac has nothing to do with child sacrifices to the pagan god Molech. It has nothing to do with sexual promiscuity. I’m really a little taken aback by some of the things I am reading in this thread. Luke K and ddarko are explaining it correctly.

Abraham was promised by God that his descendents would be as numerous as the stars but he didn’t trust God. Abraham eventually realized that God was faithful to his covenants and so when God commanded Abraham to kill Isaac, he reasoned that God could raise people from the dead he was right! ti’s a story of God’s faithfulness and Abraham’s growth to the fullness of faith. I’ll try to follow the narrative thread below in case anyone is interested.

---

In Genesis 15 (and in other places), God promises Abraham that his descendants will be as numerous as the stars in the sky.

Some time after these events, this word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision: “Fear not, Abram! I am your shield; I will make your reward very great.” But Abram said, “O Lord GOD, what good will your gifts be, if I keep on being childless and have as my heir the steward of my house, Eliezer?” Abram continued, “See, you have given me no offspring, and so one of my servants will be my heir.” Then the word of the LORD came to him: “No, that one shall not be your heir; your own issue shall be your heir.” He took him outside and said: “Look up at the sky and count the stars, if you can. Just so,” he added, “shall your descendants be.” (Genesis 15:1-5)

Then God makes a covenant with Abraham wherein the heifer, a goat, a ram, etc., are cut in two and the smoking brazier and flaming torch pass between the pieces after sunset. This is God’s oath to Abraham that these things will come to pass. . But Abraham does not trust God at first and so he has a child with his egyptian maidservant Hagar, whom God sends away along with the Child. Even in the face of Abraham’s lack of trust, God makes renews his covenant with Abraham in his old age.

When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to him and said: “I am God the Almighty. Walk in my presence and be blameless. Between you and me I will establish my covenant, and I will multiply you exceedingly.” When Abram prostrated himself, God continued to speak to him: "My covenant with you is this: you are to become the father of a host of nations. (Genesis 17:1-4)

Abraham still laughs but he changes his outlook when Sarah becomes pregnant and Issac is born. Now he has faith in God’s promises, faith that God is trustworthy and will keep his covenant. Just to be certain however, God makes it clear to Abraham that his descendants will be through his son Isaac, and not through any of his other children.

But God said to Abraham: "Do not be distressed about the boy or about your slave woman. Heed the demands of Sarah, no matter what she is asking of you; for it is through Isaac that descendants shall bear your name. (Genesis 21:12-13)

So when God says to kill Isaac, Abraham rightly reasons that God must be able to raise people from the dead and further reasons that he will do so to Isaac. His reasoning is based on the God’s promise that his descendents through Isaac would be as numerous as the stars in the sky and God’s demonstrable trustworthyness in light of Sarah’s pregnancy in her old age just as God had promised. Paul recounts all of these events in his letter to the Hebrews.

By faith he received power to generate, even though he was past the normal age–and Sarah herself was sterile–for he thought that the one who had made the promise was trustworthy. So it was that there came forth from one man, himself as good as dead, descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sands on the seashore. (Hebrews 11:11-12)

And then Paul gives the punchline…

He reasoned that God was able to raise even from the dead, and he received Isaac back as a symbol. (Hebrews 11:19)

Paul is the master of revealing Old Testamant typology and is using the whole event as proof that God can raise people from the dead and that he intended to do so all along. So the whole event has nothing to do with the god Molech or tricking Abraham or Abraham making a mistake and God stopping him at the last minute. The original post questioned atheists and agnostics belief that God commands immoral and evil acts. This is not so and that idea is based on a lack of understanding of the story. It was a test. Isaac was never going to die. Either Abraham would have refused to kill Isaac and broken the covenant or God would have stopped Abraham and thereby fulfilled the covenant. Either way, Jesus was going to be raised from the dead.

The whole story is about covenant faithfulness, Abraham’s eventual growth to the fullness of faith (see James 2) and a forshadowing of God raising Jesus from the dead.

-Tim-

 

[Prodigal_Son]

But God said to Abraham: "Do not be distressed about the boy or about your slave woman. Heed the demands of Sarah, no matter what she is asking of you; for it is through Isaac that descendants shall bear your name. (Genesis 21:12-13)

This is a key passage, which I hadn’t noticed before. Clearly, Abraham was being forced to trust that either (a) God would provide the ram for sacrifice, as he did, or (b) God would raise Isaac from the dead.

The most interesting aspect of this conversation, however, is how sharply Abraham’s action conflicts with modern moral ideas. For example, we often say that it is wrong to use a person as a mere means to an end, and yet Abraham seems to be willing to use Isaac here as a mere means to his own end (trusting God). If God had planned on raising Isaac from the dead, Isaac would have nevertheless been forced to endure the ordeal of seeing his father lower the knife and the agony of being slaughtered. We can’t simply ignore this aspect of the story.

I am not saying that our modern moral ideas are right. Even if they are, it would seem that Abraham was not aware of the moral law.

Moreover, it is plausible that the moral law enjoins us to trust anyone who has proven himself wiser and better than we are. This last answer sounds better every time I consider it. On this view, there is no conflict between “the right thing” and the thing God asks, because the right thing is to do what your Daddy knows is best.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

In the case of Abraham, he does not even know that one is called to love. One must realize that at this point in history, there is no revelation available to Abraham. His morality is just simply what ever works for the tribe or household. So Abraham has no reason to consider that to LOVE is indeed what he should pursue.

But if the moral law is accessible to reason, what you’re saying here can’t be right. We have a conflict, here, between the natural law theory and the divine command theory. Do we really want to say that goodness is defined by whatever God says, thus making it arbitrary? The giving of the law was to clarify moral norms, not to introduce them.

He did not want a person who was wise and would do what they think is best like Adam, Eve or Cain but a person who would trust in him completely.

Interesting. Did Adam do what he thought was best? I think that Adam acted selfishly, which is hard to reconcile with the idea of him doing what was best.

I think it would be more correct to say, Isaac was the object of Abraham’s affections. Just as we wouldn’t say the parent who looses their child at a young age mourns because of a love for themselves, I think we can’t say that about Abraham’s choice. I am sure you agree that the grief the parents feel is still as a result of love for the child.

I certainly agree that Abraham loved Isaac. But losing Isaac would be destroying Abraham’s life’s dream, and I think this loss might have been more central to him than the loss of Isaac himself.

 

[ddarko]

But if the moral law is accessible to reason, what you’re saying here can’t be right. We have a conflict, here, between the natural law theory and the divine command theory. Do we really want to say that goodness is defined by whatever God says, thus making it arbitrary? The giving of the law was to clarify moral norms, not to introduce them.

Actually I don’t think there is a conflict here. I was thinking this might be why you were hesitant before.

Abraham MAY feel that there is something WRONG in sacrificing his son. But there is no basis for him to think it as anything other than a subjective feeling at that point. There are many others in his society that did Child sacrifice. Even natural law has certain premises that it assumes which would not be true if God cannot be trusted. The perceived order of the universe might just be random and there would be no reason to think otherwise. (a problem atheism is faced with)

So the point I am making is not that what God says becomes good. God never intended for Isaac to be Sacrificed anyway. But God did intend Abraham to follow his voice. There is no moral issues in what God wanted Abraham to do. Right? He merely wanted Abraham to obey his voice.

The only question to ask at this point is, “Shouldn’t Abraham have said no to God because it conflicts with loving ones neighbor/dignity of Isaac etc”. But as we can see above, Abraham has no basis to do so if he believes God cannot be trusted.

Did that resolve the issue?

Interesting. Did Adam do what he thought was best? I think that Adam acted selfishly, which is hard to reconcile with the idea of him doing what was best.

Adam thought that God was not going to give him everything. He decided to take matters in to own hands and eat off the forbidden tree i.e. which would have been equivalent to Abraham saying NO to sacrificing Isaac.

I certainly agree that Abraham loved Isaac. But losing Isaac would be destroying Abraham’s life’s dream, and I think this loss might have been more central to him than the loss of Isaac himself.

This is hard for me to judge. I think like any father, he would have had an affection toward his son. You have to remember that this sacrifice of Abraham foreshadows God’s own sacrifice of his own son on the very mount that Isaac was suppossed to be sacrificed on (according to some theologians, Jesus died on that same mount).

God Bless

 

[tonyrey]

Do you think God’s promise to give Abraham a son was Abraham’s imagination?

“By myself I have sworn, says the Lord: Because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will indeed bless you, and I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of their enemies, and by your offspring shall all the nations of the earth gain blessing for themselves, because you have obeyed my voice” (Genesis 22:16-18 NRSV).

According to you, all Abraham has done was do his OWN misunderstanding of God’s will. If what you are saying is true, I would assume God would go, “YOU FOOOL, What are you doing? I gave you a son and now you are going to cut him up???. Don’t ever do something stupid like this.”

But that’s not what he says. He says ‘I will bless you for “you have obeyed my voice”’.

Something that might be confusing you is that you might be thinking that I am saying God’s will was for Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. That is NOT my position. I am saying God’s will was for Abraham to do what he did i.e. Choose to obey God’s voice over his love for Isaac.

There is no reason for us to think God WILLED Isaac to be sacrificed and I don’t think anyone here is claiming as such.

God Bless

There is a much simpler explanation which does not impugn God’s love. He knew Abraham imagined he had to kill Isaac and He rewarded him for His faith. Otherwise God was deliberately deceiving Abraham…

God bless.

 

[tonyrey]

But if the moral law is accessible to reason, what you’re saying here can’t be right. We have a conflict, here, between the natural law theory and the divine command theory. Do we really want to say that goodness is defined by whatever God says, thus making it arbitrary? The giving of the law was to clarify moral norms, not to introduce them.

Precisely! It would mean God could commit any atrocities whatsoever…

I certainly agree that Abraham loved Isaac. But losing Isaac would be destroying Abraham’s life’s dream, and I think this loss might have been more central to him than the loss of Isaac himself.

To compel Abraham to endure such mental anguish unnecessarily would be diabolical rather than divine…

 

[ddarko]

There is a much simpler explanation which does not impugn God’s love. He knew Abraham imagined he had to kill Isaac and He rewarded him for His faith. Otherwise God was deliberately deceiving Abraham…

God bless.

Ok first, the problem with your view is that it seems to say Abraham went cuckoo. At what point do we say he was acting with sanity? Was the promise of God to build a nation out of him his imagination too? So no, I think your view is hard to accept and leads down a road that no Catholic can travel.

Second, there is no deception. God made a request from Abraham i.e. offer Isaac as sacrifice. Did God will it? No. God only wanted Abraham to obey him and trust in him.

Did Abraham have a problem obeying God from a moral stand point? NO. Because Abraham had no reason to think offering Isaac was immoral. At this point, God has not revealed any moral law. If you are thinking as Prodigal and saying “what about natural law”? If God cannot be trusted, there is no basis for natural law.

So Abraham has only to choose from what he thinks is the best thing to do vs. obeying God and trusting that he will keep his promise (Faith).

I don’t think the above is that complicated an explanation.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

To compel Abraham to endure such mental anguish unnecessarily would be diabolical rather than divine…

Ha? NO!

God sent his only son to be sacrificed on the same mountain. If he can put his own son through such agony, I doubt sending Abraham through mental anguish is problematic.

God Bless

 

[tonyrey]

You have to remember that this sacrifice of Abraham foreshadows God’s own sacrifice of his own son on the very mount that Isaac was supposed to be sacrificed on (according to some theologians, Jesus died on that same mount).

Abraham did not sacrifice his son**.** It was his** willingness** to kill his son that foreshadowed the sacrifice. Nor did God the Father sacrifice His Son. Jesus sacrificed Himself.

 

[TimothyH]

Ha? NO!

God sent his only son to be sacrificed on the same mountain. If he can put his own son through such agony, I doubt sending Abraham through mental anguish is problematic.

God Bless

This is a key understanding to the whole story of Abraham and Isaac.

God was not forcing Abraham to do anything. Abraham was free to walk away and continue to have children with Egyptian maidservants but he willingly submitted to God’s will, rather than his own because he trusted God.

Many on this thread miss the point that Isaac was not going to die. God was not about to allow Isaac to be killed. The sacrifice of an only son was reserved for Jesus. Either Abraham would have not trusted and not obeyed God and would have therefor failed the test or he would have passed the test and God would have stopped him from killing Isaac. Those are the only two choices.

There is no atrocity against Issac, either planned by God or carried out according to God’s will. God was not about to let Isaac die, hence the ram in the thicket and his stopping Abraham from killing his son. That’s the problem with the Atheist argument in the orginial post.

-Tim-

 

[tonyrey]

God sent his only son to be sacrificed on the same mountain. If he can put his own son through such agony, I doubt sending Abraham through mental anguish is problematic.

God tortures no one.

 

[tonyrey]

God was not forcing Abraham to do anything.

According to you God was deliberately giving Abraham the impression that it was His Will that Isaac had to be killed. That amounts to coercion…

 

[ddarko]

Abraham did not sacrifice his son**.** It was his** willingness** to kill his son that foreshadowed the sacrifice. Nor did God the Father sacrifice His Son. Jesus sacrificed Himself.

I think you have a lot of theological issues.

Regardless of how you understand the above matter, you should see how non-viable your idea of “Abraham imagining things” and God playing along with him hypothesis is.

You are reducing the entire story of Abraham to man with an imagination. You don’t think that’s unacceptable? Abraham should not be called the father of FAITH according to your view but the father of IMAGINATION.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

According to you God was deliberately giving Abraham the impression that it was His Will that Isaac had to be killed. That amounts to coercion…

Ok tony, I think you are either misreading posts or just looking to support your own view.

I have repeatedly told you that God wanted Abraham to obey him and trust in him. That’s it!!!

From Abraham’s perspective, he has two options. Obey God and trust him or DO what HE thinks is BEST.

You are muddling the issue and talking about something that Abraham never had to do i.e. Guess or imagine what God wanted. NO, Abraham didn’t have to do such things. God told him what to do. The question for Abraham was on whether he would do what God told him or not. This is never about Abraham discerning what God’s will is.

You are making an issue out of something irrelevant.

God tortures no one.

God tortures no-one but he can allow them to be tortured. Have you read the book of Job?

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

God tortures no one.

God tortures no-one but he can allow them to be tortured. Have you read the book of Job?

God Bless

 

[Prodigal_Son]

There is a much simpler explanation which does not impugn God’s love. He knew Abraham imagined he had to kill Isaac and He rewarded him for His faith. Otherwise God was deliberately deceiving Abraham…

Tony,

Look at Timothy’s post on this. God told Abraham he would become the father of many nations through Isaac. Thus, when God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, this was transparently a test. Abraham needed to trust that the God who gave him a son could save that son, could – if necessary – raise him from the dead.

I’m not sure how this is deception. God did not make any false statements, only a command. A command is not a statement. God did not cause Abraham to believe anything false. What am I missing?

 

[tonyrey]

Tony,

Look at Timothy’s post on this. God told Abraham he would become the father of many nations through Isaac. Thus, when God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, this was transparently a test. Abraham needed to trust that the God who gave him a son could save that son, could – if necessary – raise him from the dead.

I’m not sure how this is deception. God did not make any false statements, only a command. A command is not a statement. God did not cause Abraham to believe anything false. What am I missing?

God is supposed to have caused Abraham to believe it was necessary that he should kill his son. If a human being did this it would be regarded as an atrocious act of wanton torture. You yourself have rejected the suggestion that God’s commands are arbitrary.

 

[tonyrey]

I have repeatedly told you that God wanted Abraham to obey him and trust in him. That’s it!!!

I regret that is not it. According to you God **deceived **Abraham into believing it was necessary for him to kill his son.

From Abraham’s perspective, he has two options. Obey God and trust him or DO what HE thinks is BEST.

You are muddling the issue and talking about something that Abraham never had to do i.e. Guess or imagine what God wanted. NO, Abraham didn’t have to do such things. God told him what to do. The question for Abraham was on whether he would do what God told him or not. This is never about Abraham discerning what God’s will is.

You are making an issue out of something irrelevant.

Only if what God does is irrelevant. He did not want Abraham to kill his son but according to you He commanded him to do so. If that is not deliberate and **unnecessary **deception what is?

God tortures no-one but he can allow them to be tortured. Have you read the book of Job?

God allows people to be tortured because it would interfere with His gift of free will if He prevented them from being tortured. In this case it is God Himself who is supposed to be the Torturer…

 

[ddarko]

God is supposed to have caused Abraham to believe it was necessary that he should kill his son. If a human being did this it would be regarded as an atrocious act of wanton torture. You yourself have rejected the suggestion that God’s commands are arbitrary.

Tony,

I think you are really confusing the issue here. God gave Abraham a set of instructions. There is nothing morally wrong with God giving Abraham a set of instructions.

Only question left is whether Abraham was right in carrying them out or should have objected on moral grounds. But as I have continuously pointed out, Abraham has no basis to object to God on. He can’t say, God but you said ‘love your neighbor’ because God hasn’t even said such a thing yet.

Now the other thing is that at this point we do not know anything about the will of God EXCEPT that he WILLS Abraham to obey him.

**This is where you have decided to incorrectly extrapolate a bit further and assume that Abraham can somehow INFER that God’s WILL is to actually take his son away. **

In fact, to do so, is a sin on Abraham part and shows a lack of Faith. Abraham still has to believe at this point that in the long run, God is somehow going to fulfill the promise to him and Isaac would even be brought back from the dead. We know he believed this utterly because before he went up the mountain he said the following:-

“Then Abraham said to his young men, ‘Stay here with the donkey; the boy and I will go over there; we will worship, and then we will come back to you.” - (Genesis 22:5 , NRSV)

So Abraham believe in his whole heart that God’s will was to fulfill the promise God gave to him. But he knows also that God’s will is for him to obey his command. Those are two different things which you incorrectly equate. But as you can see, it is impossible to do such equating because your position entails Abraham loosing faith in God.

Here by Faith I mean the belief that God will keep his promise/covenant.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

God allows people to be tortured because it would interfere with His gift of free will if He prevented them from being tortured. In this case it is God Himself who is supposed to be the Torturer…

I think you might not have read the Book of Job. In it, Job has no idea why God tortured him. God when he speaks to him tells him that he does not need the approval of creatures to do what he did.

Also, in the case of Job, there is nothing to do with reconciling free-will. It was a test of Job’s faith and according to your measure, just as much a deception as that of Abraham’s.

God Bless