The Euthyphro Dilemma and the Sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham

[tonyrey]

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

God was not torturing Job. God never tortures anyone. He was **allowing **Job to suffer - which is vastly different. God did not deceive Job - or Abraham by making out that Isaac had to be killed…

 

[tonyrey]

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.

Do you mean Abraham had no moral standards at all? That he did not know it was wrong to kill his son? Even if he didn’t God knew he would suffer enormously if he thought he had to kill his son and it would be a case of needless torture.

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.

Do you believe God could command** everyone** to kill their sons and let them do so? If not why not?

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.
I assume that Abraham believes God’s command that it is essential to kill Isaac. As far as he knows his son will be taken away by death.

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 losing faith in God.

The whole point is that Abraham did not lose his faith because he trusted God implicitly. Whether he believed Isaac would be brought back from the dead is entirely irrelevant. It is not his beliefs or conduct that is the issue but whether an infinitely loving Father would command him to kill his son when it was not necessary. Or do you think God was compelled to command him to do so?

If you cannot understand that there is no point in continuing the discussion…

 

[ddarko]

Do you mean Abraham had no moral standards at all? That he did not know it was wrong to kill his son? Even if he didn’t God knew he would suffer enormously if he thought he had to kill his son and it would be a case of needless torture.

Once again, this is your mistake. Abraham trusts in the Lord. He is only concerned with doing what he knows i.e. Obey God’s voice. He trusts that God will somehow keep his promise. In that sense he does hold that God does will to fulfill his promise to him.

So this suffering business you bring up is irrelevant. Abraham has no grounds to think that he knows better than God.

Do you believe God could command** everyone** to kill their sons and let them do so? If not why not?

What? No. It is not possible anymore because God has already revealed his will to us. Now, if someone gets a vision saying kill ones son, they have a right to suspect it as NOT from God because God has already revealed what he believes is the RIGHT thing to do.

For Abraham, he has no such revelation to go by OR he would have asked God just like he argued about Sodom.

The whole point is that Abraham did not lose his faith because he trusted God implicitly. Whether he believed Isaac would be brought back from the dead is entirely irrelevant. It is not his beliefs or conduct that is the issue but whether an infinitely loving Father would command him to kill his son when it was not necessary. Or do you think God was compelled to command him to do so?

An infinitely loving father can ask you to do anything. There is a difference between asking and WILLING it. You seem to have a very misconstrued view that they are both the same.

When God asked Abraham, he already knew he was going to stop him. It was just a test.

Under your biblical exegesis, God has no room to test a person. But we know your view is blatantly wrong because in other places of Scripture like the book of Job, God does the very things you call impossible.

If you cannot understand that there is no point in continuing the discussion…

I understand you very well. The question here is, are you willing to understand mine and those others who have posted here?

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

God was not torturing Job. God never tortures anyone. He was **allowing **Job to suffer - which is vastly different. God did not deceive Job - or Abraham by making out that Isaac had to be killed…

Ok Tony, I have to ask, have you studied the book of Job?

In that book, God gives permission to Satan to torture Job with everything his got but not kill him.

There is no difference here between Job and Abraham in this sense because they both go through mental torture by God’s decision and still stay faithful to God.

So your entire basis for your argument, which is God does not torture falls apart here. In Christianity, salvation is through suffering. God can give us crosses and is JUST and LOVING in doing so.

God Bless

 

[joemccarron]

Good question and I do believe this is the best forum.

First its unclear that this story actually happened as opposed to being a story that is used to make a point. But lets assume its historically true.

I agree that command theory of morality is flawed because it is arbitrary. That is I agree God says its wrong because it is wrong and not that something is wrong because God says its wrong.

In this case though Gods agreement to what was about to happen does make it so it is not wrong. Not through fiat by divine command though.

Lets say you see a child jump on another child’s sand castle. This would be wrong. But let’s say the child who created the sandcastle said “go ahead and jump on it.” It’s no longer wrong. It’s not that the child who created the sandcastle can dictate all that is moral or immoral by fiat. It’s that we generally recognize ownership of what we create.

God creates people so has this right. People don’t live forever Isaacs life was a gift even if it didn’t last as long as we might like. This and the issue of the Canaanites misunderstands our relationship with God and God’s gift of life.

 

[po18guy]

Where does it spell out that Abraham was not mistaken?

Is not the “mistaken” argument an opinion or assumption? How can righteousness be credited to a mistake?

 

[ddarko]

I agree that command theory of morality is flawed because it is arbitrary. That is I agree God says its wrong because it is wrong and not that something is wrong because God says its wrong.

Actually this situation doesn’t require divine command theory or morality I think. God simply wanted to know if Abraham will obey him. God never wills Isaac to be killed by Abraham. He only wills Abraham to obey his command. There is nothing immoral in God wanting his servant to obey him.

In the above case, God only wills Abraham to obey him. Not to kill Isaac. Therefore there is no issue.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

I agree that command theory of morality is flawed because it is arbitrary. That is I agree God says its wrong because it is wrong and not that something is wrong because God says its wrong.

Actually this situation has nothing to do with command theory or morality. God simply wanted to know if Abraham will obey him. God never wills Isaac to be killed by Abraham. He only wills Abraham to obey his command. There is nothing immoral in God wanting his servant to obey him.

Just something aside, did you mean to say God says something is wrong because it is wrong? Because that too is as erroneous as divine command theory. It makes it sound like Good exists outside of God.

The proper answer from what I understand is something is immoral because it is against God’s nature. Since God in his nature is GOOD, he always wills good things. What ever is against his will is therefore BAD. Just to make clear, Goodness is not a contingent property of God but an essential property of God.

In the above case, God only wills Abraham to obey him. Not to kill Isaac. Therefore there is no issue.

God Bless

 

[tonyrey]

Is not the “mistaken” argument an opinion or assumption?

It is a logical consequence of the absurdity of regarding God as commanding Abraham to commit an atrocity.

How can righteousness be credited to a mistake?

God does not expect us to be infallible but to do **what we sincerely believe is His Will **- which is precisely what Abraham intended to do.

 

[tonyrey]

God creates people so has this right.

So God has the right to command us to commit any atrocity whatsoever?

 

[tonyrey]

Since God in his nature is GOOD, he always wills good things. What ever is against his will is therefore BAD. Just to make clear, Goodness is not a contingent property of God but an essential property of God.

Precisely! God never commands us to do evil because evil is the antithesis of love. And God is Love…

 

[ddarko]

So God has the right to command us to commit any atrocity whatsoever?

He can command you anything he wants. But he can stop you from doing it.

Your error is that by his command, you assume that God willed Isaac to be killed by Abraham. That is an error.

Even Scripture shows that Abraham did not CONFUSE it to be as such. He had full faith that God at the end of the day will still have Isaac alive. (Don’t know if you read my post to you earlier about this).

There is nothing moral or immoral in God giving you a set of instructions and telling you to follow it.

God Bless

 

[joemccarron]

ddarko

I don’t think I was that clear. The Euthyphro asks soemthing like: 1)is some action good because it pleases the gods or 2)does it please the gods because it is good?

If you beleive the first then that is a divine command view. I agree that the second view is the better one.

I think your view on God only wanting Abraham to obey him may be ok, but I haven’t thought it through.

Actually this situation has nothing to do with command theory or morality. God simply wanted to know if Abraham will obey him. God never wills Isaac to be killed by Abraham. He only wills Abraham to obey his command. There is nothing immoral in God wanting his servant to obey him.

Just something aside, did you mean to say God says something is wrong because it is wrong? Because that too is as erroneous as divine command theory. It makes it sound like Good exists outside of God.

The proper answer from what I understand is something is immoral because it is against God’s nature. Since God in his nature is GOOD, he always wills good things. What ever is against his will is therefore BAD. Just to make clear, Goodness is not a contingent property of God but an essential property of God.

In the above case, God only wills Abraham to obey him. Not to kill Isaac. Therefore there is no issue.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Precisely! God never commands us to do evil because evil is the antithesis of love. And God is Love…

God can command anything. God won’t let it happen.

OK IMPORTANT, PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING EVEN IF YOU IGNORE EVERYTHING I SAY

If you want to think about it in another way, think about it this way. God can do anything he wants with you. He can kill you or let you live. Same with Isaac. He is the author of life.

After all, everyone deserves death as a result of original sin, CORRECT?

So when we say Murder is a SIN, we mean that someone has disobeyed God’s will. God, as the life giver is the only person with the authority to take it away. Does he have that authority? CERTAINLY!!! He gave you life, he can take it away from you. He has exercised it many times like in the curses against Egypt. Therefore, Abraham and Isaac and anyone else at that time was deserving death (covenant curses) due to breaking of the first covenant by Adam & Eve.

Therefore, if Abraham is following God’s will, then there is no SIN. Why? Because he is doing God’s will. Is God wrong to use Abraham as an instrument to end another life? No, entire humanity was deserving of death and we see numerous occasions where God uses and commands his people in the Old Testament to end the lives of others.

So your idea that God can never command us to do Evil is rather a meaningless statement. This presupposes that God is commanding an EVIL thing when he is NOT. Everyone was deserving of death due to sin and it was only due to God’s mercy that he spared anyone.

Otherwise from your line of argumentation, every death of a creature happens according to God’s pre-planned providence and therefore God must be unloving since he is morally responsible for all the deaths in history.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

ddarko

I don’t think I was that clear. The Euthyphro asks soemthing like: 1)is some action good because it pleases the gods or 2)does it please the gods because it is good?

If you beleive the first then that is a divine command view. I agree that the second view is the better one.

I think your view on God only wanting Abraham to obey him may be ok, but I haven’t thought it through.

Well I think the view that Christianity goes with is

“Something is good because God wills it”

The dilemma in the argument is that then this seems to suggest that God can arbitrarily will anything. i.e. There is a conceivable world where God wills bad things

But this is not something the Christian has to agree with. Because the Christian God is the maximally great being. Therefore Goodness is considered an essential property of God. So in any conceivable universe, God is Good.

In other words, God can only be a certain way due to who he is, i.e. the greatest conceivable being. This cannot change from one possible world to another. If he could, then he is not the greatest conceivable being. So to say “what if God was bad in another possible world, would it be moral to do bad thing” is an invalid question.

Therefore the dilemma is invalid.

The second view cannot be held because it suggests that Goodness exists outside of God. Therefore, in a sense, God is lacking and there must be a some other greater uncreated entity that this goodness resides in.

God Bless

 

[TimothyH]

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…

I disagree but the argument is moot. It entirely misses the point and has nothing to do with the story of salvation which God, through the authors of Genesis and the rest of Scripture want to tell us. Arguing about the event is like arguing about a battle while the war rages on. It’s like arguing with the waiter about the salad dressing while the filet mignon and lobster tail goes cold.

Adam was in the same position as Isaac when he faced down the serpent in the garden. It was no ordinary serpent which adam faced. It wasn’t some cute garden snake. It was Satan himself, in the flesh, fearsom and loathsom, pure evil, and it intended to kill Adam and Eve if they didn’t eat. Satan said, “You will not die” but he is the father of lies and intended to kill them all along. And Adam didn’t trust God, so he ate. He didn’t trust that God would have raised him from the dead if the serpent had killed him, so he ate. And guess what… He died anayway.

All Adam had to do was to stay faithful to God and refuse to eat and God would have raised him from the dead, but he ate and died anway.

In Abraham we see the first hint of things starting to turn around for man. We see a compassionate God beginning the slow and tedious process of teaching his children to trust him again. He tells Abraham that his descendents will be more numerous than the stars and the sand and Abraham laughs. So does Sarah. And they don’t trust God so they consipire to have a son through an Egyptian. But God patiently waits until Abraham is 99 years old to give him the promised child and after God teaches Abraham that He can be trusted, for the first time in all of creation, man not only trusts God, but trusts Him enough to believe that He can and will ressurect us from the dead. Abraham believed what Adam did not and and that is why he is the Father of Faith. He is the first man in all of creation to be taught by God to have faith in God’s promises, to be faithful to the covenant.

The question for us is, do we have faith that God will raise us from the dead? If someone were to put a gun to our head and demand that we renouce Christ, would we trust God that he would raise us from the dead?

Based on the comments that God coerced Abraham or tricked Abraham, I have to wonder. I like to think that I have slightly more faith than that.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

Actually this situation has nothing to do with command theory or morality. God simply wanted to know if Abraham will obey him. God never wills Isaac to be killed by Abraham. He only wills Abraham to obey his command. There is nothing immoral in God wanting his servant to obey him.

…

In the above case, God only wills Abraham to obey him. Not to kill Isaac. Therefore there is no issue.

God Bless

I disagree.

God did not want Abraham’s obedience. He wanted Abraham’s trust. A loving father can yell at his kids and get them to obey but what kind of love is that? God wants more than our slavish obedience. The pharisees demanded obedience and see where that got them? God wants our love. He want’s us to trust him.

I’m sorry to snip your post but it serves my question well. I wonder if God’s test of Abraham was to see if His own work was done, if Abraham had been taught sufficient trust in God. Scripture says that God put Abraham to the test. I wonder about the Hebrew used there. We automatically assume that God put Abraham to the test as if he were on trial. But I wonder if it does not mean more along the lines of a chef testing a recipie to see if it is done or a baker testing a cake to see if it is ready. Did God not “Test” Abraham to see if he had learned to trust God sufficiently? To see if the cake was done?

For sin is not to have any power over you, since you are not under the law but under grace. (Romans 6:14)

Obedience? Bah! That’s nothing more than slavery. I don’t want to live under the law of obedience. In the beginning I had to be obedient because I was immature and God had to teach me to trust him. But God loves me more than that. We forget that the mean old monolithic God of the Old Testament is the exact same compassionate, loving, Father of the New Testament. The story of Abraham is one of a Father teaching his children to grow in love, to trust him even to the point of death.

Now I am learning to trust God. I want to live under the grace of love and trust, like Abraham.

-Tim-

 

[joemccarron]

Well I think the view that Christianity goes with is

“Something is good because God wills it”

I think Calvinists believe that. However I don’t think the Catholic Church has ever taken a position on this. I hope they leave that one open.

The dilemma in the argument is that then this seems to suggest that God can arbitrarily will anything. i.e. There is a conceivable world where God wills bad things

But this is not something the Christian has to agree with. Because the Christian God is the maximally great being. Therefore Goodness is considered an essential property of God. So in any conceivable universe, God is Good.

In other words, God can only be a certain way due to who he is, i.e. the greatest conceivable being. This cannot change from one possible world to another. If he could, then he is not the greatest conceivable being. So to say “what if God was bad in another possible world, would it be moral to do bad thing” is an invalid question.

Therefore the dilemma is invalid.

The second view cannot be held because it suggests that Goodness exists outside of God. Therefore, in a sense, God is lacking and there must be a some other greater uncreated entity that this goodness resides in.

God Bless

I think the word “greatest” is ambiguous. By “greatest” conceivable being do you mean he must be good? If so then I agree something that must be good must be good. But then if good is just whatever he decides it is then I’m not sure good and evil maintain the same significance.
But if you mean greatest as in most powerful and most knowing – then it wouldn’t have to be good. I could conceive of a universe where nothing is good or evil and yet something could be the most powerful and most knowing thing.

I also wonder if you are fully appreciating the command theory. If God wills murder to be good it is good. If command theory is right and God wills murder to be good he is not willing something “bad” to be good. In that universe murder is good. It’s good because God wills it.

If the command theory is the case It does strike me that morality seems arbitrary and loses some of its import. I suppose it is the same when some people try to define “truth” as what most people believe instead of that which accords with reality. It becomes subjective and its significance diminishes.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

There is an interesting tension raised by this conversation: can God use people as a mere means to their own good? Can He legitimately bypass our consent? I think that our answer should be yes, although there are many times where God would not want to do such a thing.

But a second question, which seems to have been suggested by ddarko, is this: can God use people as a mere means to the good – that is, to the fulfillment of the plan which He recognizes as best? Isaac seems to have been so used, by the story we are considering, not because he was likely to be killed, but because the experience was doubtless quite traumatic to him.

But I think that this is an “innocent” reading of Genesis. Consider the real passage. Isaac appears to have been a young teenager, perhaps, certainly old enough to resist or persuade his father. But Isaac does no such thing. If he had resisted, his father may have changed his mind. But rather, Isaac begins to realize what his father intends, and Isaac’s faith is challenged too. (“Father, if it be your will, let this cup pass from me. But not my will, but your will, be done.”)

There is nothing arbitrary about God’s command here, because Abraham *and Isaac’s *actions both redound to their own good. The message is clear: *The good * – God’s plan – is good for us. There is no need to “interpret away” the text of Genesis, since the text does not pertain to any divine command theory at all.

 

[ddarko]

I disagree.

God did not want Abraham’s obedience. He wanted Abraham’s trust. A loving father can yell at his kids and get them to obey but what kind of love is that? God wants more than our slavish obedience. The pharisees demanded obedience and see where that got them? God wants our love. He want’s us to trust him.

I’m sorry to snip your post but it serves my question well. I wonder if God’s test of Abraham was to see if His own work was done, if Abraham had been taught sufficient trust in God. Scripture says that God put Abraham to the test. I wonder about the Hebrew used there. We automatically assume that God put Abraham to the test as if he were on trial. But I wonder if it does not mean more along the lines of a chef testing a recipie to see if it is done or a baker testing a cake to see if it is ready. Did God not “Test” Abraham to see if he had learned to trust God sufficiently? To see if the cake was done?

For sin is not to have any power over you, since you are not under the law but under grace. (Romans 6:14)

Obedience? Bah! That’s nothing more than slavery. I don’t want to live under the law of obedience. In the beginning I had to be obedient because I was immature and God had to teach me to trust him. But God loves me more than that. We forget that the mean old monolithic God of the Old Testament is the exact same compassionate, loving, Father of the New Testament. The story of Abraham is one of a Father teaching his children to grow in love, to trust him even to the point of death.

Now I am learning to trust God. I want to live under the grace of love and trust, like Abraham.

-Tim-

Um, ok I might have come across has saying something exclusive by obedience.

By obedience I do mean to include trust as well. And I do think I disagree when you say God does not want us to be obedient. He still wants us to be obedient to his will which is how we show that we trust him.

We are called to do God’s will at all times, same in the OT and same in the NT.

The verse you speak of is not saying we don’t need to follow God’s law anymore. It is simply saying that we now have God’s grace to do his will and stay away from sin unlike those who were merely under the LAW in the OT which they could never fulfill.

God Bless