Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Genesis

[Loathe the World]

The justification that Abraham uses in attempting to murder his son is the same justification that Islamic terrorists use when they kill people. In Genesis 22, God tells Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac to him. It is also mentioned in Hebrews 11:17-19 and James 2:21-23. Abraham believed he was justified in attempting to kill his son, because his personal God commanded him to do so (and Christians do to). Islamic terrorists also use the command of God as a way to justify their acts of terror. If certain acts are right or wrong only because God commands that they're right or wrong, certain normally immoral acts would be justified if the perpetrator believed he was following the command of God.

[jimwalton]

This is wrong on every count. There was no expectation that Abraham was expected to kill his son. The text is filled with the proof of that. Here is the case for how we know God is not demanding child sacrifice or murder or anything immoral:

1. The Hebrew phrase of v. 1 is inverted for emphasis, and the effect is heightened by the definite article with Elohim. The idea is thus conveyed that this was no ordinary procedure, but that God had a particularly important objective in mind. (Speiser)

2. It specifically says it’s a test. The most profound type of testing in stories is the test of the hero’s moral or spiritual integrity. (Ryken)

3. God’s demand that Abraham offer Isaac is unlike anything in the ancient world. Child sacrifices would have been carried out soon after birth and would have been associated either with fertility rituals or foundation offerings to secure protection for the home. So this is not about child sacrifice. (Walton)

4. The prohibition of child sacrifice in the Pentateuch demonstrates that it was sometimes practiced, but none of the potential ritual contexts are pertinent to Gn. 22. Human sacrifice may have been carried out in extreme circumstances, but there are no dire conditions here. Undoubtedly in Gn. 22 Abraham would not have considered this command of God commonplace. (Walton)

5. The story is not about child sacrifice or God’s immorality. We can hardly go too far afield if we seek the significance of Abraham’s supreme trial in the very quest on which he was embarked. The involvement of Isaac tends to bear this out, since the sole heir to the spiritual heritage concerned cannot but focus attention on the future. The process that Abraham set in motion was not to be accomplished in a single generation. It sprang from a vision that would have to be tested and validated over an incalculable span of time, a vision that could be pursued only with single-mindedness of purpose and absolute faith—an ideal that could not be perpetuated unless one was ready to die for it, or had the strength to see it snuffed out. The object of the ordeal, then, was to discover how firm was the patriarch’s faith in the ultimate divine purpose. It was one thing to start out resolutely for the Promised Land, but it was a very different thing to maintain confidence in the promise when all appeared lost. The fact is that short of such unswerving faith, the biblical process could not have survived the many trials that lay ahead. (Speiser)

6. Literarily, the setting is more spiritual than physical. It’s about a spiritual state of soul. The journey is like a silent progress through the indeterminate and positively demands a symbolic interpretation. We quickly get the impression that the important thing is not the physical landscape but the spiritual landscape, and the physical journey actually marks the spiritual progress of Abraham toward an encounter with God. (Ryken)

7. God’s covenant acknowledgement is apparent: “your son, your only son, whom you love…” The divine promise to Abraham can’t be fulfilled without Isaac. (Copan)

8. God sent him to the region of Moriah, which means “provision.” God provided for Abraham when he called him to a new land. God provided for Hagar when she was cast out. Even in the call to Moriah, God is promising salvation and deliverance. Abraham knew from the outset that he would not have to kill Isaac, but that a substitute would be provided (v. 5). The narrative context reveals repeated divine assurances and confirmations that Isaac as the child of promise and instrument of blessings to the nations. (Copan)

Secondly, you're incorrect about "Abraham believed he was justified in attempting to kill his son, because his personal God commanded him to do so (and Christians do to)." That's Kierkegaardian reasoning. In refutation is that Abraham expected the child to return with him (Gn. 22.5) and that the name of the destiny was "God will Provide," so he was expecting God to provide something else for sacrifice.

Possibly Islamic terrorists use "the command of God" to justify their acts of terror, but then they are standing on false ground as are many people who are interpreting the Scripture incorrectly.

> If certain acts are right or wrong only because God commands that they're right or wrong, certain normally immoral acts would be justified if the perpetrator believed he was following the command of God.

That's the Euthyphro Dilemma, and it's a false dilemma. It's not true that "certain acts are right or wrong only because God commands [them]." The argument fails on several points. The argument fails on several points. The Bible never affirms that there is an independent reality of good outside of God’s character, nor that commands are good merely because they come from the mouth of God. The Euthyphro dilemma is a false dilemma because there is at least one other alternative: God’s commands are good not merely because God commanded them but because they reflect His perfectly good nature.

[Grim Reaper]

> The Eurypthro dilemma is between "acts are good or bad because of the commands of God" and "God's makes these commands because they are good commands".

You've picked the latter fork, not some third option.

[jimwalton]

Ah, but it is a 3rd option. God doesn't command them because they are good commands. That creates a situation where there is a good standard somewhere to which God conforms. My contention is that the standard is God himself, not something separate from him. Here are the choices:

1. It becomes good because God commands it.
2. There is a separate standard of good to which God must or chooses to conform.
3. God himself (his nature) is the standard of good.

The latter fork must be rejected as well, in the Christian worldview. Instead, goodness is one of God's immutable attributes. Pertaining to the original post, then, God is not commanding Abraham to murder his own son. Such a command would be contrary to his nature.

1. Murder doesn't become good because God commands it. God doesn't command murder because it is against his nature.
2. God doesn't look to a law somewhere that says "Murder is wrong" for guidance on how he should act.
3. Since God is good, commanding murder is impossible. It would be self-contradictory.

[Churro Bandito]

> In refutation is that Abraham expected the child to return with him (Gn. 22.5)

This is so sloppy. Either Abraham expected the child to return with him, or he didn't want to tell his servants what he planned, or he didn't want to tell Isaac who was standing right beside him. Many possible explanations, all but one of which contradict your theory—but you pretend there are no other explanations.

And this enormous amount of text that you copy-pasted in here fails to explain the most obvious hole in your argument—Why did God ask for Isaac in the first place? What was the purpose of the deception?

[jimwalton]

> This is so sloppy...you pretend there are no other explanations

Of course there are other explanations. Was he concealing his purposes to his servants? Did he secretly plan to disobey? But that's where we have to let Scripture interpret Scripture instead of us making up interpretations. The text explicitly says it was a test (v. 1), so we know right off that child sacrifice is not intended and God is not commanding murder. The best explanation of the plural pronouns and verbs is that the author is highlighting Abraham's faith that Isaac was the child of the covenant and he would live to have children of his own (Gen. 21.12). Abraham believed that the covenant was not going to be nullified by the untimely death of Isaac. Hebrews 11.17-19 also tell us that Abraham believed in resurrection. Since his son was miraculously born to a barren wife, then it was also possible in his mind that Isaac could come back from the dead.

> And this enormous amount of text that you copy-pasted in here

I copied and pasted for three reasons: (1) I've done a tremendous amount of study in this text, so why should I type it all out again? (2) I've answered this question many times, so why should I type it all out again? (3) If I give a partial answer, readers don't feel the weight of the evidence against the "God is immoral" misconclusion.

> Why did God ask for Isaac in the first place? What was the purpose of the deception?

Isaac was the child of promise, the miraculously-born son of the covenant. Abraham had other children, but this is the child through whom Abraham's line of a promised people would be born. The purpose of the test was so that Abraham could grow in his faith and see that he had a firm trust in God's plan.

The book of Genesis is about the covenant, and page after page is filled with obstacles to that covenant, threats to it, and outright ruinous events that would bring it crashing to an irreversible halt. There are wars, famines, competitors, etc. that all create obstacles to God carrying through with his promises. But this time the purpose is not to teach us God can overcome obstacles. Genesis 22.12 tells us the purpose: it is a test of his relationship with YHWH, and whether his trust is really in God and not simply in what God has promised.

[Churro Bandito]

> The text explicitly says it was a test

The text explicitly says God knew it was a test. So your observation is a red herring.

> so we know right off that child sacrifice is not intended and God is not commanding murder

Right, but that has nothing to do with Abraham's knowledge. So your observation is a red herring.

> The best explanation of the plural pronouns and verbs is that the author is highlighting Abraham's faith that Isaac was the child of the covenant

That's a naked claim. No, I say the best explanation is that Abraham was horrified at what he was about to do and didn't want to reveal it to his servants or son. See how easy it is to just make claims?

> Hebrews 11.17-19 also tell us that Abraham believed in resurrection

Are you claiming that the author of Hebrews had some secret and new knowledge about the internal mental state of Abraham during the time of the trial?

> then it was also possible in his mind that Isaac could come back from the dead.

So now you think he WAS intending to perform human sacrifice? C'mon, dude, leave me something to work with, don't do both sides of the debate all by yourself. You just finished arguing that it was obvious to Abraham that a substitution would be provided.

You sound like the guy who argues in court that he shouldn't be liable for damage to his neighbor's teapot that he borrowed, because the teapot was undamaged at the time he returned it, and it was already damaged at the time he borrowed it. Sure, those claims are contradictory, but if a jury accepts either claim, then the guy successfully defends himself against the lawsuit.

> The purpose of the test was so that Abraham could grow in his faith and see that he had a firm trust in God's plan.

So God made Abraham agree to sacrifice Isaac, so that Abraham could realize how much he already trusted God's plans for Isaac's future? By not trusting what God actually immediately said?

[jimwalton]

> The text explicitly says God knew it was a test.

The text does NOT say that it was a test known only to God. It says, "Some time later God tested Abraham." You're drawing a conclusion not drawn by the text. As I have already explained, the nature of the "command" would have been clear to Abraham that this was not a child sacrifice situation, the name of Moriah would have been a clue that God had intention to provide, and the nature of the covenant would have assured Abraham that Isaac would not die that day or any day in the near future. My observation is not a red herring in the least, but based on the evidence explicit in the text.

> Right, but that has nothing to do with Abraham's knowledge. So your observation is a red herring.

See above. We know enough of what Abraham knew to refute your claim as false.

> See how easy it is to just make claims?

It is easy to make rash and unsubstantiated claims, and that's why I support mine with textual evidence.

> Are you claiming that the author of Hebrews had some secret and new knowledge about the internal mental state of Abraham during the time of the trial?

I absolutely am. Christians believe in the Holy Spirit, God who lives inside of us, who can inspire people with knowledge of the truth not attainable by normal means.

> So now you think he WAS intending to perform human sacrifice? C'mon, dude, leave me something to work with, don't do both sides of the debate all by yourself.

I'm not contradicting myself. Look at Daniel 3.16-18. *God can save us, and he will. But if he doesn't, we still won't serve you.* The same thing is going on here. "This is a test, and God is not asking me to kill my son. But if I do kill him, God will resurrect him immediately so it won't have been a sacrifice at all." He knew God wasn't commanding him to sacrifice his son.

[Churro Bandito]

> The text does NOT say that it was a test known only to God.

Dude, c'mon. Nobody in this conversation is arguing about whether god knew he was testing abraham. The only thing we are discussing is what abraham knew. And so yeah, it's a complete waste of time, perhaps deceptively so, to quote verses which only discuss the former. That's all I said in the part you just quoted. Quoting verse 1, in particular, does not contribute to this debate. That's why that one specific quote is a red herring.

> See above. We know enough of what Abraham knew to refute your claim as false.

No, look, read carefully this time, because you completely missed the point—you can make your case however you want, but some of your argument does not apply to this debate. You wrote "so we know right off that child sacrifice is not intended". BUT, "right off", the only thing that has been established is that God knew it was a test. Maybe using later verses you can make the larger case, but you wrote "right off", as in "by verse 1". But, see above. Verse 1 does not discuss Abraham's knowledge, so it's not relevant.
Get it now?

> "This is a test, and God is not asking me to kill my son. But if I do kill him, God will resurrect him immediately so it won't have been a sacrifice at all."

"God's definitely not going to kill my son. After all, a great prophet named Jim will one day copy/paste the argument that I knew from the outset that I would not have to kill Isaac, but that a substitute would be provided."

"But f***, that great prophet Jim is confusing, because he also says that I knew maybe I could wind up killing him, and then God would resurrect him. So I don't know why he'd discuss that at all, if it's so f***ing obvious to me that a substitute will be provided."

But hey, I have faith. Maybe I will have to go through with it, but if so, the kid will be resurrected. And then, because I have more imagination than Jim, I also think that maybe if he's not resurrected, I'll find out that he knocked up a series of maidservants, so the covenant will be fulfilled through those descendants. And because he also argued that I'm aware of miraculous interventions re: pregnancy, even if Isaac never knocked up a maid, maybe he'll allow Isaac's seed to impregnate a virgin even after he dies, just like that guy Jesus I'm foreshadowing. So really, I guess what I'm saying is it's a waste of time to think about logical chains which prove that Isaac couldn't be killed, since I've already established that I'm aware that miracles can do anything, and that rule-breaking interventions are often used to fulfill prophecy."

[jimwalton]

> Nobody in this conversation is arguing about whether god knew he was testing abraham

You seem to have misread what I said or meant. God obviously knew he was testing Abraham—the text is explicit about that. What's not obvious is that Abraham didn't know he was being tested. I was giving evidence to show that Abraham may have been very well aware that he was being tested, invalidating your implication that Abraham was out of the loop on this information.

> BUT, "right off", the only thing that has been established is that God knew it was a test.

Most, if not all, of my evidences come from vv. 1-2. Since those verses are God's initial contact with Abraham and his opening command, I feel I am justified in considering them "right off" the bat.

> a great prophet named Jim

The sarcasm doesn't help us have a dialogue about this. I've done quite a bit of research, and I gave it to you. You seem upset that I have that much data to support a case in contradistinction to the superficial argument that so many advance. Oh well.