Arthur King
Active Member
The offering of Isaac is one of the most widely misunderstood and mis-preached stories in the Bible, which is frustrating, because the book of Hebrews tells us exactly what is going on. Perhaps most notably, Soren Kierkegaard interpreted this story to mean that true faith is a “teleological suspension of the ethical,” meaning that true faith could lead a person to be willing to do something horribly unethical out of utter obedience to God. On this view, true faith means a person loves God more than anything else, even moral standards of behavior. It is a terrifying view for any society trying to establish consistent ethical standards. Thank God this is not at all what the story means.
Here is the key point: Abraham was only willing to sacrifice Isaac because he did not believe that Isaac would remain dead. Abraham came to the realization that God was not asking him to lose Isaac forever. Abraham believed that God would raise Isaac from death. Similarly, you or I would only allow a heart surgeon to cut open our child’s chest if we believed that our child was going to make it out alive. In the case of heart surgery, we agree to it because we don’t think our child will live much longer unless the surgeon cuts open the child’s chest. Similarly, the sacrifice of Isaac (which is revealed to only be a symbol of the actual sacrifice of Jesus) is a surgical operation on sin. The death and resurrection of Christ, and the death and resurrection of humanity in Christ, is necessary to remove the sin infecting us.
The reason so many people miss this is because they miss the crucial narrative context of God’s promise to Abraham that undergirds the event. The logic in Abraham’s mind runs like this:
But so many preachers tell the story as if Abraham believes that Isaac will stay dead, and then he is relieved when God provides a substitute. Again, due to penalty substitution, they want to make the main point of the story revolve around substitution, not resurrection. As the website 9Marks says:
At the moment he was about to slay Isaac, God not only stopped him, he provided a substitute in the form of a ram caught by his horns in a thicket. If it wasn’t clear before, substitution was now inescapable. Isaac lived because God provided another to take his place.
But Biblically we are to see Isaac’s deliverance from the altar as God bringing Him back from the dead, not allowing him to avoid death because a substitute was killed in his place. The ram simply provides a mechanism to tell a parable of resurrection.
The offering of Isaac also helps us understand the relationship between God the Father and God the Son at the cross. Just as Abraham offered up his only son, so God the Father offered up His only Son. There are verses in the Bible that speak of God the Father being the direct agent in offering up Jesus on the cross, and penalty substitution advocates use those verses to support the idea of the Father punishing the Son. But look at the scene of Abraham’s offering of Isaac. Is Abraham punishing Isaac? Of course not. Is Abraham pouring out wrath on Isaac? Of course not. Abraham is trusting with all of his being in the faithfulness of God to bring Isaac back alive from the altar. It simply does not follow that just because Abraham is offering Isaac, he is therefore punishing Isaac. Similarly, it simply does not follow that just because God is offering Jesus, he is therefore punishing Jesus.
But isn’t this story unjustifiably immoral?
I want to turn to some objections to the story motivated by our natural discomfort with this dark and grisly tale. Doesn’t this story still violate the natural law principle that “it is always wrong to kill an innocent human being?” Here is a helpful analogy. Imagine a two person team of child heart surgeons: Dr. Abraham and Dr. Jesus. The role of Dr. Abraham is to cut an incision in the child’s chest, and the role of Dr. Jesus is to fix the heart problem and then mend the incision afterwards. Considered in isolation, the actions of Dr. Abraham are deadly to the child. But Dr. Abraham is not acting in isolation, he is acting in concert with Dr. Jesus, who has promised to heal and to mend the child. So no, Abraham’s actions do not violate the natural law principle that it is always wrong to kill an innocent human being. The telos of the act is not that Isaac would be dead, but that he would be alive, and thus Abraham’s actions of offering Isaac do not constitute killing a human being in violation of the natural law principle.
But what about the true story of the father that decapitated his son because he thought God told him to? Doesn’t the story of Abraham undercut the Christian’s ability to stop the father from doing so? Not at all. The father who decapitated his son is suffering from delusion, and such delusions do not constitute any argument against Abraham’s actions, if Abraham’s actions were themselves moral. Let’s say a father throws his ten year old son off of a twenty story building because he has delusions that he is throwing his son into a swimming pool. This delusional father does not constitute any argument against fathers that safely throw their sons into swimming pools.
Faith
This story is foundational in defining what faith is, but sadly, most preaching on this story today omits the central thing that Abraham had faith in: God’s commitment to fulfill his promises through the reversal of death. Instead, the moral of the story becomes that we should have blind faith in whatever we think God commands us to do even if it means doing something horribly immoral, just as Kierkegaard thought. Nowhere in Kierkegaard’s book Fear and Trembling is a mention of the Hebrews 11 commentary. Furthermore, by misunderstanding the story, preachers reinforce the idea that faith is opposed to reason or evidence. But Biblically, faith is not opposed to reason or evidence. Faith always begins with reason and evidence. Believing something without reason or evidence is called stupidity. At the most basic level, faith is trust. It is acting based on best evidence even when you don’t have certainty, and the vast majority of decisions require this kind of faith. Very few things are certain. I am certain that I am having an experience of some sort right now, that I have thoughts and feelings and sensations, that I have awareness, and that I have agency in my actions. I am certain that 2 +2 = 4. I am certain that bachelors are single, and that circles do not have corners. Other than things of that nature, pretty much every belief or decision requires faith. I have faith I am not living in a simulation like the Matrix. I have faith I will live to tomorrow, I have faith my car will take me to the grocery store safely. I have faith my wife will love me. I have faith my house is not being robbed right now. I have faith there was an actual person that lived in history named Julius Caesar. The vast, vast majority of our beliefs and decisions are based on faith, not absolute certainty. Faith is a necessary condition of living as a human being. But faith is not irrational, and is not opposed to reason or evidence or experience, but in fact should be based on best reason and best evidence and best experience. A large part of faith is living as if someone’s promises are true. In the case of Biblical, divine faith, it is living as if God’s promises are true, and this is primarily what the Bible is talking about in its discussions of faith.
Furthermore, the central Biblical dichotomy is not between faith and certainty, but faith and works. We often define faith in contrast to certainty, but the Bible emphasizes faith in contrast to works. The Biblical interest and emphasis on faith is to clarify that we are saved by God’s acts of promise and forgiveness and not our own acts of law-keeping, righteousness or heroism.
Here is the key point: Abraham was only willing to sacrifice Isaac because he did not believe that Isaac would remain dead. Abraham came to the realization that God was not asking him to lose Isaac forever. Abraham believed that God would raise Isaac from death. Similarly, you or I would only allow a heart surgeon to cut open our child’s chest if we believed that our child was going to make it out alive. In the case of heart surgery, we agree to it because we don’t think our child will live much longer unless the surgeon cuts open the child’s chest. Similarly, the sacrifice of Isaac (which is revealed to only be a symbol of the actual sacrifice of Jesus) is a surgical operation on sin. The death and resurrection of Christ, and the death and resurrection of humanity in Christ, is necessary to remove the sin infecting us.
The reason so many people miss this is because they miss the crucial narrative context of God’s promise to Abraham that undergirds the event. The logic in Abraham’s mind runs like this:
- God has promised that all nations will be blessed through Isaac.
- Though God has commanded me to offer Isaac, God’s promise cannot be fulfilled if Isaac is dead.
- Therefore, God must be planning to raise Isaac from the dead.
But so many preachers tell the story as if Abraham believes that Isaac will stay dead, and then he is relieved when God provides a substitute. Again, due to penalty substitution, they want to make the main point of the story revolve around substitution, not resurrection. As the website 9Marks says:
At the moment he was about to slay Isaac, God not only stopped him, he provided a substitute in the form of a ram caught by his horns in a thicket. If it wasn’t clear before, substitution was now inescapable. Isaac lived because God provided another to take his place.
But Biblically we are to see Isaac’s deliverance from the altar as God bringing Him back from the dead, not allowing him to avoid death because a substitute was killed in his place. The ram simply provides a mechanism to tell a parable of resurrection.
The offering of Isaac also helps us understand the relationship between God the Father and God the Son at the cross. Just as Abraham offered up his only son, so God the Father offered up His only Son. There are verses in the Bible that speak of God the Father being the direct agent in offering up Jesus on the cross, and penalty substitution advocates use those verses to support the idea of the Father punishing the Son. But look at the scene of Abraham’s offering of Isaac. Is Abraham punishing Isaac? Of course not. Is Abraham pouring out wrath on Isaac? Of course not. Abraham is trusting with all of his being in the faithfulness of God to bring Isaac back alive from the altar. It simply does not follow that just because Abraham is offering Isaac, he is therefore punishing Isaac. Similarly, it simply does not follow that just because God is offering Jesus, he is therefore punishing Jesus.
But isn’t this story unjustifiably immoral?
I want to turn to some objections to the story motivated by our natural discomfort with this dark and grisly tale. Doesn’t this story still violate the natural law principle that “it is always wrong to kill an innocent human being?” Here is a helpful analogy. Imagine a two person team of child heart surgeons: Dr. Abraham and Dr. Jesus. The role of Dr. Abraham is to cut an incision in the child’s chest, and the role of Dr. Jesus is to fix the heart problem and then mend the incision afterwards. Considered in isolation, the actions of Dr. Abraham are deadly to the child. But Dr. Abraham is not acting in isolation, he is acting in concert with Dr. Jesus, who has promised to heal and to mend the child. So no, Abraham’s actions do not violate the natural law principle that it is always wrong to kill an innocent human being. The telos of the act is not that Isaac would be dead, but that he would be alive, and thus Abraham’s actions of offering Isaac do not constitute killing a human being in violation of the natural law principle.
But what about the true story of the father that decapitated his son because he thought God told him to? Doesn’t the story of Abraham undercut the Christian’s ability to stop the father from doing so? Not at all. The father who decapitated his son is suffering from delusion, and such delusions do not constitute any argument against Abraham’s actions, if Abraham’s actions were themselves moral. Let’s say a father throws his ten year old son off of a twenty story building because he has delusions that he is throwing his son into a swimming pool. This delusional father does not constitute any argument against fathers that safely throw their sons into swimming pools.
Faith
This story is foundational in defining what faith is, but sadly, most preaching on this story today omits the central thing that Abraham had faith in: God’s commitment to fulfill his promises through the reversal of death. Instead, the moral of the story becomes that we should have blind faith in whatever we think God commands us to do even if it means doing something horribly immoral, just as Kierkegaard thought. Nowhere in Kierkegaard’s book Fear and Trembling is a mention of the Hebrews 11 commentary. Furthermore, by misunderstanding the story, preachers reinforce the idea that faith is opposed to reason or evidence. But Biblically, faith is not opposed to reason or evidence. Faith always begins with reason and evidence. Believing something without reason or evidence is called stupidity. At the most basic level, faith is trust. It is acting based on best evidence even when you don’t have certainty, and the vast majority of decisions require this kind of faith. Very few things are certain. I am certain that I am having an experience of some sort right now, that I have thoughts and feelings and sensations, that I have awareness, and that I have agency in my actions. I am certain that 2 +2 = 4. I am certain that bachelors are single, and that circles do not have corners. Other than things of that nature, pretty much every belief or decision requires faith. I have faith I am not living in a simulation like the Matrix. I have faith I will live to tomorrow, I have faith my car will take me to the grocery store safely. I have faith my wife will love me. I have faith my house is not being robbed right now. I have faith there was an actual person that lived in history named Julius Caesar. The vast, vast majority of our beliefs and decisions are based on faith, not absolute certainty. Faith is a necessary condition of living as a human being. But faith is not irrational, and is not opposed to reason or evidence or experience, but in fact should be based on best reason and best evidence and best experience. A large part of faith is living as if someone’s promises are true. In the case of Biblical, divine faith, it is living as if God’s promises are true, and this is primarily what the Bible is talking about in its discussions of faith.
Furthermore, the central Biblical dichotomy is not between faith and certainty, but faith and works. We often define faith in contrast to certainty, but the Bible emphasizes faith in contrast to works. The Biblical interest and emphasis on faith is to clarify that we are saved by God’s acts of promise and forgiveness and not our own acts of law-keeping, righteousness or heroism.
