What is the Moral Justification of God's Asking Abraham to Sacrifice Isaac?

[The Biblicist]

It is true that God is not subject to commandments that in application form are only applicable to creatures. However, it is not true that God is not subject to the righteous principles that under gird those same commandments (love). Every command of God originates from his holy and just nature that is revealed in God's Word in principle and precepts.

The command for Abraham to offer up his son is consistent with God's righteous nature for several reasons:

1. Abraham is the head of his family, making him the judicial administrator, as well as priest
2. Isaac is a sinner justly deserving death and Abraham acted upon divine authority in behalf of God
3. God appoints the time and means of death - Heb. 9:27
4. God's revealed will was not His will of purpose but His will of purpose was merely to demonstrate Abraham's faith. and provide a type of the sacrifice of His own Son.
5. God is in his right to terminate the life of any of his creatures, who justly deserve death and in his right to use any civil representative to accomplish that judicial act.
6. Abraham was just in his intent to sacrifice his son as it was commanded and authorized by God.
7. Hence, Abraham was not disobedient to the command "thou shalt not murder" because He was acting in an authorized capacity by God.

 

[Revmitchell]

2. Isaac is a sinner justly deserving death and Abraham acted upon divine authority in behalf of God

Just for clarification, what do you see in the fact that Isaac was a sinner deserving death and how it relates to what God told Abraham to do to him?

 

[The Biblicist]

Just for clarification, what do you see in the fact that Isaac was a sinner deserving death and how it relates to what God told Abraham to do to him?

He was born condemned already and the wages of sin is death and apart from Christ every human being has suffered death as God has the right to appoint both the time and means to bring about his death. So judicial death does not have to be in response to any particular sin committed by Isaac, but to the fact that he is a sinner by nature.

In relationship to Abraham, Abraham was the authorized judicial administer over his family as he was also the appointed priest over his family. He had direct command by God to administer death to Isaac and that was entirely sufficient irregardless of anything else known or unknown by Abraham with regard to his own son.

Abraham's only dilemma was to rationalize God's promise versus this command. However, there was no problem of misunderstanding God's direct command in this case and there is no problem in understanding God's right to administer death according to His own appointed time and means. Abraham acted justly because he acted in obedience to the eternal judge of the universe.

 

[JonC]

It is true that God is not subject to commandments that in application form are only applicable to creatures. However, it is not true that God is not subject to the righteous principles that under gird those same commandments (love). Every command of God originates from his holy and just nature that is revealed in God's Word in principle and precepts.

The command for Abraham to offer up his son is consistent with God's righteous nature for several reasons:

1. Abraham is the head of his family, making him the judicial administrator, as well as priest
2. Isaac is a sinner justly deserving death and Abraham acted upon divine authority in behalf of God
3. God appoints the time and means of death - Heb. 9:27
4. God's revealed will was not His will of purpose but His will of purpose was merely to demonstrate Abraham's faith. and provide a type of the sacrifice of His own Son.
5. God is in his right to terminate the life of any of his creatures, who justly deserve death and in his right to use any civil representative to accomplish that judicial act.
6. Abraham was just in his intent to sacrifice his son as it was commanded and authorized by God.
7. Hence, Abraham was not disobedient to the command "thou shalt not murder" because He was acting in an authorized capacity by God.

I have found no passage that remotely indicates God as "subject to" anything. Those "righteous principles" are not prescriptive upon God, but descriptive of Him. God is not bound by the commandment to love, God is love.

 

[The Biblicist]

I have found no passage that remotely indicates God as "subject to" anything. Those "righteous principles" are not prescriptive upon God, but descriptive of Him. God is not bound by the commandment to love, God is love.

I think you are quibbling over unnecessary definitions. It is like you are saying God is not subject to holiness because he is holiness, and yet there is no such thing as undefined holiness and if holiness is defined it is the area of His true freedom outside of which he has no freedom of expression. He is subject to what he is just as we are. Our true freedom lies within what constitutes our nature and therefore that nature separates us from what is contrary to our nature and thus defines our limitations as well as our freedom by restricting us to what we are in contrast to what we are not. The same is true with God - He is what He is and never can be what He is not or else what would make him different than what he is would be the real true God.

Neither God or the revelation of God is morally neutral and therefore he cannot be both moral and amoral and the fact he is not amoral is a restriction which is immutably inherent in his true nature. His righteous nature is both his freedom and his restriction called his nature.

 

[JonC]

I think you are quibbling over unnecessary definitions. It is like you are saying God is not subject to holiness because he is holiness, and yet there is no such thing as undefined holiness and if holiness is defined it is the area of His true freedom outside of which he has no freedom of expression. He is subject to what he is just as we are. Our true freedom lies within what constitutes our nature and therefore that nature separates us from what is contrary to our nature and thus defines our limitations as well as our freedom by restricting us to what we are in contrast to what we are not. The same is true with God - He is what He is and never can be what He is not or else what would make him different than what he is would be the real true God.

Neither God or the revelation of God is morally neutral and therefore he cannot be both moral and amoral and the fact he is not amoral is a restriction which is immutably inherent in his true nature. His righteous nature is both his freedom and his restriction called his nature.

I suppose it depends on the context. The difference in wording here is probably insufficient. There are occasions where the mode of thinking that God is "subject to" his characteristics can become troubling. Perhaps this is not one of them and it may just be one of my pet objections (I do not like the wording because I've seen it used in prosperity gospel teachers).

 

[The Biblicist]

I suppose it depends on the context. The difference in wording here is probably insufficient. There are occasions where the mode of thinking that God is "subject to" his characteristics can become troubling. Perhaps this is not one of them and it may just be one of my pet objections (I do not like the wording because I've seen it used in prosperity gospel teachers).

Well, I can empathize with the negative toward prosperity gospel teachers!!

 

[Revmitchell]

He was born condemned already and the wages of sin is death and apart from Christ every human being has suffered death as God has the right to appoint both the time and means to bring about his death. So judicial death does not have to be in response to any particular sin committed by Isaac, but to the fact that he is a sinner by nature.

In relationship to Abraham, Abraham was the authorized judicial administer over his family as he was also the appointed priest over his family. He had direct command by God to administer death to Isaac and that was entirely sufficient irregardless of anything else known or unknown by Abraham with regard to his own son.

Abraham's only dilemma was to rationalize God's promise versus this command. However, there was no problem of misunderstanding God's direct command in this case and there is no problem in understanding God's right to administer death according to His own appointed time and means. Abraham acted justly because he acted in obedience to the eternal judge of the universe.

Wow! Alrighty then,

 

[Yeshua1]

I suppose it depends on the context. The difference in wording here is probably insufficient. There are occasions where the mode of thinking that God is "subject to" his characteristics can become troubling. Perhaps this is not one of them and it may just be one of my pet objections (I do not like the wording because I've seen it used in prosperity gospel teachers).

Think that God is also in a unique sense above anything else, as his law demanded David must die, as also the Adultress, but the Lord showed to us that he is able to render a verdict of mercy and grace over even his own law...

 

[StefanM]

To review, some claim God needs moral justification for testing Abraham. Others (myself included) do not.
Do we (humans) hold God to the standard He proscribed for us? Simple question. But only those humble of heart are willing to accept the correct (Romans 9) answer.

To clarify, the point is not whether God holds up to human standards. That's absurd on its face.

The point is trying to find the best explanation of how this scenario is compatible with God's own essential qualities and revelation of himself.

God can be God, but God cannot be not-God.

I wish I had used another term than justification because it obscured the point.

 

[StefanM]

I suppose it depends on the context. The difference in wording here is probably insufficient. There are occasions where the mode of thinking that God is "subject to" his characteristics can become troubling. Perhaps this is not one of them and it may just be one of my pet objections (I do not like the wording because I've seen it used in prosperity gospel teachers).

The wording may be troublesome, but the content can be enlightening.

My favorite example is of God's existence. God has no option but to exist. By nature, he is not free to cease to exist, nor is he free to have never existed. In some sense he is subject and/or bound by these attributes. That doesn't mean God is subject to any external being or force. He would only be subject to himself.

 

[Yeshua1]

The wording may be troublesome, but the content can be enlightening.

My favorite example is of God's existence. God has no option but to exist. By nature, he is not free to cease to exist, nor is he free to have never existed. In some sense he is subject and/or bound by these attributes. That doesn't mean God is subject to any external being or force. He would only be subject to himself.

 

[Yeshua1]

And God has all of his attributes always in perfect unison, so what ever he has decided to do or to allow to be done, would always be the right thing to have been done...

 

[StefanM]

And God has all of his attributes always in perfect unison, so what ever he has decided to do or to allow to be done, would always be the right thing to have been done...

This is true. What is the issue is our understanding of it. Just like we try to understand God through his Word in any other area, we do the same here.

 

[JonC]

The wording may be troublesome, but the content can be enlightening.

My favorite example is of God's existence. God has no option but to exist. By nature, he is not free to cease to exist, nor is he free to have never existed. In some sense he is subject and/or bound by these attributes. That doesn't mean God is subject to any external being or force. He would only be subject to himself.

Yea...but that's almost like the old "God can't make a round square" argument. My biggest objection to presenting God as bound by his attributes is that we don't really know God fully (we know God as he has revealed himself to us) so that is not really a good "binding" upon which to shackle God.

The difference may be trivial (I don't think so, but we each understand things differently). For me, I would much prefer the phrasing that all of God's works are just over God must act justly....even if they are saying the same thing simply because I think that the latter has more a chance to be taken out of context. Perhaps it's just a preference of mine.

 

[Van]

If the best answer is invented, rather than based on scripture, it is not the best answer. The answer from scripture is Romans 9.

 

[StefanM]

Yea...but that's almost like the old "God can't make a round square" argument. My biggest objection to presenting God as bound by his attributes is that we don't really know God fully (we know God as he has revealed himself to us) so that is not really a good "binding" upon which to shackle God.

The difference may be trivial (I don't think so, but we each understand things differently). For me, I would much prefer the phrasing that all of God's works are just over God must act justly....even if they are saying the same thing simply because I think that the latter has more a chance to be taken out of context. Perhaps it's just a preference of mine.

I think it's just a preference. If I say that "God is unable to cease to exist," I'm just saying the negative version of "God is by necessity eternally existent."

 

[JonC]

I think it's just a preference. If I say that "God is unable to cease to exist," I'm just saying the negative version of "God is by necessity eternally existent."

I agree. It is largely a matter of preference. By saying "God is just" instead of "God must act justly" one takes away (at least for me) the idea that God is "bound" to act in accordance to an external standard (even if that standard originated from God himself). When God commands something, it is not up to us to determine the justness of the command. If God commands it, then it is just and we are just to obey.

I hope that makes sense....and I can accept that it is just me and how I think of things. I agree we are believing the same thing here and don't mean to quibble about such matters.

 

[StefanM]

I agree. It is largely a matter of preference. By saying "God is just" instead of "God must act justly" one takes away (at least for me) the idea that God is "bound" to act in accordance to an external standard (even if that standard originated from God himself). When God commands something, it is not up to us to determine the justness of the command. If God commands it, then it is just and we are just to obey.

I hope that makes sense....and I can accept that it is just me and how I think of things. I agree we are believing the same thing here and don't mean to quibble about such matters.

It does. I would quibble a bit, but I will focus on one thing. You mentioned that "When God commands something, it is not up to us to determine the justness of the command. If God commands it, then it is just and we are just to obey."

This is true, but it is also true that we are to seek to understand God as much as possible, including his reasons for acting, if we can know them.

Why? To keep us away from counterfeits and to help us understand our Father better. I think it's good to get to know his nature, as long as we do it out of a sense of love and obedience.

 

[JonC]

It does. I would quibble a bit, but I will focus on one thing. You mentioned that "When God commands something, it is not up to us to determine the justness of the command. If God commands it, then it is just and we are just to obey."

This is true, but it is also true that we are to seek to understand God as much as possible, including his reasons for acting, if we can know them.

Why? To keep us away from counterfeits and to help us understand our Father better. I think it's good to get to know his nature, as long as we do it out of a sense of love and obedience.

I absolutely agree. This is part of weighing doctrines with Scripture (Scripture being a revelation of God as truths are unveiled to the believer).

I can think of a few instances where God's command (or obeying God's command) would be questioned IF the standard of justness is determined by what we would do today. For example, the sin of Achan was dealt with by stoning Achan, his wife and children, and burning him and his family along with their livestock and all of their possessions as commanded by God. I don't know that this would meet today's standard of justness, but God was not unjust for the command.

To bring this a little closer to home, God commands churches to be pure and holy. The church is to exercise discipline, to call members who do sin to repent, to "expel the wicked" from among them. This is not considered appropriate in most churches today. It is considered "judgmental". We would rather sweep sins under the rug. No one wants to be the one confronting another, no one wants to be confronted, there is little if any accountability, and there is little if any repentance. IMHO, if there were repentance then there would be revival. Part of the problem is that we do not simply obey. We think "God really didn't mean it that way", "they're good people", etc. Even when we do not understand we need to obey. Often understanding follows obedience.