Is God Arbitrary?

JANUARY 2020 | ETHICS IN LITERATURE

​Abraham receives a vision from God to go up the mountain and sacrifice his only beloved son. Abraham, a man of faith, fears the Lord and follows instruction. Upon the last moment, right before the unwavering hand strikes his son, an angel appeared and offered a ram in Isaac’s place. Its purpose was to test Abraham and his faith in God. Throughout the centuries since the story’s inception many readers, philosophers, and artists have questioned God’s character in this seemingly unethical scenario. Can God command something that transcends ethics? Is his arbitrary command just?

In first dissecting this question of arbitrariness, two assumptions must be presumed; the first, the story is interpreted historically or literally instead of as an allegory/foreshadowing to Christ. If we see this story as a metaphor, then the entire discussion dissolves. The second assumption is the belief that God exists. One can argue the real existence of God; however, this provides a complication for understanding the Genesis 22 text. In the text, Abraham already believes in God, unlike today with the rise of secular influences and abandonment of religious tradition, which varies from modern day artists. 

This creates a conflict between ethics and religion. If one believes there is no ultimateGod, then one does not believe in a higher power than the universal (common good) and, therefore, sees religion as a branch or deviation of the ethical since the belief rests in man created societal guidelines, not the divine God. Religion doesn’t follow the consensus of man, though it may contain similar precedents/rules to the ethical, due to the fact that religion is centered and focused on the obedience of the divine authority, not on man’s rationale in beliefs moral in the benefaction to society as a whole. Abraham places God above his ethics. 

Does God demonstrate arbitrariness when he commands Abraham to act outside of his realm of ethics? Does God violate ethics? Ethics are in relation to morality; actions are considered moral when they contribute to the up-keeping of the societal ethical agreement. According to Fear and Trembling, the demand of ethics is “that the individual should be ‘doing something for the universal’” (16). This cooperative societal well-being is defined as the “universal” by Kierkegaard. 

If we define ethics as the universal consensus of mankind (considering that we are the only beings who are able to reason), and if one had belief in God, then we can suppose that God is a higher authority than man. Supposing God is the higher authority than man, then he is beyond ethics. Therefore, God cannot violate ethics if ethics is not in his realm, or that he is higher than man.

That’s the struggle we see in these 20th century artists trying to understand the Abrahamic sacrifice. The poems are not seeing God as the divine, ultimate creator of authority, but rather the highest ruler to enforce ethical code. This is a more secular position of the belief in God’s authority. Bob Dylan’s “Highway 61” compares God to other powers demanding unethical actions from the individuals to take place on Highway 61. 

Many of these poems revolve around the protestation of the Vietnam War. Cohen “Story of Isaac” injects “mercy on our uniform. / Man of peace or man of war,” (46, 47) while in “The Parable of the Old Man and the Young”, Wilfred Owen’s Abraham kills Isaac “and half the seed of Europe” (16). The government, in this simile, God, (high authority) is demanding unethical (arguably, but for the time being one can assume the deaths of thousands of men for engaging in a conflict that does not threaten the country’s own well-being is not beneficial to the Americansociety as a whole) commands from the individuals. Since man is demanding unethical things from man, then in this scenario the universal would be unethical and unjust. However, God is above man. The artists may ask God why the cruel and arbitrary demand, but who is man to demand from higher authority? Does man believe himself a god? Equal to God?

Then could we say the demand is arbitrary? Yes. Further proof must be displayed to counter otherwise. How do we know God isn’t a power-crazy tyrannical ruler based on this story? Kierkegaard attempts to interpret from Abraham’s perspective by establishing a base of foundation in the existence of God, the subjection to God’s higher authority, and the waiting upon the promises of God. This is where Kierkegaard differentiates between knights of resignation and knights of faith. The knight of resignation lacks faith; the knight gives up the possibility of getting Isaac back yet does the task anyway. This is clearly not ethical for it contradicts the morale code and does not benefit the universal. 

​However, the knight of faith holds two contradictory emotions simultaneously without trying to resolve them. He understands that this action is unethical (and unwanted) yet is doing so in hopes that the outcome will be different. The knight of faith believes in the divine strength, therefore, believing in the paradox that Isaac will be restored or returned, thus making Abraham completely dependent upon God’s word and power. The knight of faith goes beyond the realm of the ethical since observing to the rules of the ethical limits solely to societal wellbeing and human possibility; he holds the absurd – the divine possibility – as his strength and motive.Abraham’s faith is not that he will do asks God asks; his faith is the paradoxical belief that God will fulfill His promise through Isaac in some way. 

If we read throughout the Bible itself, God does not care for fancy words and nice smiles. He demands heart postures that lead to real action. Nothing pleases God except for faith (Hebrews 11:6). Therefore, if man, whose ultimate authority is to faith in God, then the arbitrariness of the sacrifice becomes less apparent. Reading in Kierkegaard’s perspective (thus, from Abraham’s), God’s command is beyond the realm of ethics; solely faith in his being and word is the duty and response God asks of man. Seeing how this was a test of Abraham’s faith in God’s promise, and not of simply doing what he was told without believing in any hope, God becomes more sensible in his command.