The ‘Aqedah

Two Questions: (a) How is what Abraham attempted to do not wrong?  (b) And how is what Abraham attempted to do commendable?  

Paul Copan’s Suggestion:  Given a world in which death is constantly conjoined by near instantaneous resurrection, death wouldn’t seem nearly as bad.  And within this context, we can better appreciate the context of Abraham’s act - for Abraham believed, and had sufficient reason to believe, that God was capable and willing to resurrect Isaac in the event of his death prior to the fulfillment of the promise.

Mark Murphy’s Suggestion:  Abraham was acting as God’s executioner for the sins of Isaac.  So the act was not a private killing, but a justly sanctioned execution for wrongdoing.

Alexander Pruss’s Suggestion:  God did not give Isaac life, but lent it to him.  God has the right to terminate the lease whenever he wishes to do so.  This line of thought is given greater weight in light of Conservationism, the doctrine that God keeps creation in existence by a continuous act of upholding it in being.  If God were to withdraw his upholding action, creation would slip into non-being.  

I think these suggestions adequately answer (a).  What about (b)?

Here’s my best theory at the moment.  Abraham showed that he was not placing the fulfillment of the promises above the Supreme Good.  He was not guilty of idolatry.  Given our sinful state, we’re drawn to prioritize visible worldly things.  Abraham was able to shun this temptation and place his desires and hopes on the invisible God instead.  That Abraham was willing to obey the Supreme Good, even when it was personally costly, shows his dedication and regard for God.