A Rebuttal to Kierkegaard’s Teleological Suspension in the Akedah
Abstract:
Søren Kierkegaard, in Fear and Trembling, introduces the concept of the “teleological suspension of the ethical,” positing that Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac in Genesis 22 represents a paradoxical act of faith that suspends universal ethical norms in favor of a divine command. Kierkegaard argues that the ethical, as the universal, is superseded by the individual’s absolute relation to God, which he calls the “absurd” (Kierkegaard, 1843/2006, p. 54).
This paper contends that Kierkegaard’s framework is a misinterpretation of the Akedah, rooted in a heleocentric (human-centered) ethic that presumes human morality as the standard. Instead, completeness and obedience to Christ do not suspend ethics but define it. Abraham’s obedience was ethical because it aligned with the will of God, as revealed through the Word (Christ), and fulfilled the covenantal purpose of heaven’s reality. This rebuttal argues that the Akedah exemplifies a rational, ethical alignment with the divine telos, rejecting Kierkegaard’s notion of a paradoxical suspension and affirming that true ethics flows from heaven’s will, as Jesus taught: “Let it be on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10). What Kierkegaard calls the “absurd” is not absurd at all, or, at least, it only looks absurd from an earthly standpoint.
Establishing the Metaethical Framework: Divine Command Theory and the Mesotopian Ethic
The mesotopian framework advanced in this paper finds its philosophical roots within the broader tradition of divine command theory (DCT), which asserts that moral obligations derive fundamentally from God’s commands. The mesotopia—a term coined by the author—is a framework for understanding living on earth while being a Kingdom minded and hearted follower of Jesus Christ. The mesotopia is the mindset where faith navigates the dynamic tension between divine necessity and human possibility, rooted in God's providential will, as a radical middle ground that transcends utopian idealism and dystopian despair. Mesotopia resists ideological distortions: ideologies try to utopianize the temporary into the eternal, while dystopianism denies access to the eternal. The mesotopian ethic, by contrast, accepts the temporary as the arena in which the eternal telos breaks in and is faithfully pursued despite all paradoxes.
Mesotopian is by definition, Kingdom minded first, it does not look longingly at heaven from earth, but lovingly at earth from heaven where we are seated with Christ (Ephesians 2:6).
At a cursory glance, such an ethic might seem to imply that “certain things are right because God commands them.” However, the heart of the mesotopian stance—and of the biblical witness—is that God commands certain things because they are right.
This distinction rests on the conviction, developed in The Subjective God and anticipated by C.S. Lewis in The Problem of Pain, that God’s will is inseparable from His holy and self-consistent nature; that His holiness is, by definition, a subjection to His Word. Lewis rejects the idea that moral rightness is determined by arbitrary divine fiat, affirming instead that God’s commands emerge from His wisdom (which perceives the intrinsically good) and His goodness (which embraces it). In this view, God can be “judged” in the biblical sense—measured—not by a standard external to Himself, but by His own Word, which is the perfect disclosure of His character and thus the absolute ethical standard (Psalm 138:2, Romans 3:4, Job 40:2).
Robert Merrihew Adams’s “modified divine command theory” parallels this reasoning by holding that moral wrongness consists in going against the commands of a loving God whose nature is the Good (Adams, 1999). John Hare likewise argues in God’s Command that divine authority is never set against reason or natural law, but works in harmony with them within God’s larger telos (Hare, 2015). The mesotopian ethic, in line with these thinkers, asserts that God’s commands are always in accord with His own unchanging moral nature and the purposes revealed in the Word.
These commands may address corporate realities and covenantal communities, but they are most often relational and individual, which means Kierkegaard’s existential emphasis on the qualitative uniqueness of individual faith is absorbed—not denied—within this framework. Yet in contrast to Kierkegaard’s “teleological suspension of the ethical,” the mesotopian view insists there is never a genuine conflict between God’s will and the ethical; what appears as “conflict” within the mesotopia is simply the limitation of human moral perception. In God’s telos, commands do not suspend ethics—they disclose them in their truest form.
Kierkegaard’s Teleological Suspension: A Mesotopian Misstep
Kierkegaard’s rejection of Hegelian universalism rightly emphasizes individual faith, but his framing of the “absurd” overstates the divide between ethics and divine will.
Kierkegaard’s argument hinges on the tension between the ethical (the universal, rational moral law) and faith (the individual’s absolute duty to God). He describes Abraham as the “knight of faith” who, by agreeing to sacrifice Isaac, suspends the ethical duty to protect his son in favor of God’s command, entering the realm of the absurd where “the single individual is higher than the universal” (Kierkegaard, 1843/2006, p. 55). This suspension, he argues, is teleological because it serves God’s purpose, but Kierkegaard insists it is paradoxical, as it defies rational ethical norms. He writes, “Faith is precisely this paradox, that the single individual as the particular is higher than the universal… or else Abraham is lost” (p. 56). This view presupposes an earthly ethic—what the author calls a “mesotopian” ethic, a human construct that assumes earth’s moral reasoning supersedes that of the utopian or telos.
Kierkegaard’s error lies in his heliocentric presumption that human ethics, as a universal standard, is the baseline from which divine commands deviate. By framing Abraham’s act as a suspension of ethics, he implies that God’s telos conflicts with morality, requiring a leap of faith into the absurd. This dichotomizes faith and reason, ethics and obedience, as if God’s will operates outside ethical coherence. Instead, the mesotopian ethic asserts that the telos—God’s purpose revealed through the Word—breaks into the mesotopia and redefines what is ethical, aligning earth with heaven’s reality. Our faith does not lead into dystopian fears nor into utopian ideologies, instead we hold the tention between paradoxical extreemes of joy and terror, good and bad, calm and chaos.
Much like miracles do not suspend natural law, so the teleological necessary does not suspend human ethics (Lewis, 1947, p. 70).
Engaging Kierkegaard’s Teleological Suspension in Light of Divine Command Theory
Kierkegaard’s notion of the “teleological suspension of the ethical” emphasizes a paradoxical tension wherein Abraham’s obedience appears to suspend universal ethical norms in favor of an absolute duty to God (Kierkegaard, 1843/2006). Contemporary philosophical analyses, such as C. Matthew McMahon’s critique, examine whether such divine commands truly contradict ethical rationality or function as exceptions (McMahon, 2018).
While Kierkegaard’s “absurd” highlights the existential weight of faith, the mesotopian ethic views this as rational trust in a fully coherent divine telos, not a paradox beyond reason. His trust and obedience is a more supreme reason, it is not a suspension or either ethics or of reason.
The theocentric mesotopian ethic rejects Kierkegaard’s framing of this act as a paradoxical suspension by invoking the logic of divine command theory defended by Adams and Hare. According to this perspective, Abraham’s faith and obedience do not violate ethics but fulfill them by aligning with God’s consistent, telos-oriented will. This reading preserves both God’s sovereignty and the coherence of ethical norms by affirming that divine commands are not arbitrary disruptions but fulfillments of the moral order anchored in God's character and covenantal promises.
This approach addresses Kierkegaard’s emphasis on the “absurd” by reframing faith not as an irrational leap but as a rational trust in the divine telos grounded in empirical faithfulness to God’s promises—since the absurd is either meaningless chaos or imperceivable order. The “absurd” Kierkegaard is referencing is thus a product of limited human perspective within the mesotopia, while from the divine standpoint, faith and ethics are perfectly harmonized (Jones, 2015). What is experienced in the mesotopia as “absurd” is then reduced to merely “not yet understood”. “God does not tempt” (James 1:13) further reinforces that the Akedah is not a capricious test but a purposeful act within God’s covenantal framework. Even though God knows what Abraham will choose, Abraham still has to choose it, otherwise God's foreknowledge disolved into the meaningless.
As a modern example, teaching Biblical monogamy has always sounded absurd to both men and women in a polygamous society, but that perception of absurdity is not evidence of the assertion’s ethical value. We in the mesotopia are ill equipped to make that distinction from our viewpoint alone.
The Akedah: Ethical Alignment with the Divine Telos
The Akedah (Genesis 22) is the cornerstone of Kierkegaard’s argument but also the key to its refutation. Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac was not a suspension of ethics but an alignment with the divine telos, which defines righteousness. Abraham’s obedience on the mountain was not a deviation from ethics but an alignment with the teleologically necessary will of God. Scripture supports this: Romans 4:3 states, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” indicating that his faith was a rational act of trust in God’s covenantal purpose. Hebrews 11:17-19 further reveals that Abraham believed God could raise Isaac from the dead, grounding his obedience in a rational expectation of divine faithfulness, not an absurd leap.
Abraham’s act was ethical because it fulfilled the telos of the covenant—God’s promise to make Abraham the father of many nations (Genesis 12:1-3). The Akedah tested Abraham’s alignment with this purpose, requiring a small step of obedience that wove eternal significance into history. Far from suspending ethics, Abraham’s faith upheld the ethical by prioritizing heaven’s reality over mesotopian norms, which might deem child sacrifice abhorrent without divine context. Abraham’s act of obedience protected Isaac from being placed in a state of worship by his father, or from overprotecting him from the raw presence of God, or from Abraham’s living vicariously through his son. Abraham’s obedience prevented any number of human relational dysfunctions, vastly aparent in our modern Western societies, originating with Adam’s silence and disobedience with Eve in the garden when he should have spoken out with the teliological instruction he had been given.
The Akedah culminated in God providing a ram, affirming that the legitimate telos includes mercy and provision, not destruction as all of the fake gods demand. Abraham’s obedience was thus a rational, ethical act, aligning earth with heaven’s will, as echoed in the Lord’s Prayer: “on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10) as opposed to the teleological suspension of the ethical which ultimately demands a telos which ethically must submit to “in heaven as it is on earth.”
Theological Grounding: Holiness, Divine Self-Binding, and Scriptural Foundations
Central to this account is the theological conception of holiness as divine self-binding, explicated extensively in The Subjective God (Jones, 2015). God’s holiness is demonstrated through His commitment to His own Word (Psalm 138:2), which serves as the moral telos that believers emulate. This counters the notion of divine commands as arbitrary edicts, instead portraying them as expressions of God’s immutable character.
Scriptural texts support this theocentric ethic robustly. Romans 4:3 and Hebrews 11:17-19 affirm that Abraham’s obedience was credited as righteousness due to faith in God’s covenantal promises. James 2:21-23 further articulates that faith is completed by works—obedience to the divine telos. These scriptures reinforce the philosophical notion that ethical behavior arises not from human reasoning alone but through relational trust in God’s revealed purpose.
This sacred telos is echoed in Jesus’ prayer for “on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10), which the mesotopian ethic interprets as a call for earthly ethics to be redefined by heavenly reality. This understanding is congruent with Robert Adams’ modified divine command theory, which situates ethics as participation in the divine goodness, not external imposition (Adams, 1999).
Refuting the Absolute Nature of the Secular Ethic
Kierkegaard’s teleological suspension assumes a secular ethic in which human morality is the universal standard, and divine commands are exceptions that require suspension. But surely heaven should not bend to earth’s temporary, fluxional, and flawed moral reasoning. The biblical mesotopian ethic—in its earthly application, but distinctly theocentric—insists that true ethics flow from heaven’s reality, not human constructs.
The Akedah was not a deviation from ethics but its fulfillment, as Abraham’s obedience aligned with the Name’s purpose to establish a covenant by faith. In fact, the Akedah set the ethical template for all of Abraham’s descendants—by birth through Isaac and by adoption through Christ. In Issac we do not see a man damaged by the teleological suspension of the ethical, but a man with the same healthy fear of God that his father had.
Many so-called “absurd” commands in Scripture—marching around Jericho (Joshua 6:1–20), throw the net on the other side of the boat (John 21:6), Noah building an ark in the desert (Genesis 6–9), Gideon reducing his army (Judges 7:2–8), Ezekiel’s symbolic acts (Ezekiel 4:1–17), Hosea marrying a prostitute (Hosea 1:2–3)—only appear absurd through a secular ethical lens. These events illustrate that God’s commands do not suspend ethics; they redefine them in accordance with the divine telos. The prayer “on earth as it is in heaven” encapsulates this, rejecting the inversion where human morality dictates divine will.
Kierkegaard’s view risks elevating human ethics above divine purpose. The theocentric mesotopian ethic counters this by rooting all morality in the telos of the Word—who is both person and truth. The Akedah was ethical because it was teleologically necessary, serving God's covenantal plan, not because it violated moral reasoning. Abraham’s faith was a small step of obedience, not a paradoxical leap—proving that what is necessary from God is always possible.
This framing positions the mesotopian ethic not as an ethic waiting passively while telos operates elsewhere, but as one that grows toward telos in history. The abolition of slavery, the development of economic freedom, the practice of monogamy, the development of corporation laws, the scientific method, medicine, and technological innovation, et al, are all fruits of this biblically grounded ethic—one that lives between heaven and earth while aligning with the purposes of both.
Responding to Critiques: The Rationality of Faith and Avoiding Legalism
Philosophical critiques often accuse divine command theories of arbitrariness or risk collapsing faith into fideism. Linda Zagzebski and J.L. Mackie highlight concerns about moral autonomy and the potential for commands to reflect divine whim rather than reasoned goodness (Zagzebski, 1991; Mackie, 1977). The mesotopian ethic forestalls these objections by emphasizing God’s holiness and faithfulness to His own Word, which constrains divine commands within a coherent, non-arbitrary moral order, and to which He invites investigation (Jones, 2015). Comparing the Biblical ethic with the Islamic one, for example, Allah is never portrayed as subject to anything, he is never portrayed as “holy” in the original sense of being dedicated to a singular purpose (Jones 2015). Conversely Yahweh is portrayed as absolute yet willingly accountable. The empirical biblical record has been replicated by millions, if not billions, of subsequent believers.
To address Kierkegaard’s worry about religious formalism and legalism, this framework incorporates C.S. Lewis’s tripartite moral model—personal, public, and teleological (or destinational) components of morality (Lewis, 2001). Together with the mesotopian concept of “collective wisdom,” ethics are a communal, historically tested practice of obedience that navigates safely between the straits of idolatry of law and individualistic leaps of faith. It encourages small, relationally accountable steps of obedience proven by God’s enduring faithfulness, in that sense the mesotopian ethic is empirical.
The Radical Real: Ethics as Obedience to the Word
The Mesotopian ethic rejects the extremes of utopian idealism and dystopian despair, advocating for the “radical real”—a path of small, obedient steps toward the telos. Kierkegaard’s paradox, by contrast, isolates faith from ethics, suggesting that divine commands are sometimes inherently irrational. In my book The Subjective God I argue that God submits to His own Word, His own ethic, that is what makes Him “holy” by definition (Jones, 2015, p. 77-78, 94-95). Many secular worldviews assert that the good of mankind can only be found on earth (Lewis, 2001, Book 3, Chapter 1), recognizing human morality and denying divine purpose. The Akedah demonstrates that faith is not a leap into the absurd but a reasoned trust in the Word’s purpose. James 2:21-23 reinforces this: “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? Faith was completed by his works.” Abraham’s obedience completed his faith, proving it ethical by aligning with God’s telos, not suspending human norms. If it was a leap, it was a leap into relational trust, tried and tested, empirical.
The radical real contrasts with Kierkegaard’s paradox by integrating faith, reason, and ethics, and the Akedah exemplifies this. There is nothing irrational about faith if its object is legitimate telos. Abraham’s trust in God’s promise was rational because it rested on God’s empirically proven faithfulness (e.g., the birth of Isaac despite Sarah’s barrenness). His obedience was ethical because it served the covenantal telos, not a personal or arbitrary divine whim. Kierkegaard’s “absurd” frames faith as a solitary, existential crisis, but the Mesotopian ethic sees it as a communal, rational, and relational act, woven into the collective wisdom of the faithful. Abraham’s faith was not absurd but purposeful, aligning with the crux or all things—the Cross of Christ—where suffering and redemption meet.
Biblical and Philosophical Examples Underscoring the Mesotopian Ethic
Scriptural narratives—including the Akedah, Noah’s ark, the fall of Jericho, and the life of Hosea—may appear “absurd” from a secular moral framework but within the mesotopian ethic reveal a consistent teleological necessity that redefines ethics rather than suspends it. These paradigmatic acts align with divine telos as defended by divine command theory and supported by the character of God as loving, just, and purposeful.
Conclusion
Kierkegaard’s “teleological suspension of the ethical” misinterprets the Akedah by framing Abraham’s obedience as a paradox that suspends universal ethics. The theocentric mesotopian ethic refutes this by asserting that the divine telos—purpose, perfection, obedience to the Word—defines ethics, not suspends them. Abraham’s faith was rational and ethical, aligning with God’s covenantal purpose, as evidenced by Romans 4:3, Hebrews 11:17–19, and James 2:21–23. The Akedah was not a leap into the absurd but a small step toward the radical real, where earth conforms to heaven’s reality. By rejecting a heliocentric ethic that presumes human morality as the standard, the biblical mesotopian ethic offers a coherent, biblically grounded alternative: ethics is defined by alignment with the Name’s telos, as exemplified by Abraham and fulfilled in the Crux of the Word.
C.S. Lewis, in The Problem of Pain, reinforces this view by rejecting the idea that rightness depends solely on divine fiat: God commands only what is intrinsically good, with His will determined by His wisdom and goodness. This aligns with the biblical portrayal of God subjecting Himself to His Word (Psalm 138:2), ensuring that His commands are inherently ethical. If God’s commands are ethical by definition, as His self-subjection implies, then no suspension of the ethical is ever necessary. Kierkegaard’s teleological suspension, which allows divine command to override rather than fulfil universal morality, is therefore incompatible with this framework. Human faith, in trusting God’s Word, vindicates His ethical rightness (Romans 3:4), disproves the accuser, and participates in God’s final judgment of unjust powers (Psalm 82). Thus, divine holiness is proven through faith and obedience—enacted within the ethical order, never apart from it—bringing the long journey from Eden full circle and fulfilling the prayer: “Let it be on earth as it is in heaven.”
References
Adams, Robert Merrihew. Finite and Infinite Goods: A Framework for Ethics. Oxford University Press, 1999.
Hare, John. God’s Command. Oxford University Press, 2015.
Jones, Alan R. The Subjective God. 2015.
Jones, Alan R. “Faith as Phenomenology: When Providence Precedes Potential.” Mesotopia.grouplands.com, July 16, 2025, https://www.mesotopia.grouplands.com/latest/purpose-meaning-and-existential-concepts/faith-as-phenomenology-when-providence-precedes-potential.
Kierkegaard, Søren. Fear and Trembling. Translated by C. S. Evans and S. Walsh, Cambridge University Press, 1843/2006.
Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. HarperOne, 2001.
Lewis, C. S. Miracles. HarperOne, 1947.
Lewis, C. S. The Problem of Pain. The Macmillan Company, 1947.
Mackie, J. L. Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. Penguin, 1977.
McMahon, C. Matthew. “The Teleological Suspension of the Ethical.” Philosophical Studies, 2018.
Plato. Euthyphro. In Dialogues of Plato. Various editions.
Zagzebski, Linda. The Dilemma of Divine Command Theory. Philosophical Perspectives, 1991.
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Crossway Bibles, 2001.
Further reading on Mesotopian theory:
- Jones, Alan R, Faith as Phenomenology: When Providence Precedes Potential: https://www.mesotopia.grouplands.com/latest/purpose-meaning-and-existential-concepts/faith-as-phenomenology-when-providence-precedes-potential
