Testing Abraham: Justice in Sodom Before Loyalty in the Akedah

  הַֽמְכַסֶּ֤ה אֲנִי֙ מֵֽאַבְרָהָ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֖ר אֲנִ֥י עֹשֶֽׂה

  כִּ֣י לֹ֧א יַעֲשֶׂ֛ה אֲדֹנָ֥י יי֖ דָּבָ֑ר כִּ֚י אִם־גָּלָ֣ה סוֹד֔וֹ אֶל־עֲבָדָ֖יו הַנְּבִיאִֽים

Jeremiah (15:1, 19) also affirms that the prophet stands in the presence of God and is privy to the Divine council (see Jer. 23:18, 22; Isa. 6). Thus, when Elisha was left out of the loop, he confessed: “God hid this from me and did not tell me (וַיי֙ הֶעְלִ֣ים מִמֶּ֔נִּי וְלֹ֥א הִגִּ֖יד לִֽי)” (2 Kings 4:27).

A role that Abraham only assumes explicitly later in Gen. 20:7.

לְמַ֗עַן הָבִ֤יא יי֙ עַל־אַבְרָהָ֔ם אֵ֥ת אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּ֖ר עָלָֽיו

Reading כלה  as כולה, following NJPS and Ramban, ad loc.

This understands 21b, ואם לא אדעה to mean “if not [i. e, that they are not all guilty, then], I will know” [what to do]; see Ramban ad loc.

A similar mechanism of judgment kicks in with regard to Noah and his generation. There it is stated that “Noah maintained his innocence” (Gen. 6:9) despite the fact that “all flesh had become corrupt” (Gen. 6:12). Since Noah was judged individually so were the rest though the punishment was collective. Similarly, since Gen. 19:4 confirms that “all the people to the last man” were involved, we can assume that though the punishment in Sodom was collective, the judgment was individual.

This same literary technique of a Divine soliloquy may also be behind Gen. 1:26 and 11:6-7.

  חָלִ֣לָה לָּ֔ךְ הֲשֹׁפֵט֙ כָּל־הָאָ֔רֶץ לֹ֥א יַעֲשֶׂ֖ה מִשְׁפָּֽט

Charging God with injustice is even more a slap on the face coming on the heels of God’s accolade of Abraham that he keeps the way the Lord by doing what is “right and just”(the phase, a hendiadys, implies justice tempered by what is the right thing to do something like equity).

Both Abraham (v. 24) and God (v. 26) use a form of the same verb נושׂא which may be taken as referring to a deferral of punishment. For the classical commentators, see Abraham Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, and Ramban to Num 14:16–18. For the Talmud, see y. Ta’an. 2:1 (R. Acha in the name of R. Yochanan) with Ephraim Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1969), 404 (ET: 457). For the midrash, see Mishnat Rabi Eli’ezer, ed. H. G. Enelow, 2 vols. (New York: Bloch, 1933), 1:95, with Kasher, Torah Sh’lemah, 22:69, n.79. For recent discussions, see Yochanan Muffs, Love and Joy: Law, Language, and Religion in Ancient Israel (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992), pp. 20–24; Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), pp. 342–43, with Jer. 46:28d; and Baruch Levine, Numbers 1-20  (New York: Doubleday, 1993), pp. 381-82.

See 2 Chron. 20:7

Heschel, The Prophets (The Jewish Publication Society: Philadelphia, l962), p. 227.

נֵלְכָ֖ה עַד־כֹּ֑ה וְנִֽשְׁתַּחֲוֶ֖ה וְנָשׁוּ֥בָה אֲלֵיכֶֽם

אֱ-לֹהִ֞ים יִרְאֶה־לּ֥וֹ הַשֶּׂ֛ה לְעֹלָ֖ה בְּנִ֑י

Isaac’s situation is also sui generis. Since no other son will ever on his own embody God’s commitment to the covenant, the test can never be repeated.

וְאַ֨בְרָהָ֔ם הָי֧וֹ יִֽהְיֶ֛ה לְג֥וֹי גָּד֖וֹל וְעָצ֑וּם

For the link between justice and the election of Israel, see Reuven Kimelman, “Prophecy as Arguing with God and the Ideal of Justice,” Interpretation 68, 1 (2014), pp. 17-27.

וְנִ֨בְרְכוּ־ב֔וֹ כֹּ֖ל גּוֹיֵ֥י הָאָֽרֶץ

וְהִתְבָּרֲכ֣וּ בְזַרְעֲךָ֔ כֹּ֖ל גּוֹיֵ֣י הָאָ֑רֶץ

וְנִבְרֲכ֥וּ בְךָ֛ כָּל־מִשְׁפְּחֹ֥ת הָאֲדָמָ֖ה וּבְזַרְעֶֽךָ