Testing Abraham: Justice in Sodom Before Loyalty in the

Akedah
thetorah.com/justice-in-sodom-before-loyalty-in-the-akedah/

‫פ ר ש ת וי ר א‬
Testing Abraham: Justice in Sodom
Before Loyalty in the Akedah

Prof. Reuven Kimelman

‫חלילה לך השופט כל הארץ לא יעשה משפט‬. The Destruction Of Sodom And Gomorrah. John
Martin 1852

Introduction: The Literary Make-up of Parshat Vayera

There are three major ways of framing the reading of Parshat Vayera as a literary unit.

1. Isaac-centered, where the parashah goes from his birth to his near death experience.
2. Sarah-centered, where this parashah opens with her giving life and the next parashah
to her losing life.
3. Abraham-centered, where the parashah goes from Abraham’s objection to G-d over
Sodom to the sacrifice of his son without objection.

Each way privileges a specific beginning and ending. This reading will focus on Abraham by
asking what is gained by binding the Akeidah episode of Genesis 22 and the Sodom
episode of Genesis 18 into one parashah.

– Part 1 –
1/6
Testing the Commitment for Justice in Sodom

Telling Abraham God’s plan

Abraham’s challenge of Divine justice is introduced by God’s question, “Shall I hide from
[1]
Abraham what I am about to do?” (Gen. 18:17). The question assumes a degree of
intimacy between God and Abraham as if God, in the words of Amos, “does nothing
[2]
without having revealed His purpose to His servants the prophets” (3:7). Although God’s
comment could be understood as a rhetorical way of making a statement (i. e., I will not
hide something from Abraham), it can be also understood as a real question about whether
[3]
Abraham is worthy of the role of intercessory prophet.

In pondering whether to divulge His plan to Abraham, God considers three factors (vv. 18-
19)

Abraham will one day become a great and populous nation;

He is to serve as a medium of blessing to all the nations;
He is to instruct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord
by doing what is just and right.

The last verse then continues, “in order that the Lord may bring about for Abraham what He
[4]
has promised him” (Gen. 19:19b). The first two points are familiar. Both appear in
Abraham’s original mandate (Gen. 12:2-3); the second is also mentioned with regard to
Abraham’s posterity (Gen. 22:18, 28:14). The final one, however, is new and found only
here. The other new element is that God’s promises are contingent on Abraham’s ability to
convey to his posterity the keeping of the way of the Lord, defined as doing what is just and
right. Both must hence play a decisive role in this story.

Verse 20 goes on to establish the heinousness of the crime. The question is only whether
all are guilty. To make sure, in verse 21, God goes down to check out whether they have
[5]
acted altogether according to the severity of the report. If they did not, God would know
[6]
how to make the requisite distinctions. Since we later find out that God is bent on
destroying the whole city, we may assume that He found no basis for making distinctions;
[7]
all were found to be guilty.

Reflecting typical biblical economy of expression, we the readers, who have been privy to
the Divine soliloquy (Gen. 18:17-21),[8] only hear of Abraham‘s response from which we
have to surmise what God must have told him. Since Abraham charges God with seeking
to “sweep away the innocent along with the guilty” (18:25), we realize that God briefed
Abraham only of His plan to destroy Sodom, but not that He had found the city totally
wicked.

The dramatic tension of the episode results precisely from Abraham’s ignorance of the true
moral nature of Sodom. Paradoxically, we the readers have been taken into God’s
confidence while leaving Abraham in the dark. Left in the dark, Abraham makes a
presumption of innocence with regard to some of the residents, assuming that such a large
city must have some saving grace. Moreover, if the number of innocent reaches fifty, then
not just they, but the whole city should be spared on their account (as in Jer. 5:1). He then
reverts back to charging God with failing to distinguish between the innocent and the guilty,
[9]
“Shame on You, shall the Judge of all the earth not do justice?” (18:25).
2/6
Is Abraham Asking for Justice or Mercy?
The force of the argument is its basis in justice not mercy. For God to be worthy of the
mantle of universal justice, it is incumbent on Him to adopt the fundamental claim of
justice, to distinguish between the innocent and the guilty. But justice demands that all get
their just desserts, not the sparing of the guilty by virtue of the innocent in their midst.

At first, Abraham’s righteous indignation in confronting God appears as a way of avoiding a

perversion of justice, but it turns out to be a surreptitious request for clemency. In actuality,
were the guilty to be spared because of the innocent there would equally be no distinction
between them, making Abraham’s proposal subject to the same charge leveled against
[10]
God. In this case, the argument is that God should forgive, or at least bear it, that is,
[11]
suspend punishment of the whole city. No city tolerating a righteous community in its
midst can be all that bad. Moreover, at fifty strong the righteous community might ultimately
prevail. Surely, forbearance, a deferral in execution, is in order.

Abraham, despite his fear of overstepping bounds and provoking God’s ire, works at
reducing the number of innocent people needed to save the city from fifty to ten bit by bit.

What was the Goal of Telling Abraham?

The subsequent destruction of Sodom raises the question whether Abraham was a
success or a failure. Were he operating on a contingency fee he would surely have failed to
collect. From the perspective of God, however, he was a rousing success. God had already
ascertained that the cities, having no saving grace, were to be destroyed. The unresolved
issue was whether to apprise Abraham. Either course of action would entail risks.

Were God not to divulge His plan, Abraham would rise the following morning only to see
two cities supernaturally devastated. Abraham’s presumption of innocence of some
Sodomites would have led him to harbor doubts about the absolute justice of God. Such
reservations would have impaired his capacity to transmit the commitment to Divine justice
to his posterity thereby endangering the multi-generational covenantal enterprise.

The alternative risk in divulging the plan would be to find Abraham posturing conventional
piety by deferring to Divine authority. For Abraham to proclaim ”Glory to God on the
highest” in the face of presumed injustice would mark Abraham as soft on justice, God’s
self-proclaimed way thereby disqualifying him from being God’s elect. Abraham chose his
God-cultivated commitment to justice over fawning loyalty. In adhering to God’s way, he
maintained God’s adherence to him. Only through challenging God on the basis of justice
did Abraham find out that God was just, indeed willing to temper justice with mercy. The
result was not only the confirmation of Abraham’s belief in Divine justice but also the
maintenance of his worthiness of Divine promises.

Summary
Abraham’s dilemma illustrates a calculus of ultimate concern. Only through the
confrontation of one’s two primary concerns can one ascertain which is ultimate. Abraham’s
top two commitments were loyalty to God and loyalty to justice. Heretofore, they had
converged one reinforcing the other. God constructs a test to see which will emerge
supreme. The test makes God appear unjust to see which way Abraham sways;
unwavering commitment to justice or unwavering commitment to God. Paradoxically, by
3/6
siding with justice Abraham validates his election by God. Thus, the story of Abraham
testing God’s commitment to justice turns out to be also a story of God testing Abraham’s
commitment to justice.

– Part 2 –
The Test of Sacrificing Isaac in the
Context of God’s Justice at Sodom

Once Divine justice has been confirmed, the binding of Isaac can ensue. The story of
Abraham going to sacrifice Isaac mirrors our story of Abraham testing God. The former
[12]
also contains a calculus of ultimate concern. Abraham has two great loves, for God and
for Isaac. Heretofore, they had converged with one reinforcing the other. God constructs a
test foisting upon Abraham a choice between them. The goal is to test Abraham’s
unconditional commitment to the covenant. Only by demanding that which Abraham loves
most, his favorite son (Gen. 22:2, 12), can the unconditional commitment to the covenant
be manifested.

By going ahead, hoping that God will see to the sheep instead of his son, Abraham ends up
also testing God’s commitment to the covenant, since Isaac, as spelled out in Gen. 15:4-6,
18, embodies God’s commitment to the covenant. Were Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, he
would eliminate God’s commitment to the covenant; were he to “withhold

(‫כ‬-‫ש‬-‫( ”)ח‬Gen. 22:12) his son from God, he would fail the test of unconditional commitment
to the covenant. In either case, the covenant would be irreparably fractured.

In both cases, God leads Abraham on. In the first, God lets Himself appear willing to
destroy a city unjustly; in the second, God lets Himself appear willing to demand the
sacrifice of Isaac. By siding with God here, Abraham validates his election by God just as
he did by siding with justice at Sodom. Thus, the story of God testing Abraham’s
commitment to the covenant turns out to be also a story of Abraham testing God’s
commitment to the covenant.

The dilemmas of the two episodes are parallel albeit reversed. At Sodom, in siding with
loyalty to justice against loyalty to God, Abraham ends up retaining the loyalty of God. At
Moriah, in siding with the love of God against the love of son, Abraham ends up retaining
Isaac. The restatement here (Gen 22:17-18) of the first two considerations that God
weighed before informing Abraham of the destruction of Sodom, at Gen. 18:18, makes the
point that the result of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son is meriting him as his
successor.

Testing Abraham’s Commitment to the Covenantonly after Confirming God’s

Commitment to Justice
Once Abraham’s and God’s commitment to justice is beyond question, Abraham can be
tested on his commitment to the covenant to find out whether he is willing to offer his
beloved son. As Abraham Heschel notes:

It was because of the experience of God’s responding to him in his plea for Sodom that
[13]
Abraham did not question the command to sacrifice his beloved son.

4/6
The ethical is not suspended; it is extended. Only because Abraham is totally convinced of
divine justice can he hope to return with Isaac, as he says to his servants “we will go up
[14]
there; we will worship and we will return to you” (Gen. 22:5), and hope, as he says to
[15]
Isaac, that “God will see to the sheep for His burnt offering” (22:8). After all, Abraham
could now presume that the God of justice would never let him go through with it.[16]

With regard to Sodom, God had to inform Abraham of the impending destruction to test his
commitment to justice. After all, how can the judge of all the earth promote a great and
[17]
numerous people, as Gen. 18:18 predicts, without first testing its progenitor’s
[18]
commitment to justice? In this case, it is Abraham’s commitment to justice that qualifies
[19]
him to serve as a medium of blessing to all the nations (Gen. 18:18b), the second
promise in Abraham’s election there. It is precisely this promise of being a blessing to
[20]
others that is transmitted to Isaac after the Akeidah (Gen. 22:18), who then transmits it to
[21]
Jacob and his descendants onward (Gen. 28:14b).

Conclusion
We have come full circle. By mirroring each other terminologically and ideationally, the
Sodom and Akeidah episodes serve as bookends for the construction of an envelope figure
for Parshat Vayera.

___________________

Reuven Kimelman is Professor of Classical Judaica at Brandeis

University. His Ph.D. is from Yale University in religious studies. His
writings focus on Jewish Christian relations in late antiquity, on the
ethical dilemmas of the Hebrew Bible, and on the literary and historical
meaning of the Jewish liturgy. He is the author of The Mystical Meaning
of ‘Lekhah Dodi’ and Kabbalat Shabbat,’ published by The Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, and the forthcoming The Rhetoric of Jewish
Prayer: A Historical and Literary Study of the Prayer Book. His audio
course books are The Hidden Poetry of the Jewish Prayer Book, and The Moral Meaning of
the Bible. He has also been commissioned to produce the JPS Commentary to the Siddur.
11/04/2014
[1] ‫שׂה‬ֶֽ ‫ע‬
ֹ ‫שׁר ֲאנִי‬
ֶ ‫ ַֽהְמַכֶסּה ֲאנִי ֵֽמאְַבָרָהם ֲא‬:

[2] ‫דנָי יי ָדָּבר ִכּי ִאם־גָָּלה סוֹדוֹ ֶאל־ֲעָבָדיו ַהנְִּביִֽאים‬

ֹ ‫שׂה ֲא‬
ֶ ‫ִכּי ֹלא יֲַע‬:

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 (2) ”(‫ וַיי ֶהְעִלים ִמֶמּנִּי וְֹלא ִהגִּיד ִֽלי‬Kings
4:27).

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

[4] ‫שׁר־ִדֶּבּר ָעָֽליו‬

ֶ ‫ְלַמַען ָהִביא יי ַעל־אְַבָרָהם ֵאת ֲא‬:

[5] Reading ‫ כלה‬as ‫ כולה‬, following NJPS and Ramban, ad loc.

[6] This understands 21b, ‫ ואם לא אדעה‬to mean “if not [i. e, that they are not all guilty, then],
I will know” [what to do]; see Ramban ad loc.
5/6
[7]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.

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

[9] ‫שָֽׁפּט‬
ְ ‫שׂה ִמ‬
ֶ ‫שֵׁפט ָכּל־ָהאֶָרץ ֹלא יֲַע‬
ֹ ‫ָחִלָלה ָלְּך ֲה‬:

[10] 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).

[11] Both Abraham (v. 24) and God (v. 26) use a form of the same verb ‫ נושׂא‬which 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.

[12] See 2 Chron. 20:7

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

[14] ‫שַׁתֲּחוֶה וְנָשׁוָּבה ֲאֵליֶֽכם‬

ְ ִֽ‫נְֵלָכה ַעד־ֹכּה וְנ‬

[15] ‫עָלה ְבּנִי‬

ֹ ‫שּׂה ְל‬
ֶ ‫ֹלִהים יְִרֶאה־לּוֹ ַה‬-‫ֱא‬

[16] 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.

[17] ‫וְאְַבָרָהם ָהיוֹ יְִֽהיֶה ְלגוֹי גָּדוֹל וְָעצוּם‬

[18] 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.

[19] ‫וְנְִבְרכוּ־בוֹ ֹכּל גּוֹיֵי ָהֽאֶָרץ‬

[20] ‫וְִהְתָבֲּרכוּ ְבַזְרֲעָך ֹכּל גּוֹיֵי ָהאֶָרץ‬

[21] ‫חת ָהֲאָדָמה וְּבַזְרֶֽעָך‬

ֹ ‫שְׁפּ‬
ְ ‫וְנְִבֲרכוּ ְבָך ָכּל־ִמ‬
6/6