Abraham and Justice - Part II

God visited Abraham one day in the plains of Mamre. Abraham offered God and his angels hospitality; God informed Sarah that she would have a child; and then God and Abraham walked off in the direction of Sodom. It was along this walk to Sodom that Abraham argued with God, and changed our notion of justice.

God advised that he had heard reports of evil behavior in Sodom. He needed to find out if these reports were true, but if so, “then destruction.” Genesis 18:20. There’s much that’s interesting about this story – the actual visit; the meal; the need for God to see Sodom for himself, and not to rely on the reports of others; God taking Abraham into his confidence. In fact, this may be one of the most interesting and perplexing chapters in all of Genesis, but I want to focus solely on the argument for the fate of Sodom.

“Will You also stamp out the righteous along with the wicked?” Genesis 18:23. This of course had been God’s solution to the problem of evil in the time of Noah. But Abraham is troubled by this concept of indiscriminate punishment. And in a remarkable dialogue, Abraham negotiates with God, and secures God’s promise not to wipe out the city, even if there are as few as ten righteous souls to be found. And so, the concept of justice was forever changed; and the notion developed that justice was individual, and not collective. The offending parties are to be punished, but not their innocent neighbors. Dershowitz points out another lesson learned from this story: “Silence in the face of injustice – even God’s injustice – is a sin.” Dershowitz 81. Furthermore, if the Jews are to have faith in their God, they need a God with whom they can argue, even remonstrate. Id.

Dershowitz later discusses one midrash, which teaches that God selected Abraham as his messenger, knowing the Abraham would speak out for justice and righteousness. Abraham was selected for the specific task of arguing with God on behalf of the city of Sodom. But I think the opposite was true -- God didn’t select Abraham; Abraham selected God. The only prior indication in Genesis that God appreciates this new perspective on justice is God’s remorse after the flood. But we have no conduct, no behavior that persuades us he’s really ready to change. If anything, the dialogue at Mamre reveals the same perspective. God intends to verify the rumors of Sodom’s iniquity, but assuming those tales are true, “then destruction.” Genesis 18:20. No, the real change has come from Abraham; just as all these changes came from Abraham – monotheism, the end of idol worship, the end of human sacrifice, the individuality of justice. On the road from Mamre to Sodom, Abraham is changing the world for all time.

One curious detail about the story, however. Abraham begins by arguing in favor of the innocent residents. “It would be a sacrilege …to bring death upon the righteous along with the wicked.” Genesis 18:25. God then responds by promising, should he find fifty righteous people in Sodom, to ‘spare the entire place on their account.” Gen. 18:26. Abraham then renegotiates, and asks if there are forty-five righteous, would God destroy, “the entire city”? Somehow the dialogue has shifted, and no longer does Abraham seek mercy for only the innocent, but now he argues on behalf of the entire city of Sodom. If there are thirty, twenty, ten, would God destroy the city then? Presumably by this point, although the text is ambiguous, God has agreed not merely to pick and choose among the guilty and innocent, but to weigh the fate of the entire town, based on how many righteous souls are present.

According to Dershowitz, God overlooked this logical defect in Abraham’s argument; after all, if Abraham is urging God not to murder the innocent purely on account of their evil neighbors, it makes sense that the converse should be true. God should not spare the evil townsfolk, just because there are a few righteous citizens. If justice is truly individualized, the innocent are spared, but the guilty are punished. Dershowitz sees Abraham as an early advocate of our principle (often overlooked today) that it’s better to acquit a hundred guilty people, for the sake of avoiding the conviction of a single innocent person. And apparently, the traditional explanation of Abraham’s inconsistency is that God overlooked the fault of Abraham’s reasoning, because God was merely testing Abraham’s sense of justice and mercy, to determine if he merited selection as God’s first prophet on earth. The problem with this explanation, however, is that God had already chosen Abraham, not just at the time of his call, but the covenant had already been sealed. Abraham had circumcised himself a few days before the visit to Mamre. Wouldn’t it have made sense to have tested the messenger before having sealed the covenant? What happens to the covenant if Abraham fails God’s test thereafter?

In any event, the distinction between Abraham’s argument for the righteous souls, and God’s promise to spare the entire city comes to naught, for there aren’t even ten righteous persons in all of Sodom; and after a harrowing night outside Lot’s home, Lot and Abraham flee, just ahead of God’s rain of fire. So the story ends with everyone knowing that God still intends to wipe out all evil from his world, even if Abraham has refined his sense of justice. We now call that a win-win.