Toward the beginning of the Book of Deuteronomy, which is written in the form of a speech given by Moses to the Israelites prior to entering the land of Canaan, there is a remarkable passage. Moses tells the Israelites that he was given an explicit command by God to make war against Sichon, the Amorite king (Deuteronomy 2, 24). Moses had already told the Israelites that he had been given explicit commands by God not to make war against various other peoples, such as the children of Esau (Deuteronomy 2, 5), the Moabites (Deuteronomy 2, 9) and the Ammonites (Deuteronomy 2, 19). Moses tells the Israelites his response to the command of God to make war against Sichon – “And I sent messengers…to Sichon, king of Heshbon with words of peace” (Deuteronomy 2, 26). The plain meaning of the verse is that Moses reveals that he violated the express command of God to make war against Sichon, and, instead, chose to first attempt to make peace with Sichon. Only after Sichon refused peace was Moses then willing to make war with him (Deuteronomy 2, 30).
There is an ancient question attributed to Plato as to whether God commands an act because it is moral or an act is moral because it is commanded by God. In the Biblical conception, in my view, God commands an act because it is moral, as reflected in Abraham’s question in relation to the decree of God to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah – “will the Judge of all the earth not do justice?” (Genesis 18, 25).
The essence of the Biblical conception of God is that God is not only a God of power but most importantly a God of morality – a God not just of creation but of revelation and redemption. In the pagan conception, the gods were conceived of as forces or powers of nature that were powerful, but not inherently or necessarily moral. In the pagan conception, the gods act within nature, and influence human affairs, not as an expression of moral will but as an expression of their power – and, the gods in the pagan conception can be influenced or appeased by offering sacrifices, or by performing some other ritual practice, and ritual practice is conceived as the very essence of religion.
The great revolution of the Hebrew Bible is that for the first time in human history God is conceived of as a God who acts within nature, and within history, as an expression of moral will in order to redeem (as a God of revelation and redemption), and demands morality as an inherent part of God’s nature. This is the essence of the revelation to Moses at the burning bush (that God demands morality) where God first reveals God’s nature as a God of history as opposed to a power of nature (as in the pagan conception of gods as powers of nature) – “Thus shall you say to the children of Israel, the Lord (YHVH) God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you; this is My name for ever…I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt” (Exodus 3, 15-16). God, in the verse here, is depicted as having seen the oppression and persecution that the people Israel have suffered in Egypt revealing God’s moral opposition to such oppression and persecution.
This is the basis of Abraham’s remarkable question, “Will the Judge of all the earth not do justice?” – a question which assumes that God is inherently moral. Thus, for the first time in human history, there is a necessary connection between religion and morality, in which the very essence of religion is conceived to be moral character and moral action rather than ritual practice. In the Biblical conception, ritual is not in order to influence God but in order to transform ourselves morally and spiritually as human beings. Moreover, ritual practice as an attempt to influence or appease God is seen in the Biblical conception as magic, which is forbidden and an abomination according to the Bible (Deuteronomy 18, 9-13).
The implications of Abraham’s question “Will the Judge of all the earth not do justice?” are enormous – God is bound by an independent standard of morality no less than Abraham and human beings. Morality is a realm that is independent of God’s commands. In the contrary view that an act is moral because it is commanded by God (as a matter of authority) the realm of morality is dependent upon God’s commands and authority or power. According to such an authoritarian and pagan view (in assuming a God of power), there is no room for Abraham’s question “Will the Judge of all the earth not do justice?”. The commands and decrees of God would be moral by definition simply by virtue of being commanded by God as a matter of authority and power. The story of the binding of Isaac is the one glaring exception that seemingly reflects this authoritarian view that an act, such as the sacrifice of Isaac, is moral because God so commands it, and therefore Abraham is unquestioningly obedient to the authority of God. However, in my view, this is a misunderstanding of the story and the story does not reflect this authoritarian view that an act is moral because God commands it as a matter of authority and power.
From a historical point of view, the story of the binding of Isaac is an attack upon child sacrifice as a form of ritual rite and worship – a custom and rite that existed in the ancient near east, as recorded in the Bible. According to such an understanding of the story, Abraham is unquestioningly willing to carry out the command of God to sacrifice Isaac not because he is obedient despite the command violating his reason or conscience. If the command violated Abraham’s reason or conscience, we learn from the previous story of Sodom and Gomorrah that he would have protested – “Will the Judge of all the earth not do justice?”. If, on behalf of wicked people who he does not know, he protested, then surely on behalf of his son, innocent of wrongdoing, he would have protested – had the command indeed violated his reason or conscience.
Abraham is unquestioningly obedient because he does not perceive the command to be immoral at all – as child sacrifice was an accepted custom and rite in the Biblical world. On a historical level, the conflict that Abraham faces is not one of personal human reason and conscience, on the one hand, and the external authority of God’s will, on the other hand – rather, the conflict is between his natural love for his beloved child, on the one hand, and his devotion and loyalty to God, on the other hand. The story is teaching on a historical level that child sacrifice is unacceptable as a form of devotion to God to be replaced by animal sacrifice.
The name Israel in the Bible, the name of the Jewish people, literally means to wrestle with God (Genesis 32, 29) – the opposite of blind obedience. By the way, the term Islam literally means to submit and refers to submission to the will of God. The ideal of the Bible, reflected in the name of the Jewish people, Israel, is not one of obedience or submission to God – but, to wrestle and even fight with God. Our greatest figures of the Bible, Abraham and Moses, are depicted as people who wrestle with God. Abraham in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah questions God’s justice “Will the Judge of all the earth not do justice?” (Genesis 18, 25), and holds God accountable to Abraham’s own subjective conception of justice. Rashi (the great commentator of the 11th century) on the verse (Genesis 18, 23) “And Abraham drew near”, in which Abraham begins to argue with God, interprets the phrase “drew near” to mean among other things to make war by uttering harsh words. Rashi understands that Abraham, among other things, is actually fighting with God.
Moses not only argues with God (Exodus 32, 11-14) when God is determined to destroy the people Israel after the making of the golden calf but actually demands that God repent! Moses says to God, “Turn from Your fierce anger, and repent of this evil against Your people” (Exodus 32, 12), and the passage concludes by saying, “And the Lord repented of the evil which He thought to do to His people” (Exodus 32, 14). Moses thus goes even further than Abraham. Abraham, in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, questions, and argues with, God. But, there is no indication that Abraham demands of God to rescind the decree to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Moses not only questions and argues, but actually demands that God rescind the decree to destroy the Israelites, and calls God’s decree evil – and, Scripture agrees with Moses in terming the decree of God evil in saying that God repented of the evil (Exodus 32, 14)!
Thus, to question and wrestle with God is not only not seen as forbidden or heretical in the Biblical conception but this is the very essence of what it means to be a Jew as reflected in the name Israel. Neither Abraham nor Moses assume that the decrees of God are by definition moral as a matter of authority.
If we return now to the passage toward the beginning of the Book of Deuteronomy, Moses does not reveal his motivations and considerations in seeking peace with Sichon, rather than making war upon him immediately according to the Divine command (Deuteronomy 2, 26). But, whether Moses’ considerations were pragmatic or a matter of moral principle, Moses violates the express command and will of God on the basis of his own subjective evaluation and judgment regarding the situation. Moses decides on the basis of his own human understanding and judgment to seek peace with Sichon prior to making war upon him, violating the very will and command of God, and thus is not blindly obedient – and, if the commands of God were by definition moral as a matter of authority and power, then there would be no room for such an autonomous decision of Moses to violate the command of God on the basis of his own conscience. Strikingly, there is a remarkable midrash (rabbinic commentary) according to which the Biblical command (Deuteronomy 20, 10) given by God to offer peace before making war (“When you draw near unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it”) was learned by God from Moses who violated a Divine decree in attempting to make peace with Sichon before being willing to go to war with him (Tanchuma Tzav 3).