The Talmudic rabbis compared Abraham as the spiritual father of the Jewish people with Noah. I want to cite two such rabbinic sources that are sensitive to the humanistic ideal reflected in the portrayal of Abraham in the Hebrew Bible. The first source is a midrash (rabbinic commentary) in which Noah and Abraham are compared (Genesis Rabah 30, 10):
“Noah walked with God” (Genesis 6, 9) – Rabbi Judah said, It may be compared to a king who had two sons, an older and younger one. He said to the younger one, walk with me, and to the older, come and walk before me. Thus to Abraham, whose spiritual powers were superior, God says: “Walk before Me, and be whole hearted” (Genesis 17, 1). But, of Noah, whose powers were inferior it is stated, “Noah walked with God”.
Reflected in this ancient midrash is a humanistic and religious ideal in which Abraham, who walks before God in an independent way, is spiritually superior to Noah, who walks together with God, being dependent upon God. Similarly, modern humanistic psychologists view an authoritarian personality type who is obedient and submissive to external authority, and who does not act in an independent and autonomous way, as an immature and unhealthy person psychologically. However, what is absent in this ancient, midrashic source is the explanation as to why Abraham is superior to Noah spiritually. This is reflected in the second source that I want to cite, from the mystical work, the Zohar, which is following ancient, rabbinic midrash:
“And Abraham drew near and said, Will you destroy the righteous with the wicked?” (Genesis 18, 23) – Rabbi Judah said, Who has seen a father as compassionate as Abraham? Come and see: Regarding Noah it is stated, “And God said to Noah, the end of all flesh is come before Me…and behold I will destroy them from the earth” (Genesis 6, 13). And Noah was silent and said nothing. And he did not intercede requesting mercy. But, Abraham, as soon as God said to him, “Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous”, immediately it is written, “And Abraham drew near and said, Will You destroy the righteous with the wicked?”
The name Noah (נח) in Hebrew literally means content or comfortable. Noah is content and comfortable that he and his family are being saved from destruction and he does not utter a word of protest that God intends to destroy the rest of humankind. Rashi (the great commentator of the Jewish tradition who lived in the 11th century) points out that the verse “Noah was a person, righteous and whole hearted, in his generations” (Genesis 6, 9) is understood by some of the Talmudic rabbis to the discredit of Noah – emphasizing the phrase “in his generations”. That is, only relatively speaking is Noah considered righteous – in his own age of rampant wickedness. Noah was criticized then in ancient, rabbinic sources for not questioning God. By contrast, Abraham, in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, on behalf of wicked people he does not know, questions, and argues with, God – not content that God will destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah arbitrarily without some explanation!
Moses, as well, after the making of the golden calf when God is determined to destroy the Israelite people, is depicted, like Abraham, not as one who is submissive to authority but as a person of moral conscience and principle. Moses argues with God, giving reasons why it is wrong and unfair for God to destroy the Israelite people (Exodus 32, 11-14). However, what is most remarkable in this passage is that Moses not only argues with God 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).
A central concept of the Jewish tradition is the concept of tshuva (תשובה), which is often translated inadequately as repentance, but comes from a Hebrew root that means return (שוב) – and, the concept of tshuva then is a return to the path of right living. Strikingly when Moses demands of God to do repentance “Turn (שוב) from Your fierce anger and repent of this evil against Your people” – the word turn here in the verse is the root of the term tshuva. That is, Moses not only calls God’s decree evil, but he is actually demanding that God do repentance and return to the path of right living (Exodus 32, 12) – and, strikingly, Scripture says that God repents calling the decree of God evil (Exodus 32, 14)!
Moses then goes even further than Abraham. Abraham, in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, questions, and argues with, God. But, there is no indication in the story 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 – calling God’s decree “evil”! In common to both stories, neither Abraham nor Moses assume and accept that what God has decreed is therefore just or infallible, simply as a matter of authority. Rather, God’s decrees must correspond to the limited and subjective, human understanding of justice of Abraham and Moses.
In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham, in the midst of his argument with God, utters a phrase which is shocking and very strange. He says, “I am only dust and ashes” (Genesis 18, 27). If Abraham is aware of his creatureliness and finiteness, standing before the Creator and Ruler of the universe, then it seemingly follows that he should be silent, and accept the judgment of God to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Yet, strikingly, Abraham, after acknowledging that he is “dust and ashes”, continues to question, and argue with, God! Abraham’s awareness of his own finiteness and subjectivity does not constitute a reason for him to refrain from questioning God. Moreover, God responds to Abraham’s questions, and is thus accountable to Abraham in spite of Abraham’s subjectivity.
Abraham, in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, in effect denies God’s transcendence by relating to God the very same way he would relate to any human being in applying the same standard of justice that he would apply to a human being – “Will the Judge of all the earth not do justice? (Genesis 18, 25)”. His questioning of, and arguing with, God constitutes a repudiation of what is written in Isaiah (56, 8-9):
For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts are higher than your thoughts.
The words uttered by God, according to Isaiah, reflect a conception of a transcendent God beyond human comprehension. Abraham in asking “Will the Judge of all the earth not do justice?” not only holds God accountable to his own human, subjective understanding of justice, but actually denies God’s absolute transcendence.
The religious ideal of the Bible is a humanistic ideal of personal autonomy within a framework of observance of law and obedience to external authority. Humanism does not mean anarchy. The two greatest figures of the Bible – Abraham and Moses – are depicted as people who are certainly respectful of the supreme authority of God and who attempt to live in accordance with law and the moral will of God. Yet, at the same time they are depicted as people of moral conscience and principle, who question, and argue with, God, the supreme external authority. The analogy that I would give is of a person who is an adult and no longer a child, but who nonetheless remains the child of his or her parents. From a humanistic point of view, such a person, if psychologically and spiritually mature as an adult in his or her own right, will certainly respect the authority of his or her parents, yet at the same time will without doubt on occasion find it necessary to argue and even disagree respectfully with his or her parents. Such a person is respectful of his or her parents’ authority (even when expressing disagreement), though not blindly submissive to their authority (at the expense of his or her own reason or conscience).
One of the outstanding features of the Hebrew Bible as literature is that Biblical texts do not cover up or hide the sins and wrongdoings of the great Biblical figures and heroes. They are portrayed as human beings, with their frailties, weaknesses and fallibility presented in an honest and open way, and subject to criticism. The Bible records openly that Moses sinned, and thus is not allowed to enter the land of Israel. Moral and social criticism is a distinguishing feature of the Bible, and is not to be found to such an extent in any other ancient, near eastern literature. I want to suggest that the paradigm for such criticism is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham, in asking “Will the Judge of all the earth not do justice?” holds God accountable to Abraham’s own subjective conception of justice. From this story we learn that God is not above and beyond criticism, from which it follows that no human being is above and beyond criticism. Yitro criticizes Moses, the greatest Biblical prophet (Exodus 18, 13-27). Natan the prophet criticizes the greatest of Biblical Kings, David (2 Samuel 12, 1-12). The great classical prophets of the Bible criticize the priesthood and Temple cult. No individual and no societal institution is considered above and beyond criticism, for God is not above questioning and criticism as reflected in Abraham’s arguing with God in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.