The Torah reading of Lech Lecha begins (Genesis 12, 1) with God telling Abraham to go (lech lecha) from his country, from his homeland, and from the house of his father to the land that God will show Abraham. The term lech lecha is an unusual term that does not appear anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible with one glaring exception – the story of the binding of Isaac in which Abraham is told by God (Genesis 22, 2) to go (lech lecha) to the land of Moriah to offer his beloved son Isaac as a sacrifice.
It is clear that the appearance of this unusual phrase lech lecha in these two passages of the Bible is not by accident – and, the Bible is clearly connecting these two passages and expects us, the reader, to understand the two passages together. That is, the two passages are parallel passages indicated by the use of the unusual phrase lech lecha – and, the question in relation to such parallel passages is in what way these passages are similar and different.
I want to suggest that both of these passages are stories of sacrifice. However, there is a fundamental difference between the passages in relation to the notion of sacrifice – in being asked to leave his country, homeland and father’s house Abraham is being asked to sacrifice his past, while in being asked to offer as a sacrifice his beloved son Isaac Abraham is being asked to sacrifice his future.
Both of these passages are describing a test or experience (ניסיון) of great spiritual difficulty. God in telling Abraham to go from his country, homeland and father’s house (Genesis 12, 1) is being asked by God to go to a land that Abraham does not know – he has no idea where he is being asked to go. God in commanding Abraham to sacrifice his beloved son is being asked by God to express his devotion to God by making the most difficult sacrifice that one can make.
The concept of sacrifice is a central concept of the Torah (the 5 Books of Moses) and Hebrew Bible – as well as the Jewish tradition. The Torah and Hebrew Bible, as well as the Jewish tradition based upon the Hebrew Bible, are duty oriented. An important aspect of the Torah is legal material (commandments, statutes and judgments) and moral teachings that consist of duties and obligations both of a positive (requirements) and negative (prohibitions) nature, regulating ethical as well as ritual matters. The Halacha (Jewish law) is a highly sophisticated legal system based upon the commandments of the Torah representing a central aspect of the Jewish tradition together with ethical teachings and obligations, and ritual practices. Duties and obligations necessarily imply corresponding rights. It is an obligation in the Jewish tradition to visit the sick. Correspondingly, the sick have a right to be visited. The emphasis, though, in the Hebrew Bible and Jewish tradition is upon duties rather than rights.
By contrast, the legal system of the United States is a rights oriented system, in which every citizen is guaranteed “the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Similarly, rights necessarily implies corresponding duties. If a person has a right to freedom of speech, or of religion, then there is a corresponding duty for others not to infringe upon that right. The emphasis, however, is upon rights. When the emphasis is upon individual rights, then the corresponding focus is upon personal happiness of the individual. Conversely, when the emphasis is upon duties and obligations, then the corresponding focus is upon social justice and kindness to others.
Personal happiness is simply not presented as an ultimate value (in the sense of an ultimate goal) in the Torah (the 5 Books of Moses) and Hebrew Bible. As far as I am aware, the term happiness (אושר) does not appear at all in the Torah. The Torah does command us to be joyful (שמח) on certain festive occasions, but there is no command or general directive to be happy (מאושר). The one book in the Hebrew Bible where the terms happiness (אושר) and joy (שמחה) are central, religious concepts, is the Book of Psalms, which opens with the words – “Happy (אשרי) is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked” (Psalms 1, 1). However, even in the Book of Psalms happiness is not conceived of as an ultimate value (or goal). Happiness, as indicated in the opening verse of the Book of Psalms, is conceived of as the result of the moral life, and not as an end, goal or ultimate value in itself. The ultimate values of the Torah and Hebrew Bible are moral values, such as peace, justice, compassion, love, freedom and equality.
The Hebrew Bible and Jewish tradition, in being duty oriented, presuppose the concept of sacrifice. In order to fulfill a duty, or obligation, a person must be willing to sacrifice personal happiness. I would rather not go to a hospital to fulfill the obligation of visiting a sick person. The hospital may be a depressing place, and there may be any number of other things that I would prefer to do instead, if I were concerned primarily with my own personal happiness. If we transcend the literal level, and understand what is implied philosophically in the concept of sacrifice, then it is clear why the ultimate story of sacrifice, the story of the binding of Isaac, as well as sacrificial offerings, including animal sacrifices (as a central form of ritual worship prescribed by the Torah), are so central in the Hebrew Bible and traditional Judaism. Both the story of the binding of Isaac and the sacrificial offerings prescribed by the Torah symbolize the willingness to sacrifice personal happiness in order to fulfill the moral imperative of God. The duties and obligations, both legal and moral, which so characterize the Hebrew Bible and Jewish tradition, presuppose a willingness to sacrifice personal happiness in order to fulfill them. The concept of sacrifice, philosophically, is the basis of the religious life of the Hebrew Bible and Jewish tradition.
I want to clarify two things in regard to the willingness to sacrifice happiness as a precondition to the fulfillment of duties and obligations. First, it does not follow that we must necessarily suffer, or that we are to seek suffering as a religious form of service of God. Abraham does not seek suffering. His goal is to fulfill the moral imperative of God (the true service of God). His willingness in the story of the binding of Isaac to so suffer by sacrificing his own child demonstrates how far he is willing to go in serving God. Furthermore, Abraham is rescued by the angel of God from the horrible situation that he had been thrust into, teaching that the willingness itself to sacrifice and suffer in order to fulfill the moral imperative of God is sufficient to demonstrate Abraham’s fear of God (Genesis 22, 12) – and, he is not required to actually sacrifice Isaac.
Second, the willingness to sacrifice happiness does not mean that happiness is undesirable or unimportant. Happiness is not an ultimate value in the Torah and Hebrew Bible because it is self-centered rather than God-centered. The focus of the Torah and Hebrew Bible is upon what God demands and requires of us as human beings, as in the words of Micah the prophet – “He has told you, O man, what is good and what the Lord demands of you, but to do justice, to love lovingkindness, and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6, 8). The essence of religion, according to Micah, is moral acts of justice and kindness, and a psychological-moral attitude of humility before God. This attitude of humility expresses itself in the bowing down and obedience to God’s moral demands, and not in a self-centered concern for one’s own happiness.
The essential demand of God in the Biblical conception is a moral demand. Morality is a concern for one’s fellow human being, and thus social in nature. Happiness, by contrast, is a psychological attitude or feeling, and is personal in nature. Happiness is not a matter of obligation, but simply something that we naturally desire and seek as human beings as a part of our animal nature. Moral duties and obligations require for their fulfillment the transcending of our natural, self-centeredness (as a part of our animal nature) and desire for our own happiness in being concerned for the welfare and happiness of our fellow human being. The Torah and Hebrew Bible, in my opinion, teach that our focus is not to be upon ourselves and our own happiness, but upon the welfare of others. However, it does not follow from this that happiness is unimportant. It simply means that our own personal happiness is not to be our ultimate goal or preoccupation. Indeed, as I pointed out, happiness is a central, religious concept in the Book of Psalms that opens with a Psalm that tells us that happiness is the result of living a moral life, which God demands.
There are modern, humanistic psychologists who suggest that, paradoxically, when our focus is upon ourselves and our own happiness, then we are actually less likely to experience happiness. It seems, the more we pursue happiness, the greater the likelihood that it will elude us. Preoccupation with ourselves, and our own happiness, often leads to anxiety and tension, and can easily degenerate into a concern with obtaining esteem in the eyes of others rather than self-esteem. When our focus is upon helping others, though, paradoxically, we ourselves, as according to the Biblical conception, are likely to experience happiness and fulfillment as a result of our concern for others. A concern for the welfare of others often allows us to forget, or not be preoccupied with, our own personal troubles and worries, or to see that there may be others who suffer even more than we do, as well as perhaps improving our own self-esteem and feeling about ourselves in helping others.
So, Abraham in the Hebrew Bible, as the spiritual father of the Jewish people, is being portrayed first and foremost as a person who is willing to sacrifice his personal happiness in being devoted to fulfilling the moral will of God. However, Abraham, as the spiritual father of the Jewish people, in both passages in which he is told by God “lech lecha” is also, in my view, being portrayed as a person of profound faith.
On the face of it, the Biblical term faith or belief (emunah) is simply not a central concept of the Hebrew Bible, with the exception of the Book of Psalms (where the term is used along with other synonyms such as trust). Yet, in the Book of Psalms, characteristic of the Bible in general, the concept of faith in God is used in a psychological and anti-theological (orthoprax) sense (in which faith is a matter of moral character necessarily expressing itself in proper behavior, or in an optimistic attitude) as opposed to a theological (orthodox) conception (in which faith is in the sense of philosophic belief abstract and divorced from behavior).
I think that it would be fair to say that in the western world the concept most associated with religion would be the concept of faith or belief in God. However, if one takes a concordance (index) of the Hebrew Bible, one will see, shockingly, that the Hebrew term faith or belief (emunah) hardly appears in the Torah (the 5 Books of Moses), as a constitution of the Jewish people, and the few places where the term does appear are not passages that stand out as being of great importance. The term faith or belief in God is absent from the story of the binding of Isaac in which Abraham is described as a God fearing person (Genesis 22, 12), and not as person of faith or belief. The concept of fear of God in the Bible is orthoprax (behavioral) rather than orthodox (theological) in nature, and is a feeling or attitude of the heart (a moral character trait) expressing itself in moral behavior as reflected in the verse from the Book of Proverbs (8, 12) – “the fear of the Lord is to hate evil”. The term faith or belief is likewise absent from the ten statements – and the term ten commandments is a misnomer as the term in the Bible is ten statements (Deuteronomy 4, 13). The religious terms that appear in the ten statements (Exodus 20, 5) are orthoprax (behavioral) in nature rather than orthodox (theological) – to serve and to bow down (or to worship).
The Torah and Hebrew Bible are completely absent of any systematic theological and philosophic analysis and argument. The Torah and Hebrew Bible present us with no arguments of a philosophic nature attempting to demonstrate or prove the existence of God, nor philosophic analysis concerning the nature of God. Philosophic analysis and arguments concerning the existence and nature of God are superfluous – for, the essence of Biblical religion is not the demonstration or teaching of philosophic propositions, but moral character and moral action that is seen as the fulfillment of the moral will of God.
Moreover, the Biblical culture as reflected in the Biblical literature is an oriental, near eastern culture in which systematic philosophy does not exist – and, Biblical thought is not abstract but concrete. For example, the words faith and belief in English are abstract terms, and have no connection to anything in our concrete existence – and, no picture or image is called to mind in using such terms. The Hebrew word faith or belief (emunah) is concrete, and from the same root as the Hebrew words art and practice – and, the Hebrew term faith or belief (emunah) then calls to mind a picture or image, among other things, of an artist or artisan (and, a work of art or artistry is an external act that is a creation of the heart such that the act cannot be separated from the heart).
There are then two very different senses of the term faith or belief, which must be distinguished especially in understanding the Hebrew Bible. Faith, in a theological (orthodox) sense, is of the rational mind expressed in the adoption of correct propositions (such as the existence or providence of God) and not necessarily expressed in proper behavior. One may believe that God exists or is provident, and yet act in an immoral manner – and, conversely, one may believe that God does not exist and yet act in a righteous manner. Such faith in a theological sense is foreign to the Hebrew Bible. By contrast, in the Biblical conception, faith is conceived in a psychological (orthoprax) sense of the heart necessarily expressing itself in the greater goal of proper actions revealing psychological and moral character. Thus, if one declares that he or she believes in God, and yet acts immorally, the immoral actions are testimony that such a person does not truly believe in God in an experiential and psychological sense of the heart, while conversely, if one declares that he or she does not believe in God, and yet acts morally, the moral actions are testimony that such a person does truly believe in God in an experiential and psychological sense of the heart. In the Biblical conception, faith in a psychological sense of the heart is truly revealed in actions, and not in philosophic declarations.
The term faith (emunah) is used in a Biblical verse regarding Abraham – “And he believed in the Lord, and it was counted to him for righteousness” (Genesis 15, 6). The context of the verse is that God has promised Abraham that he will have a son who will continue his lineage, and Abraham is expressing his own trust in God to fulfill the promise made to him. The verse, though, tells us nothing whatsoever as to whether God actually exists or is truly trustworthy. The verse is revealing Abraham’s psychological and moral character (and nothing about the existence or nature of God), as indicated in the continuation of the verse, in which Abraham’s faith is “counted to him for righteousness”. If the verse was describing the faith of Abraham in a theological sense, then his faith would be counted to him as truth or knowledge, and not righteousness. Abraham’s faith is an expression of his moral character and righteousness – the verse “And he believed in the Lord” is an expression of Abraham’s optimistic psychological attitude of hope and trust, and his refusal to despair (in not having children), revealing his righteous character as a person. The verse “And he believed in the Lord” reveals nothing at all about Abraham’s personal theological or philosophical beliefs and nothing about the nature (or existence) of God.
I emphasize, though, that on the face of it the Biblical term faith or belief (emunah) is simply not a central concept of the Hebrew Bible, with the exception of the Book of Psalms. However, in my view, this is actually a misconception – and, even though the term faith or belief does not appear often in the Torah (the 5 Books of Moses), and does not appear in central passages of the Torah, nevertheless the concept of faith or belief (the idea as distinct from the term) is reflected in a number of passages of the Torah in which the term does not appear such that the concept (not necessarily the term) is a central concept of the Torah and Hebrew Bible.
The term faith does not appear in either of the two passages in which Abraham is told by God “lech lecha” – but, the concept is, in my eyes, reflected in both passages, and in both passages Abraham is being portrayed as a person of profound faith in a psychological sense of the heart in refusing to despair in the face of life’s difficulties and challenges. In the first passage in which Abraham is asked to sacrifice his past (to leave his country, homeland and father’s house) without knowing where he will be going, he does not despair and is devoted to fulfilling the mission imposed upon him by God. In the second passage in which Abraham is asked to sacrifice his future (to offer as a sacrifice his beloved son Isaac), Abraham does not despair and is devoted to fulfilling the word of God no matter how difficult.
Incidentally, the obvious question in relation to the story of the binding of Isaac, is how Abraham can be willing to sacrifice his beloved son innocent of wrongdoing as an expression of his devotion to God. 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 Hebrew Bible. 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 to God, on the other hand. The story is teaching on a historical level that child sacrifice is unacceptable as a form of ritual worship to God to be replaced by animal sacrifice – and, Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his own child demonstrates how far he is willing to go in his devotion to God.
Thus, in both passages in which Abraham is told by God “lech lecha”, he is being portrayed first and foremost as one who is willing to sacrifice his own personal happiness as an expression of his devotion to God and of his devotion to fulfilling the moral will of God. In addition, Abraham is also being portrayed in both passages as a person of profound faith in a psychological sense of the heart who refuses to despair in his devotion to God.