GENESIS XVIII:1-XXII:24

AVRAHAM’S COUNSELORS

The Creator’s relationship with the first couple began with a stumbling block: disobedience. Perhaps Adam and Chavawanted to demonstrate their autonomy and independence of judgment by disobeying the instruction not to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree. The rebellious attitude continued with theiroffspring until God decided to destroy all living beings, with the exception of one individual: Noah and his immediate relatives. The rainbow that the Creator unfurled after the flood became a symbol of a Brit, a covenant by which God pledged not to repeat the destruction of humanity in its entirety.

With this promise, a new stage begins for a Humanity which quickly forgets its commitment to the Creator. Even though they now had a code consisting of a set of 7 rules of conduct to ensure peaceful coexistence. After 10 generations, Avraham, thegreat iconoclast, appears, rejecting the idolatry that has been introduced into humans, and preaches the existence of the one and only God. 

Avraham‘s mission is  clear: he must leave the environment of his father’s home for a new land where he will found a new nation that will raise the banner of the one God, with the obvious consequence that all human beings emanate from the same root because that Creator is their common father.

To symbolize this renewed covenant, God requires Avrahamand his descendants to practice, this time not a symbolic sign, but a Brit, a covenant, expressed through circumcision. Man will have to learn that sacrifice is indispensable, the person must give of himself to establish any relationship of relevance with God and his neighbor. Moreover, the Brit will take on greater significance with another “covenant” at Mount Sinai, where an expanded set of 613 Mitsvot, ordinances, will form the basis of the relationship between God and the Jewish people.

According to the Midrash, Avraham consulted with 3 friends before practicing the Brit. Aner warned him that the Brit would weaken him and he might therefore be vulnerable to his enemies, the monarchs he had recently defeated. Perhaps Anerwas referring to the fact that the Brit imposed moral obligations and Avraham‘s enemies could henceforth infer the limitations that would govern the patriarch’s behavior in any battle and take advantage of that knowledge. 

Similarly, many enemies of democracy who use murder and terror, when they are imprisoned, appeal to the rights that democracy grants and that they, in turn, deny to their victims. They take advantage of the respect for life that governs the civilized world that is not willing to use the methodology of terror, because if it did it would fall into deception, it would grant victory to those who want to deal a mortal blow to democracy. On Aner’s advice, however, Avraham submitted to the Brit, because the weakness it would produce for him would be momentary, while the moral benefit would be permanent.

Avraham’s second counselor, Eshkol, argued that the blood loss that the Brit would produce could endanger the patriarch’s life. This argument reminds us that every action carries risk. When a leader sets for himself a task, he at the same time assumes the risk of failure. The monotheistic ideal that Avraham proposed had to confront numerous vested interests, the idolatrous priesthood, and all those who were benefiting in some way socially, politically, or economically. Because every revolutionary postulate has to meet a past that resists giving way to a different future.

The third recommendation came from Mamre, who argued that Avraham should have confidence in God, the God who had saved him from the furnaces of Nimrod and who had granted him victory over the four mighty kings. Mamre was pointing to a fundamental principle of faith. Even in the presence of goodwill and the ability to face difficult scenarios, man requires Divine intervention. On the one hand, human beings cannot refrain from fighting against any enemy, they cannot relegate help and solidarity with their neighbor to the goodness of God, but at the same time, they must become aware that, in the final analysis, it is God who directs the destiny of History. Man cannot give up his task, although he can never complete it alone, on his own.