Press "Enter" to skip to content

Is there any validity to the idea that figures like Noah and Abraham were being tested to see if they’d stand their ground against Hashem?

By that I mean, that when Hashem told Noah about His intent to bring about the Flood, Noah was being tested to see if he had enough individual moral conviction to advocate on humanity’s behalf rather than merely acquiesce to what Hashem wanted. Because Noah accepted the Flood, his lack of conviction testified poorly on all humanity. Likewise, the Akeida was a test to see if Abraham would refuse to hurt his son based on his own independent conscience.

The view being that Hashem was using them as tests to set precedents for the future of humanity and their failure reflects on more fundamental human weaknesses compared to what we could’ve achieved if different choices had been made.

I’ve read brief allusions to this interpretation on several separate occasions, but I have never been able to find any direct sources in rabbinic literature or any generally accepted source of discourse. It seems to be more extrapolation of a broader pattern in the narratives, that later in their lives they, “succumbed to drunkenness” and otherwise lapsed and there are implications that they failed to live up to their potential.

Thoughts?

submitted by /u/Solarwagon
[link] [comments]
Source: Reditt