Chapter 5 Chapter 4 Abraham Defended Sinners—and Lost

God said: "Should I hide from Abraham what I am going to do? Abraham will become a powerful nation, and all things in the world will be blessed through him. I have taken care of him to teach him to command his sons and his family to follow him My way, doing justice and doing righteousness, will bring to pass what I promised Abraham.” God said: "The crimes of Sodom and Gomorrah are very serious, and I have heard them! Now I will go down and check them. If they do what I have heard, I will destroy them! If not, I will know. " The two turned and left for Sodom, but Abraham still stood before God.

Abraham stepped forward and said, "Do you want to wipe out all the guilty and innocent people? If there are fifty innocent people in that city, you still want to destroy that place? Can't you kill those fifty innocent people?" Spare the people in the city? God does not allow you to do this, execute the good people together with the wicked, and treat the good and the wicked the same, and the heavens do not allow you to do this! How can the Lord who judges the world not be just and righteous?" God said, "If I see fifty innocent people in Sodom, I will spare the whole city for their sake."

Abraham made another point: "I am but dust, and dare to ask my Lord to hear me: If the number of fifty is short by five places--would you not destroy the city just by five places? " He said, "If I see forty-five there, I will not destroy that city." Abraham said to him again, "What if there were only forty?" He said, "For the sake of these forty people, I will not do it either." But he added, "Please Lord, don't be angry because I don't keep my mouth shut. So what if I only find thirty?" He said: "If only 30 people are found, I will not do this."

But he added, "If I may offend you, tell the Lord, maybe only twenty will be found, so what?" He said: "For those twenty people, I will not destroy the city." He added: "Please don't be angry, Lord. Let me say one more thing. What if only ten people are found?" He said: "For those ten people, I will not destroy the city." God left after speaking with Abraham, and Abraham returned to his own place. "Genesis" Chapter Eighteen Verses 17-33 God promised Noah never to destroy the world with a flood again, and he reneged a few generations later.He decided to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah with hail and brimstone.To be honest, these two cities are not equal to the whole world, nor are hail and brimstone fire equal to the flood.However, 56 Genesis of the Law: Finding the Origin of the Law from Biblical Stories God does not seem to grasp the principle of his promise to Noah.He just took advantage of the difference in wording to scale down the practice of total destruction.The rabbinic tradition of exegesis recognizes this with a passage from the Midash which develops the words of Abraham: "You have sworn not to flood the world again with a great flood... You have ceased to use the flood, but Fire instead? Would you circumvent your oath by exploiting a literal loophole like this?" Abraham questioned God, then politely but firmly corrected his Maker.This is the story of the gripping argument between Abraham and God.

By what "right" did Abraham argue with God and question his intentions?The answer must lie in the unique relationship between God and his people.The relationship between God and the Jews is a covenantal relationship, that is, a legally binding contract in nature.As one Bible commentator put it: “God changed from an absolute monarch to a constitutional monarch, and he, like human beings, is bound by the terms of this constitution.” In modern life, of course, parents and children can be found everywhere Examples of covenants: pocket money in exchange for housework, rewards for good grades, etc.In history, there are even examples of slave masters contracting with slaves, such as giving each other freedom after serving for a certain number of years.However, the Creator made a covenant with the things he created?What an amazing concept!The theme of this mutual obligation contract has a profound influence in Jewish histories, prayers, literature, and even songs.

God first made a covenant with Noah, then with Abraham, and then with Jacob.Noah never mentioned this covenant again.Abraham, on the other hand, reminded God of his own covenant to act justly.Abraham's grandson, Jacob, further pointed out clearly in the subsequent story that he had a condition for him to accept God, that is, God must do what he promised.Jacob said: "If God is on my side, if He protects me on this journey, and provides me with food and clothing, and if I return safely to my father's house, then God you are my God ’” (It’s akin to trading my devotion for a World Series championship game, only this time it happened earlier.

Some commentators (such as Rabbi Abahu) want to deny the quid pro quo nature of Jacob's promise.However, some commentators interpreted what was written in black and white (such as Rabbi Jucanaan) "If all the conditions that God promised me ... are fulfilled, then I will also fulfill the oath." Later those conditions Sure enough, it was done, and Jacob fulfilled his oath.A model of compliance—at least this time it did. A contract gives rights to both parties.The Jew has a right to demand that God always fulfill his promised terms, or at least explain why he didn't.From the beginning of Jewish history to the present - experiencing the destruction of the Temple, the Crusades, the religious trial of the Jews by the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, the mass murder of the Jews in Russia in the Tsarist era, and even the Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis during the Second World War —The Jews always wanted an answer from the other side of the covenant.Although it is rare to hear back, we insist on asking.

Chutzpah (the word "difficult" - I used it as the title of my book, meaning "boldness", "persistence", "will to challenge authority" - the earliest scriptures to use it, talking about exactly Asking God to do what he promised in the covenant. In the Talmud, it is part of the Arabic phrase chutzpah k, lapei shemaya (even hard to heaven). Abraham's unfathomable behavior is unprecedented, But of course it is not unheard of. The most famous example after the Bible is Levi Yazshakrabi of Berdichev, a Hasidic master in the 18th century. At one point he even threatened to accuse God of false promises. On another occasion he sued God for refusing to cooperate with his plan to displace the Jews. On a certain Day of Atonement, a simple tailor wanted forgiveness from the great rabbi for speaking unkindly to God. The rabbi asked him what he had said, and the tailor replied:

I tell God you want me to repent of my sins, but I only commit small sins: maybe I didn't return the odd piece of fabric, or I didn't wash my hands after eating at the gentile's house where I worked. "But you, my Lord, have committed a crime of kinship and vengeance: you have taken the baby from its mother and its mother. Let us even the score: if you forgive me, I will forgive you .” The great rabbi looked at the tailor and said, "How did you let God go so easily?" Abraham asked God, was it right for him to destroy the city of Sodom?Thus began the tradition of this debate.

Abraham's argument with God raised the most difficult and recurring theological issue: Can God's justice be judged by the standards of human justice?If not, then by whom and by what standard should we evaluate God's justice and axioms?One option is to assume that no matter how unjust we feel what God does is still just and axiom.No matter what command God gives, it must be obeyed, without doubt or disobedience.This means that human beings must learn what is justice and axioms from God's actions, even if we don't understand or disagree with these actions.But what do we have to learn from events like the Flood, Isaac's siege, the story of Job, and the Holocaust?We cannot shirk the responsibilities of human beings, and must define their own justice and axioms.Abandoning this responsibility is undoubtedly the first step towards fundamentalism.The story of Sodom clearly rejects the Fundamentalist approach and shows that God will more or less accept human judgment through a covenant with human beings.

Look back at this story again.The story begins with a monologue from God explaining why he told Abraham that he intends to destroy those sinful cities.Abraham's destiny was to teach the world to "keep my (God's) word and do what is just and righteous." Abraham knew his role, but when God announced his plan, Abraham immediately saw the contradiction: if he obeyed God's He did not do justice, because there is no justice in what God intends to do.Therefore, Abraham returned to himself the way of God, "How can the Lord who judges the whole world be just?" Abraham's thoughts on justice must reflect the justice and axiom of his own human standards, that is, human beings only punish the guilty. people.God can answer: "Bold boy, how dare you question my concept of justice and axioms? You can't understand my way. You can't use human standards to judge the justice and axioms of heaven." In the book of Job, when Job refuses to accept the wrongs God inflicted on himself and his children, God responds to Job with this attitude.We can learn a lot by comparing the learning God that Abraham faced with the tougher God that Job faced.Job's God refuted his doubts, asking aggressively: Where were you when I created the world?Do you know the laws that govern the heavens?Are you going to play tricks on my judgment, to prove me wrong, so you are right?Do you have the power to rival God?Can you thunder like a god? In other words, the God of Job puts on airs for the human being who challenges him.His answer was pure display of strength.We might as well quote a story from the twentieth-century American writer Ring Lardner: "'Shut up,' he explained." So Job was more obedient than shutting up.He let God ravage him. "I don't know anything," he apologizes, "that's beyond my reach, and I never will." Job accepts that God is superior to him, and abandons his own ideas of justice and justice.As far as the idea itself is concerned, his idea is actually more convincing than God's.After all, Job was an innocent man, but God allowed Satan to inflict cruel punishment on him and his family. What kind of God would kill all ten of his children in order to tempt a man of integrity?Even traditional interpreters agree that these killings are unjust.Then, some of them argued with clever words that God did not really authorize the execution of the extermination of all of Job's children.He simply ordered Satan to hide them all so that Job would believe they were dead and that God would return them all when he passed the test.Others argue that there is no such person as Job in history, but that he is just a fictional character on paper.Even so, he did live in this scripture of the Bible! Regardless of whether the role of Job is real or purely fictional, in short, Job believes that God killed his innocent children, and he confidently questioned God's justice.Job’s argument was justified, but when God appeared from the whirlwind and displayed His divine power, Job’s position softened.Job’s defense of defeat was not because he was untenable in reason, but because he abstained from voting.That wasn't a debate at all, it was a contest of status.Job voluntarily denied his own mental ability to God's deceitful actions above and below, saying: "I can't understand anything. This is beyond my intellect. I will never understand it." Thus, the rebellious Job became a fundamentalist. Job.God relied on divine power rather than a word of reason to dismiss Job's reasonable questioning, and he thus became an authoritative God. The most unjust thing in the world is probably the following: Let your innocent children be killed by Almighty God, and then be reprimanded when you question the morality of his actions.If the typical chutzpah kills his own parents and then demands the mercy that the orphan deserves, the typical tyrant kills another's child and then compels the other to obey and treat the wrong as justice. The book of Job has always been recognized as a great work, not (and not because of) the account of God's vindication in the last chapters, but because of the profoundly humane arguments that Job and his friends uttered—why Good people suffer - let this be told through the ages.Many people who have seen and experienced injustice must feel sympathetic when they read it, but they have not seen God appearing, oppressing others with God's shelf, and reacting unsatisfactorily.After all, God verbally trumped Job, not because he was right, but because he was God. This is reminiscent of what lawyers often say about the Supreme Court: their decisions are not binding because they are legal; they are legal only because their decisions are binding .We readers of the Bible learn nothing about the nature of justice and axioms from God’s unquestionable responses to Job.Job's God is as unreasonable as the squad leader at boot training: "I'm in charge!" and as unreasonable as the parent who says that. I'm a parent, so I'm right! "In my opinion, the God who argued with Abraham was the more interesting and better teacher. He argued with Abraham from the human point of view that Abraham held. God did this. Bullying the weak is not an effective teaching method. God is willing to discuss with the other party, which is a more sophisticated technique. Its intention is to promote the process of human beings to establish justice and axioms, rather than just bowing down to accept orders. Accept Abraham to discuss justice and axioms The God of why is the God who encourages rational discourse. The God who suppresses Job from understanding an obvious wrong is the God of fundamentalist no-brainers. What is fascinating about the Bible is that God in Different eras speak in different tones. Interpreters of the Bible have always sought to find plausible reasons for God's behavior, which was reasonable to Abraham but unquestionable by Job.There is a difference between the two: Abraham is a participant in the covenant with God, but Job is not, and his identity in the Bible is not Jewish.Of course, Job was governed by the law established by Noah, but in the contract between God and Abraham that bound both parties, Job was not the beneficiary of the contract, so he had no right to refute.Abraham's covenant had a unique set of obligations and rights, including the ability to question the other party to ensure that the other party kept his promise; Job did not have such rights. His relationship with God was that of a people and a despot.Job must know his own status. He is just a subordinate who dare not question the justice and principles of his master.So he was suppressed precisely because he tried to argue with God on an equal footing: "In case the king is accused of being irresponsible... "It is blasphemy to accuse Almighty God of wronging the good... "You really want to accuse the righteous God of being wrong? "Has anyone ever told him that you have been unfair?" Job was silent in the face of these rebukes, but he could have used his example to remind God of what Abraham had said.So why didn't Job do this in response to God's sharp question: "Who ever said to him, 'You're being unfair?'" Perhaps Job felt that this was just to reinforce his tone; The covenant, the relationship between him and the Almighty God, is not the relationship between the citizen and the constitutional monarch, he is only a subject under the absolute monarch.God only talks to those with whom He has a covenant.With others, he simply acts, orders, and expects total deference, obedience, and acceptance. In most religions, Job faces more authoritarian Gods than Abraham faces reasonable Gods.The reason is not difficult to understand, that is, there are irrational things everywhere in the real world, and these things will never make sense from a human point of view.I think that the suffering and grievances that mankind has encountered in the past thousands of years, from the Great Flood, the Crusades, plagues to the massacre of the Jews, etc., are absolutely unreasonable even from the perspective of God, but this kind of Claims can never be proven because we are mortal and can only think from a human point of view.If God can never explain the tragedies and disasters in the world in a way that humans can understand, then what is the use of talking to God?He will eventually tell you that you cannot understand the Word of God, just as he said to Job.In other words, God did not answer Job why good people suffer and bad people prosper, because there is no sufficient answer to explain it.God just turns the conversation on to the wonders of creation and keeps silent about his failure to bring justice to justice. It is much simpler to create a physical universe than to ensure the realization of the axioms of justice.If there was an afterlife, he could have left the task of rewarding good and punishing evil until after death. However, he pretended to be others, especially Elihu, to show that his actions were in line with justice.Since God cannot justify human wrongs, he must entrust this task to someone else—only this person can, and God cannot do it.This means that only God can understand why there is such apparent injustice in the world.However, even if we cannot fully understand these seemingly injustices, we have an obligation to point out the injustices, just as Abraham, Job, and the intellectuals in their descendants tried to do. Accepting the conclusion of "Job": God's justice and axioms cannot be understood by human beings does not mean abandoning all human criticism of God's actions, and accepting all grievances in the world (just like the book of Ecclesiastes says ) If it is assumed that anything God does is just and axiom in itself, even the Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis, then such reasoning is tantamount to saying that everything that has happened is in accordance with the axiom of justice.This inevitably leads to the naturalistic fallacy of confusing any actual situation with a reasonable one.I really can't imagine any reason that can give a just and axiomatic explanation for the Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis. We are not surprised that this unexplained man-made disaster has shaken many formerly devout believers.After the massacre, we couldn't hold our hands together and say: "God is really unpredictable." And any plausible explanation will bring more unfair humiliation to the victims.An ultra-Orthodox rabbi who attributed the massacre to pork-eating Jews was condemned to death.it serves him right. The Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis just cannot be justified on the grounds that "human beings cannot understand the justice and axioms of God".Many victims want nothing to do with a God who thinks the Holocaust was just (even from his point of view).If God did not send Jacob safely to his father's home, Jacob would be ready to break the contract made between his grandfather and God; then believers who saw their whole family killed by the Nazi party have the right and even the obligation to question whether the God he believes in is true or not. Is a God of justice and justice. Abraham's plea for the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah teaches us one thing: to acquiesce in wrongs is sin, even when God inflicts them.This view later appears in clearer terms in this poem: "You should not stand by and watch your neighbor be killed." It takes courage to condemn wronged crimes; it takes a lot of courage to condemn wronged crimes committed by kings; It takes extraordinary courage to commit such unjust crimes, especially in the light of belief in the omnipotence of God.If believers are to maintain faith in their God, then their God must be willing to discuss with them, even accept their protest, as Abraham did in the story of Sodom—in the strongest terms possible, No need to reserve affection. Perhaps it is for this reason that despite suffering, the Jews still choose a God who can at least talk back to him (or be favored by such a God) instead of the unquestionable God who rebuked Job.The God accused by Levi Yaz Shakrabi is the God of Abraham, not the God of Job.The God who endows kings and emperors with infallible authority is a God who is closer to Job. Now let's return to the legal issue that Abraham was arguing with God.The God that Abraham refuted was the God with whom he had just made a covenant, and the standard translation of the Bible failed to convey the true spirit of it.Here is what Abraham said: Do you want to wipe out everyone, guilty or innocent? If there were fifty innocent people in that city, would you still want to destroy that place? Can't the people of the city be spared for these fifty innocent people? Heaven also forbids you to do this, to execute good people and evil people together, to treat good people and wicked people equally, God also forbids you to do this! How can the Lord who judges the whole world do justice? Although Abraham's strong tone and use of the word "sweeping away" refer to his destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, they also refer to the past flood. There is a chapter in Midrash, worried that someone might say: "The work of God is to use cruel means to wipe out generations of human beings together." Rashi clearly pointed out the echoes of the Great Flood: It would be "blasphemy" on you because people will say that it is his habit to exterminate both good and evil.He has done this in the generation of the great flood, and he has done it in the generation of alienation. Will he do it again now? " It is intriguing that there is never a word in the Bible that God told Abraham that he was determined to destroy the two cities.The scriptures only say that the crimes of the two cities are very serious, but the Genesis of God's law: from the Bible story to find the origin of the law, it may destroy the city.Lahi interpreted God's tour as He wanted to teach the world that judges should not rely on hearsay as evidence, but must rely on seeing.This again implies that the God in Genesis may not know everything, and he must first observe on the spot before he can be sure.God then asked himself: "Should I hide from Abraham what I want to do?" Abraham immediately guessed his mind.He remembered how God had dealt with the sinful world in Noah's generation, and he assumed that God was doing it again.As expected, he wanted to destroy innocent people as well as sinners, just like a great flood.Will he never learn?Just so unprogressive? Abraham knew that the only way to get God's attention was to beat him up in the strongest terms possible.Therefore, he used the Hebrew word chalila Lekha, which was translated by later translators as "God is not allowed" or "It is definitely not what you should do." In fact, the word chalila is not so polite. The root word “blasphemy” in the communication.If you kill both the good and the evil, that's blasphemy--it's so blasphemy that it deserves hell. [Ironically, Elihu—the defender of God in the Book of Job—also uses the same word chalilah, to rebuke Job: "It is slandering God to describe the Almighty God as unreasonable." (Genesis 34:10) Yet, to put it mildly, this is exactly what Abraham did. ] Significantly, God agrees with Abraham's contention that he conceded that he was blasphemy in sending the flood, because to do so would be to wipe out both good and evil.He accepts Abraham's arguments and agrees to save the city, but only on the condition that there be a certain number of good people in the city. There is clearly a contradiction in Abraham's argument.God could have destroyed the city, but left the fifty good men dead; that would have fulfilled the premise of Abraham's rebuke: kill without distinction of good and evil.However, Abraham asked God to spare the entire city, including the majority of bad people, just because there were fifty good people.As illogical as it is, God complies with this request.This made Abraham use a typical lawyer's argument method: Abraham first persuaded his opponent to accept the "big principle" and then pushed the opponent step by step into a dead end with no other way out.He asked God if there were only forty-five good men, would you destroy the whole city just because there were five less? "It's a brilliant move—and then, in a similarly provable way, the number of people was reduced from forty, thirty, and twenty to ten. This method of argument is reminiscent of the legendary twentieth-century British playwright Bernard Shaw's quip.George Bernard Shaw asked a beautiful actress if she would sleep with him for a million pounds.The actress said she was willing to have a million pounds, so Mr. Xiao said, "That's easy to say. Now that the general principle is established, the price can be negotiated." God naturally saw the loopholes in Abraham's trick.He could have replied, "Well, Abraham, you say I do not distinguish between good and evil, and that I destroy the good as well as the bad. You are right. But you have made the same mistake. You let the bad and the good go, and let them go for nothing." .If I found fifty, or forty, or even ten good people, I'd let them go. You've convinced me. But why should I let them go because there happen to be fifty good people in town Other bad guys?" Yet God accepts Abraham's moral argument, but ultimately overrules its empirical support.God didn't find enough good people to spare the city, so he spared a few of the good people he did find, Lot's family, who were in many ways like Noah's family.They were far from perfect, as was later discovered, but they were far better than their fellow city dwellers at the time.The point is, God allowed Abraham to argue with him on moral grounds; even though he ended up destroying the city as planned, he was convinced by Abraham's moral grounds.Although he paid a heavy price in human life for this victory, he has established the unshakable principle of justice and axiom... The question remains, if there were contradictions in Abraham's moral argument, why did God accept it?The idea behind the following interpretation, if I offer it, is that God, in his interaction with his creatures, is not only learning but also teaching. Why did God tell Abraham what he planned to do with the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah?The scriptures express its intention very clearly: because God chose Abraham to be his messenger, to teach his descendants to "keep my way and do what is just and righteous." In other words, God contacted Abraham to teach him a lesson. What is justice and axioms and what is right and wrong, good and evil.An all-knowing God can certainly distinguish between the guilty and the innocent, though he may not necessarily manifest the difference in behavior.It is not enough for human beings to see who is innocent and who is guilty.We need a procedure, a legal system, to distinguish the innocent from the guilty.It's not easy.Inevitably, humans make mistakes.We sometimes condemn the innocent and let the guilty go.Human beings' pursuit of the truth has this in their essence. If the sole goal was to ensure that innocent people were not convicted, things would be easy: the slightest doubt, however unreasonable, as to whether a crime was committed or not, would result in an acquittal.In the same way, if not letting a single guilty person go unpunished is the only goal, things are just as easy: if there is even the slightest suspicion of a crime, however far-fetched, all will be found guilty.There is no system in history that can convict all criminals without sending some innocent people to prison.Any proof principle or procedure that protects good people, such as the "two witnesses" rule in the Bible, also makes it easier for guilty people to escape justice and axioms.Likewise, any law that makes crimes possible, such as recent changes to the Act, so that rape prosecutions do not require "independent evidence" will also allow innocent people to be wronged.The difficulty lies in finding a balance. At the end of the day, every system has to weigh which is more harmful: To get some good people wronged, or to exonerate some bad people?Authoritarian regimes tend to choose the former: they would rather kill by mistake than release by mistake.Most just regimes choose the latter: it is better to release by mistake than to kill by mistake.The latter is the last approach accepted by the Bible, which usually closely guards those accused of wrongdoing. Any judicial system, in addition to deciding what is the choice of this basic trade-off, must also quantify the choice-at least in essence.For example: "The Anglo-American system clearly states that it is better to misplace ten guilty people than to have one innocent person wronged." Wronged, but not guaranteed; we admit that, in order to bring many guilty people to justice, we sometimes hesitate to tie up an innocent person by mistake.We try our best not to cause such grievances, but we absolutely cannot release all people in order to avoid them.This is how a mature and just system works. Although from the narrative, it seems that Abraham taught God what justice and axioms are, in fact, it can also be said that God, the great teacher, taught Abraham that human justice and axioms have their inherent limitations.In this way, Abraham can teach his descendants to realize justice and justice in a mature and balanced way, neither killing in vain for the sake of injustice, nor killing in vain for not in vain.After accepting Abraham's moral principle (that is, to spare the whole group, and the bad ones in it, as long as there are enough good people in it), God taught Abraham how to strike the right balance.Since human beings will never be able to accurately distinguish between the guilty and the innocent, it would be unjust to destroy a crowd that might include fifty innocent people.Forty, thirty, twenty, or even ten numbers are all justified.But if there are only one or two, the situation is not the same. Abraham's argument ended with the number of ten people, which has a special meaning.Why didn't he continue to bargain with God?After all, Abraham was sure that there was at least one good man in Sodom, his own nephew Lot.However, he bargained for only ten people, so he won morally, but lost in actual results.How to say?Some Bible commentators pointed out that Abraham knew in his heart that as long as there were less than ten people, he could not convince God, because Noah's family only had eight people, and they were not enough to save the world from flooding.But God has promised not to repeat the same destruction that Noah's contemporaries suffered on the world, so this argument seems weak. Some people say that since ten people is the minimum number of people for Jewish worship, less than that number is not a ceremony.However, even if the traditional minimum number of worshipers is ten (only men are counted), but the immediate issue is the life and death of the people in the city, it seems unreasonable to exclude kind "women" from the calculation.There is another argument that appeals to reason and is not sexist, that is, without a certain basic number of good people, most of the bad people cannot be influenced, just as Noah and his family cannot change an entire generation of sinners. My personal interpretation is much simpler.Although ten people is a casual number, it shows that this is the balance point between misjudging good people and indulging bad people.Since we don't know how many bad guys there are in Sodom, it's impossible to calculate the exact ratio.However, the number "ten" is singled out, and the reduction of one is too little, and the increase of one is too much.Since wherever sinners congregate there is always a way of finding one or two innocents, the selection of such a small number would make it impossible to establish a workable system for punishing criminals.But tolerating as many as ten convictions would make any system for punishing criminals unfair, or at least questionable. Concern has emerged in recent years when the number of Illinois death row releases due to flawed evidence reached double digits.On the face of it, the execution of one or two presumably innocent people is not enough to inspire consideration of abolition, but once the number rises to more than ten, even those who favor the death penalty question the fairness of the justice system.The ratio of Anglo-American law—it is better to release ten people by mistake than to wrong one person—although it is a randomly selected number, it is also an attempt to reach a balance point with the number of ten. What we see here is perhaps an extreme example of teaching and learning.Although Abraham's rebuttal seemed illogical, God was willing to accept it as an opportunity to teach him that, as a mortal, he would have to establish a just and efficient system for distinguishing the innocent from the guilty.在这个过程中，上帝也学到一'件事，那就是他太粗枝大叶，未能感受连同坏人遭殃的好人受到什么样的苦难。 亚伯拉罕与上帝争论的故事，在我身为刑事案件辩护律师的生涯里益显重要。我知道我的客户大部分都犯了他们受起诉的罪行。我之所以知道，并不是因为他们告诉我——极少人会跟自己的律师坦承犯罪（只有一位跟我告白过）——而是由于我根据统计数字来判断，因为在美国及其他民主国家，绝大部分遭起诉的人实际上都有罪。 还好是如此！想象一下，如果大部分遭起诉的人是无辜良民，那还成什么世界！这绝不会发生在法律制度较为公平与宽容的国家里。因此，我稳当地假定我那些遭起诉并要求继续工作的客户，无异于统计结果的正常情况，也就是他们大部分有罪。无论如何，我那些客户比一般初审辩护律师的客户更加可能有罪，因为他们已先经历了一道最重要的关卡，也就是检查检方错误或滥权的法院审判。那些人已经被一组陪审团员判定有罪。我的客户有些的确是无辜，不过我有九成九的把握，这类只占少数。 我接案子的时候，难得会知道客户是属于有罪的多数，还是无罪的少数，抑或两者之间。要是我有预设立场——就如许多人对我的敦促，包括家母——只为无辜的人辩护，那么我这三十五年的律师生涯，恐怕还接不到几件案子。只有极少数的案件，我能确定上门的客户无辜。我有我的疑心，有时事实证明是我看走眼了，误良为恶或反之都有。总之我总是没办法肯定。在我代表客户辩护之初，我对案子了解不够深，就更没办法肯定。时间一久，我知道得多了，通常对内容有更完备的看法。即使我后来相信我的客户有罪，我也不能撒手不管，因为我已经接下完成任务的责任（除非客户违反某些法规）；就像外科医师已经都上了手术台，不能因为病人病得比原先判断的还重，就丢下手术刀走人；或者像神父一样，不能因为别人在告解里说了自己没预期的罪恶，就丢下告解的人走开。 我会为那些罪嫌重大的人辩护，是基于几个重要的原则。第一点，我就像所有的人类，无法每次都分得清谁有罪而谁无辜。假如只有那些极为明显无辜的人，才能得到应有的辩护律师，那么许多其他无辜的人，便无法有干练律师为他们辩护。因此，我为罪嫌重大的人辩护，为的是防止可能无辜的人受到冤屈。这点已存在于所多玛城故事的传统里，至少在我对它的诠释里。我为罪嫌重大的人辩护，为的是可能无辜的人。 第二点，我的做法是要确定政府总是受到挑战，这样政府才不会草率、偷懒或腐败。假如我们的法律制度永远可以依照统计结果来运作，也就是假定大部分的被告有罪，那么检察官就会日益草率地选择起诉对象；这个统计结果也许会因此逆转也未可知，就像极权国家的情况。亚伯拉罕了解向权威挑战极为重要，甚至包括上帝的权威。尽管上帝终究还是有办法执行他惩治所多玛城罪人的计划，但亚伯拉罕没让他轻易就办到。到最后，我有许多客户还是入狱服刑——还好没有一个被处决——不过我尽全力在每个环节上挑战政府的权威。我这样的作为正是继承亚伯拉罕所开创的辩护传统。 第三点，我是教师，必须以实例做教材。我不能告诉学生，他们应该为可能有罪的被告辩护，而只能告诉他们，我很会收拾这种烂摊子。假如我们的法律制度要求所有被告都必须有热诚的律师为他们辩护，那么不管这个角色有时候多么讨人嫌，我必须接下这个角色。亚伯拉罕也是教师，他教导历代的人权辩护律师，面对可见的冤屈不能保持沉默，即使是为有罪的人说话。 有罪的人获得开释总是让人沮丧。不过，只有付出这个代价，我们才能确保冤狱难得发生。偶尔让有罪的人开释以保全所有人的权利，这个难以教人接受的概念不断遭遇或引发争论，不过，它正是任何文明的正义公理概念的核心。 在所多玛城的故事里，我们看到上帝是一位崇高的教师，而亚伯拉罕是一个挑衅的学生。彼此都为对方上了一课：上帝学到光有威势不足以成就正义公理，而不分善恶都一律诛杀，更绝无正义公理可言；亚伯拉罕则学到光靠权利也无法拯救坏人，而完美的正义公理对任何司法体系都是无法达成的苛求。双方都学到一件事：正义公理就是找到恰当的平衡点。 上帝随即给亚伯拉罕一个正义公理的测验，师生双方似乎都不及格。不过，在我们谈到akaida（也就是上帝命令亚伯拉罕燔祭亲生儿子）之前，让我们想想上帝最后对罪人做了什么，而仅有的一户正直善良的人家又有什么遭遇。结果显示，即使是所多玛城里最正直善良的市民，也不是什么正人君子。他们让我想起我某些获判无罪的客户。