Chapter 3: Making Difficult Decisions PDF

# Chapter 3: Making Difficult Decisions ## Introduction ### Holiness To strive toward completeness as a human being means, in biblical terms, to devote both body and spirit to the service of God so that every act and every hour of life can be made holy and meaningful. The body and soul are not by...

# Chapter 3: Making Difficult Decisions ## Introduction ### Holiness To strive toward completeness as a human being means, in biblical terms, to devote both body and spirit to the service of God so that every act and every hour of life can be made holy and meaningful. The body and soul are not by nature in conflict. Instead, obeying the commands of God means to sanctify every human act whether by body or soul. Holiness is not something of the heavens nor does it mean alienating or even separating oneself from day-to-day activities. Rather it means sanctifying even the most mundane activities by closeness to God. Every blade of grass and every drop of water are also holy parts of God's world. Holiness involves intimacy with God whether one is engaged in physical or spiritual activities. It is actually beyond one's limited abil-ity to achieve such intimacy with God all by oneself, and true holiness is attained only with God's help. People must do is persevere in pursuing wisdom and understanding with the aim of sanctifying all their acts. The person who lives in holiness is himself a holy tabernacle, a temple. The righteous are the divine chariot. Everything that the righteous man does is elevated because he does it. To live in holiness comes as result of many years of hard work. It is a high goal that: - Offers the individual a new perspective of what is important in a life far beyond the mundane. - Can arouse a desire to seek human greatness far beyond the baggage of one's past and one's present perceived limitations. # Biblical Stories for Psychotherapy and Counseling ## Weighing Abilities: Rebecca and Her Two Sons **Biblical Narrative:** It is sometimes important to be able to weigh accurately and realis-tically the abilities of others. This is an important skill day by day and absolutely essential for an effective teacher or business manager. One of the foundation stories of the Hebrew Bible tells of the patri-arch Isaac blessing his sons, Jacob and Esau. Blessings are taken seriously in the Hebrew Bible, not, however, because they have a magical effect, for they do not. The blessing usually constitutes the passing from father to son of a special purpose in life and explains and supports the receiver's ability to carry it out. Thus were Isaac's blessings to his sons and also Jacob's to his, many years later. Isaac's plan to bless Esau and Jacob might, however, have gone awry had it not been for the insightful and brilliantly planned intervention of Rebecca, Isaac's wife. Rebecca understood the two young men and what they needed better than Isaac did. She also understood Isaac, and she formed her plans knowing what each participant was able to do and what role she would have to play in helping them to do it. Rebecca's insight was crucial in preserving the continuation of the Abrahamic covenant with God. Esau and Jacob were twins, and during her pregnancy Rebecca had been told by a prophet that both boys could be great and that great nations would come from them, but they would be very different. Indeed, even at birth, they were very different. Esau was born hairy (the attribute for which he is named) and ruddy. Jacob came out with his hand grasping Esau's heel, as though trying to hold him back (Genesis 25:25-26). The two boys received the same schooling, and in their early years seemed to be following the same path. As they grew older, however, differences between them grew more apparent. Esau became a cunning hunter, a man of the outdoors, while Jacob was a quiet man devoted to scholarship ("dwelling in tents") (25:27). Each parent favored a different son. "Now Isaac loved Esau because he did eat of his venison; and Rebecca loved Jacob" (25:28). What were the characteristics in each son that seemed to draw the favor of the parents? S. R. Hirsch (1976) treats the question at length in his commentary. First, he says, the parents erred in not better recognizing the natural differences between their two sons. Esau was more athletic and not well suited for the usual classroom situation. Perhaps his physical cunning and ability, if properly directed and trained, could have helped him to a useful and productive life, dedicated to God. However, pushed into a lifestyle not suited to him, Esau learned to suppress his nature and to be crafty and tricky useful skills for stalking and hunting. A hunter he became, a man of the wilds who gloried in the chase and the kill, not one who harnessed his physical prowess to the service of God and humanity. Isaac was a deeply spiritual man who had risen from the altar of the akedah and devoted himself to a spiritual and somewhat withdrawn lifestyle. Esau's physical vigor appealed to him. Rebecca had grown up in a home that respected devotion neither to scholarship nor to honesty, both characteristics in which Jacob flourished, and Rebecca prized her younger son. The parents' own needs and feelings influenced their attitudes toward their children in ways that could be unhealthy. Rebecca was right realizing that Jacob was far better suited than Esau to carry on the great work of Abraham's family. When Rebecca learned that Isaac was planning to give his special blessing to Esau, she knew that Isaac was making a serious error that could have destructive consequences. She realized that she must arrange matters so that Isaac would give the main blessing to the more worthy Jacob and also that Isaac must be brought to agree with her. Rebecca worked out a brilliant plan that accomplished all her aims. Isaac had sent Esau out to hunt to bring him venison before receiving the blessing. Rebecca persuaded a reluctant Jacob to bring lambs from the flock to serve his blind father and, pretending to be Esau, to receive the blessing intended for the elder brother. Rebecca reassured Jacob by taking full responsibility should the plan fail. Jacob, thus disguised as Esau, succeeded in obtaining Isaac's blessing, and when Isaac learned what had happened he quickly grasped Rebecca's point. He was tricked so easily in this mummery by the quiet, honest Jacob. Had he been fooled all these years by the persuasiveness of Esau as well? This moment of coming to his senses was a shock to Isaac "and he trembled exceedingly" (27:33) at the disastrous mistake he had almost made. However, he realized that Rebecca was right. He gave a different blessing to Esau and full-heartedly confirmed his blessing to Jacob (28:1). Understandably, Esau was fiercely angry with Jacob and threatened to kill him. However, Rebecca's decision had been correct. No human relations can thrive on falsehood. With the passage of time, Esau's anger calmed, and the two brothers reconciled and lived in peace, each in his own way (33:1-16). **Clinical Implications:** It is interesting to consider how difficult it would have been for Esau to pretend to be Jacob. It would not have been a matter of Esau shaving his arms. Rather he would have needed to emulate some of Jacob's spiritual qualities. This points to an important principle in weighing others' abilities. The qualities that are important cannot be easily imitated. A therapist can take from this story the message that patients must be in touch with those qualities that define them as unique. This can be done only if they separate the self from the image that they may reflect to the outside world. Our culture stresses image, which is easily reproduced at the expense of the underlying self. ## Focusing on One's Main Aim: Sarah and Hagar **Biblical Narrative:** God had promised Abraham that he and Sarah would have children, but Abraham had reached his mid-eighties and Sarah her mid-seventies with that promise unfulfilled. Sarah urged Abraham to take Hagar, her maidservant as a second wife, and "it may be that I shall be built up through her" (Genesis 16:2). In due course, Hagar did become pregnant, and she began to look down on her mistress, Sarah. This was more than Sarah could bear and she treated Hagar so harshly that she fled from Abraham's household. An angel came to Hagar and told her to return to Abraham and that her son to be born would be a powerful man. Rabbinical commentators, especially R. Moshe ben Nachman and R. David Kimchi (see Mikraot Gedolot, 1978) have argued that Sarah's behavior did not fit her usual noble character. Although she had acted generously in encouraging Abraham to take a second wife, she treated Hagar too harshly when things went wrong. About thirteen years later, God fulfilled his assurances to Abraham and Sarah by giving them a son of their own, Isaac, when Abraham was 100 years old and Sarah was ninety. Isaac was to be the successor to Abraham as the carrier of his special covenant with God. As Isaac grew, Ishmael, Hagar's son, became increasingly jealous, and he made fun of Isaac and played up his own claims as Abraham's successor. Sarah was very disturbed about Ishmael's behavior, and thought that she had to act to protect both the covenant and Isaac's special role in it. She demanded that Abraham send both Hagar and Ishmael away, for she realized that Hagar was encouraging Ishmael's jealous behavior. This time Sarah was right. The covenant was threatened, and God told Abraham to do as Sarah demanded. Abraham knew that Hagar was behind most of the trouble, and he accepted the need of sending her away. He hoped that Ishmael could still be salvaged. God, however, told Abraham that although Ishmael would go on to greatness, Abraham's special relationship with God and the special blessing he would bring to the world would come only through Isaac. Ishmael would have something of Abraham in him but more of Hagar. Isaac would be known as Abraham's son. Sarah and Abraham devoted their lives to the fulfillment of the high purposes that God had set for them and their descendants. Although they were kind people and although God loves kindness, sometimes they would have to be tough and carry out tough decisions to protect their unique mission. **Clinical Implications** Sometimes we find ourselves in quandaries, beset by conflicting messages. Our sense of loyalty to another person keeps us from fulfilling our own purposes. Making decisions to fulfill one's purpose must not be confused with selfishness. Rather it must be rooted within a broad framework that gives one's life purpose. Then one becomes open to fulfill priorities. A therapist must help a patient distinguish between selfish egocentrism and healthy self-definition. A selfish person disregards others because they seem unimportant. The healthy person follows his or her own path not in disregard of others, but to help others enjoy the fruits of his or her labor. ## Distinguishing Motivations: Michal, David, and Saul **Biblical Narrative:** Michal, the daughter of King Saul and the wife of King David, was a princess, bred strong and independent, with her own ideas as to how royalty should behave. King Saul was becoming frightened at the success and popularity of David, who was then his young lieutenant. Learning that Michal had fallen in love with David, Saul offered her to David in marriage on condition that David should slay 100 of his Philistine enemies. Saul hoped that either David would himself be killed in battle or that Michal would serve as a spy in David's household. However, Michal proved anything but docile. On one occasion, when Saul sent soldiers to seize David in his house, she helped David escape, delayed his pursuers for a long time on various pretexts, and later lied to Saul about the entire matter. Some years later David became king. The holy ark of the tabernacle had been captured by the Philistines but now, after various mishaps, it was being brought to Jerusalem. The event was celebrated with a magnificent procession and great rejoicing. David, clad in a priest's tunic, led the procession dancing joyously with all his might, filled with the love of God. Michal watched from the royal residence and despised what seemed to her David's lack of royal dignity (2 Samuel 6:16). David completed the ceremonies, blessed the people in God's name, distributed gifts among them, and sent them on their way. He then turned to his own home, but before he entered the door, Michal came out and assailed him with a torrent of sarcasm: "How honored today was the king of Israel, who uncovered himself before the maidservants of his servants, just as the low class people are seen" (6:20). The Midrash offers two different insights into what Michal was saying. In one view, she was saying to David that her father had ruled with royal dignity, always dressing and behaving every inch a king. How could David lower himself to dance in public in so undignified a manner? In this view, Michal, princess of a royal line, was embarrassed at David's behavior. (Did she perhaps feel some guilt for having supported David in his problems with her father years before?) The second view notes that Michal is once referred to in the Book of Samuel by the name Eglah, meaning young heifer. This indicates Michal's fierce need for independence. She had often disagreed with Saul and rebelled against restriction just as the young heifer struggles against the yoke. In this view, Michal may well have been disturbed by the several instances when her father had given in to the desires of his subjects rather than forcefully carrying out his own will. In these matters, Saul insisted too little on his royal dignity, and it had hurt his kingship beyond repair. Michal loved David very much, and now she saw him leaping and dancing like a common man, and it disgusted her precisely because it seemed to be the same mistake her father had made. The two instances when her father had entered into a prophetic trance and had gone naked in public may have been particularly gall-ing. If David had no sense of royal dignity, his rule likewise would crumble, so Michal battled her husband as she had battled her father. Saul had acted toward Michal out of motives that set his interest above hers. David's answer did not directly respond to Michal's attack, yet David's actions were certainly moved by a higher purpose. He said to Michal, > I rejoiced before the Lord, Who chose me over your father and all his house to be ruler over the people of God, over Israel. And I will humble myself indeed more than this, and I will be lowly in my own eyes, and with the maidservants of whom you speak I shall be honored. (6:21-22) David told Michal that he had been raised to the throne at God's command, not by popular election, and the purpose of his rule was to dedicate himself totally to serving God. He did not have to demonstrate his royal status to the masses. He intended instead to lead them in serving God. **Clinical Implications** This story illustrates quite well the difference between attachment and deindividuation. Saul behaved in a way that diminished him as a king and weakened his self-definition. However, David's behavior was different. He decided to show his love of God and his attachment to his people, not as a diminishment of his own being but as a fulfillment of his being. Michal's failure to distinguish these two motivations leads her to put Saul's face on David. She interprets his openness as a weakness, or in more technical terms, attachment as deindividuation. This is a very common misinterpretation in our society, which often equates kindness with weakness, and strength with indifference. A wise therapist can help a patient make this distinction. ## Two Views of Wisdom: Solomon and the Two Mothers **Biblical Narrative** World (Greek) literature from its beginnings displays a curious ambivalence toward wisdom and self-knowledge. On the one hand the oracle at Delphi issues the dictum "Know thyself" in the sense of knowing one's place; on the other hand, Narcissus is promised a long life providing "he does not come to know himself." This ambivalence may emerge from the impossible dilemmas, or Hobson's choices, facing many of the heroic figures. Wisdom is not really an ally when all of the several possible solutions are self-destructive. The myth of Oedipus provides a useful example of this problem. Oedipus may continue to seek the murderer of King Laius in order to save Thebes from divine punishment, but his learning that he himself is the murderer leads inexorably to the ruination of his own life and that of his family. No wonder his mother-wife Jocasta attempts to stop Oedipus' search. The Hebrew Bible has a very different view of wisdom. Hobson's choices are not the norm. Problems have solutions and should be dealt with. Bad situations should be made better. The best way to solve problems is with hope and wisdom. The story of King Solomon and the two women illustrates this point well. God appeared to the young Solomon in a dream, shortly after his accession to the throne of Israel, and asked him, "What shall I give you?" (1 Kings 3:5). Solomon's answer was significant. He was succeeding his father King David as ruler of a great nation but he was young and inexperienced. He realized he did not know "how to go out or come in" (3:7). Solomon tells God, give your servant "a heart that hears" so that he can lead the people and decide between what is good and what is bad (3:9). God approves of Solomon's request and grants to Solomon more wisdom than to any other man (3:12). He also gives him immense wealth and power (3:13). This is God's way of telling Solomon that human wisdom is wonderful, but that wealth and power too are gifts of God and not the products of human activity no matter how wise. Solomon's work will be to use his gifts to follow God's will (3:14). The first test of Solomon's wisdom comes soon in his encounter with two harlots, who lived in the same house. They had each given birth to a son within three days of each other. The first woman claimed that the child of the second had died during the night and that the second woman had switched babies, taking the living one for herself. The second woman replied, "No, for my son is the living and your son is the dead." The first woman said, "No, for yours is the dead and mine is the living" (3:16-22). There were no witnesses to the event nor other proofs, and to Solomon's courtiers the case must have seemed impossible to resolve. Solomon, in fact, by his mental acuity and spiritual openness had already figured out which child belonged to which mother. First, Solomon very carefully repeated the statements of the two women. The king said, "This one says, 'This is my son that liveth, and your son is the dead.' And the other says, 'No, but your son is the dead, and mine is the living" (3:23). Listening carefully to the words of the women, (with "a heart that hears"), Solomon had caught that one woman consistently mentioned the living child first and the other consistently mentioned the dead child first, where she should have answered, "No, mine is the living and yours is the dead." Solomon understood that each mother was unconsciously expressing her attachment to her own child through her ordering of her words. That is, the mother mentioning the living child first was the mother of the living child and the mother mentioning the dead child first was the mother of the dead child. However, Solomon grasped that an even greater problem of demonstrating this to everyone's satisfaction still remained so that later there could be no doubt as to the mother. Solomon called for a sword to cut the living child in half, counting on the women's reactions to reveal before everyone who the real mother was (3:24-25). The true mother, of course, could not bear to see the child killed and begged that instead he be allowed to live as the other woman's son. The false claimant advanced a very legitimate argument in favor of his death. "He won't be mine and he won't be yours" (3:26), i.e., this child will have a very unhappy life never knowing who his true mother is and always being uncertain of his identity. Since the women were prostitutes, it seems likely that the father was also not known. Nevertheless, the false claimant's response made clear that always mentioning "your dead child" before "my living child" was no coincidence, and that in her grief over her own loss, she wanted the real mother to suffer the loss of her child too. Solomon had now demonstrated that his deduction (in 3:23) was absolutely correct, and he handed the child to the true mother. Not only had Solomon's wisdom solved a seemingly insolvable problem, but it had sliced right through the potential Hobson's dilemma by demonstrating to all, and perhaps to himself as well, that his judgment had been correct. The judgment helped to establish Solomon's reputation for wisdom and perceptiveness. The fame of Solomon's wisdom and greatness spread far and wide. However, the Bible is always truthful about the failings of its heroes. After many years of great accomplishment, Solomon, perhaps over-confident in his ability to handle all challenges, did not prevent his wives from worshiping idols. His grip on the kingdom weakened, so that Rehoboam, his son and successor, could keep the loyalty of only two of the Israelite tribes, Judah and Benjamin. The other ten tribes seceded and formed a new nation under other rulers (1 Kings 11, 12). The breach was never healed and two separate Jewish kingdoms existed until they were conquered by the Assyrians and the Babylonians several centuries later. **Clinical Implications** This story illustrates how people often know unconsciously the answer to vexing problems, yet they must find some conscious way of demonstrating the truth of their inner instincts. The demonstration may be to oneself or to others. However, in either case, a public event may often demonstrate rather than determine the correctness of a decision. Implicit knowledge must be integrated with explicit demonstration to complete many difficult decisions. A therapist must teach a patient that it is often not enough merely to be right. A clear demonstration to others that the judgment is correct may be necessary. The act of working and the basis by which the person may know the truth can serve as a demonstration for others. ## Two Types of Giving: Cain and Abel **Biblical Narrative** A healthy human relationship requires being able to give as well as to take, and the need to give is essential to human nature. The story of Cain and Abel depicts one brother who found it natural and easy to give and a second who would give only grudgingly and whose own acquisitiveness would have destroyed him had God not intervened to help him. Adam and Eve gave birth to two sons, Cain and Abel. Eve gave Cain his name, saying, "I have acquired (caniti) a man from God" (Genesis 4:1). Eve emphasized her role as acquirer and owner of the child, and perhaps it was from this beginning that Cain became a farmer, devoted to acquiring and owning land, not only because he had bought it but because of the toil and sweat he had expended on it. God would seek, in the Ten Commandments, to modify the oppression of heavy work by commanding the Sabbath as a weekly day of both physical rest and spiritual rejuvenation. The name Abel means ephemeral. Perhaps by the time Abel had arrived the parents were more impressed by the transitoriness and impermanence of human life. In any case, Abel fulfilled his name by becoming a shepherd with no attachment to the land. His was a lifestyle given more to contemplation than to acquisition and sweaty labor, and he learned to care for and to be responsible for living creatures. The difference in the lifestyles of the brothers must have become more marked as time went on. Cain decided to bring an offering to God, “And after a period of time, Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering to God” (4:3). Abel too brought an offering-the best of the firstborn of his sheep. God accepted Abel's offering and rejected Cain's. Sometimes two people do the same task, and yet the two acts differ profoundly in spirit and intent. Abel brought from the best of his flock, showing that he placed his relationship with God above his need for possession. Cain, however, while realizing that it was appropriate to offer God some show of thanks, could not bring himself to part with his best. His need to acquire and possess was primary. Interestingly, the brothers did not bring their offerings together. Perhaps Cain wanted to exclude Abel, feeling threatened by him or wanting God all to himself. Even Cain's giving was a form of acquiring and withholding from others. Cain's worldview had no room for anyone else whether divine or human. The land that he owned and tilled and the crops that he harvested were his. He owed God a general thank you, but God was distant and did not concern himself with the mundane details of daily life. What Cain had produced by his own hard work was his own. Abel's view of the world was very different. The earth belonged to God, not to Abel, and his offering acknowledged that fact. Abel saw his role as doing something for God's world, and the sacrifice would symbolize that he had done his work well. Cain could not accept Abel or his view of the world, and he rejected God's initial efforts to help him. Like many rulers of later history, he could deal with opposition only by dominating or eliminating it. So Cain murdered his brother only to find out that ideas are much more difficult to kill than people, "And the voice of Abel's blood cries out from the ground" (4:10). Cain did not see himself as beholden to or responsible to anyone beside himself-“Am I my brother's keeper?" he asks (4:9). **Clinical Implications** People who cannot give can never be as creative or productive as God had meant them to be, nor can they ever find deep satisfaction within themselves. God did not give up on Cain even after he murdered Abel. However, God knew that great changes were necessary in Cain's life. God removed Cain from the soil, to which he had bound himself, so that now he could begin to deal with reality. Only in this way could he build a new and better life. He founded a city and produced descendants who were very creative, inventing new tools and musical instruments. Some even took up Abel's profession of breeding cattle. People must not give gifts unless they have put their personal stamps on them. Cain erred in giving God what he thought was his own. This reflected his sense of entitlement. Abel thought that what he gave God was God's and that Abel was the steward of it. This led to Abel approaching God with a sense of modesty. Cain's view can lead only to conformity and destruction. Abel's will lead to transformation and creativity. # Chapter 4: Commandments, Oaths, Parables, and Temptations ## Introduction Individuals may sometimes feel burdened with an unfathomable commandment they have received from a parental figure. They may not understand the commandment, yet not feel free to ignore it. Alternatively, people may take oaths in an attempt to gain some outcome: "If this happens, then I will do this.” Often, no one asked the individuals to make the oaths. They elicited them on their own. At other times, individuals may be engaged in destructive behavior and become quite defensive when confronted. Sometimes a parable may be raised to introduce that content without incurring resistance. Finally, individuals may be faced with the temptation of a magical solution to a vexing problem: "If you enact this ceremony, you will achieve your desired outcome magically." Freudian man can seek mental health without God. In the view of the Torah, however, a world without God is unimaginable and pointless. God created the world and watches it always. He is not remote from man. In one biblical story after another, God intervened to help people even after they had sinned-Adam, Cain, Abraham, and so on. Freud defined a person's psychological balance by the capacity to love and to work. To this, Jewish thought adds the need to function in the area of the spiritual and the striving toward God. A highly important element of this striving is the concept of trust or faith. Both Hebrew Bible and rabbinic literature contain much on this topic. One of the most venerated discussions of trust in God is the fourth chapter of Bahya Ibn Paquda's (1963) classic Duties of the Heart (eleventh century). R. Bahya argues that only by means of trust in God can man rise above the worries of this world and achieve inner tranquility and diminishing of anxiety. One can rely in complete trust only on God, not on one's own wisdom, not on other people, and not on wealth or power. R. Bahya (p. 292f) defines trust as "the peace of mind of the one who trusts and his heart is sure that the one he trusts will do good out of complete kindness and compassion." The one who trusts God differs from the one who does not trust in seven respects. 1. One who trusts God accepts God's judgment in all matters and thanks him for what seems good and also for what seems evil. One who does not trust God boasts of his good fortune and is exasperated at his bad fortune, and he is more subject to the vacillations of life. 2. One who trusts God knows that God will always do only what is good, and his own mind can therefore be at rest. The other is always troubled and anxious even when he is prosperous, because he constantly drives himself to increase his possessions. He handles adversity poorly because it is so much against his desires and his nature. 3. The man who trusts relies on God and not on his own work. It is man's duty to work, but any success or accomplishment comes only from God. One who does not trust God occupies himself with means that he does trust (though wrongly) and grows angry and despondent if his means do not succeed. 4. One who loves God gives freely of the goodness of his heart. One who does not trust God regards the world as insufficient for his needs. He is more careful in earning and saving money than in fulfilling his duties to God and man. 5. One who trusts God occupies himself with his daily affairs as part of his spiritual life and his preparation for the world to come. One who does not trust God puts his trust in his own livelihood and may not refrain from using even dubious means to attain it. 6. One who trusts God will earn the trust of all sorts of people because they are sure he means them no harm and that he demands no benefits from them. One who does not trust God can have no true friend because he always covets what his neighbor has. He blames others when his desires are not fulfilled or when evils come on him, and he grows to hate other people. 7. One who trusts in God neither rejoices nor grieves about the future. He is concerned only with fulfilling his duties to God. He accepts the Mishnah's precept, "Repent one day before your death," and tries to improve himself steadily through his life. One who does not trust God worries about the future. He stores wealth as if it could give him security. He feels that his life will never end, yet he puts off his spiritual obligations and needs, thinking that it is more important to assure security for himself and his family by storing up wealth just in case death should strike him unexpectedly. The basis of trust, in R. Bahya's view, centers on the idea that man must work because God commands it. All results and outcomes are totally in God's hands, and man must trust Him. Wise people realize that they hold worldly goods only on deposit from God, and that they must return them on demand. All things from God are a benefit so that if people even have losses or pains, they must thank God for them. Although people are unable to see the good in what God has done, it was certainly good. People of trust know that God will always do good for them-indeed better than they could do for themselves. They rejoice in whatever are their situations in life. Trust enables people to avoid being overwhelmed by day-to-day troubles and becoming depressed or embittered. Trust in God offers them a different perspective. They understand that events can happen only as God wants them to and that God's wisdom is always greater than man's. This section illustrates these themes with five biblical stories. The first, Abraham and Isaac, deals with Abraham's reaction to an unfathomable commandment-to kill his beloved son Isaac. The second deals with an Israelite general, Jephthah, and the oath he has foolishly made to sacrifice his daughter. The third story in this section focuses on the parable David receives from Nathan regarding David's behavior. The fourth story concerns the first biblical couple, Adam and Eve, who in their quest for a quick solution to their problems, succumb to the temptation of an illusory freedom and violate God's commandment. The fifth, Joseph and Potiphar, addresses temptations that involve disloyalty to another. ## Dealing with Commandments: Abraham and Isaac **Biblical Narrative** One of the fundamental concepts of the Hebrew Bible is that God loves mankind and commands certain laws to guide them. No other philosophy or belief, whether liberal or conservative, laissez-faire or restrictive, can ever take precedence over God's command. What God asks man to do is always in man's own best interest, however unlikely this may seem to man's limited wisdom. To understand this, and more so to fulfill it, is difficult but deeply important for man. In the Hebrew Bible, the story of the binding (akedah) of Isaac stands as a major peak experience. The akedah imprinted indelibly the concept of total trust in God's will and benevolence on the historical and emotional consciousness of the Hebrew people. Abraham met a series of challenges beginning with leaving his home in Haran and traveling at God's behest to a new land that God would show him. These challenges culminated with the akedah. God commanded Abraham to take his son Isaac and to offer him as a sacrifice (Genesis 22:2). Abraham and Sarah had lived through the disappointment of many years of childlessness until God blessed them miraculously with Isaac when Abraham was 100 years old and Sarah was ninety. This son was to be the bearer and continuation of the special relationship between God and Abraham. Now Isaac was to be sacrificed. Abraham was a deeply kind and compassionate man who had devoted his life to helping others. Born into a family and society of polytheists, Abraham had searched for God and a more meaningful life, and he had been entrusted by God with a special mission and a special blessing to benefit all the inhabitants of the earth (Genesis 12:1-2). The command to sacrifice Isaac went counter to all that Abraham believed and all he had striven for through the years. Yet, God planned the akedah to be the peak experience for Abraham. It would remove his lingering hesitations and fears regarding his own ability to carry out his work in this world. Pagans of Abraham's day regularly proved the fullness of their loyalty to their gods by sacrificing their sons. Was their religious fervor, even if misplaced, superior to Abraham's? In the akedah, God would teach Abraham two important lessons. First, people must accept that God's will is superior to their own. Second, they would learn that giving one's all to God need not be disgusting or sadomasochistic as is so much of idol worship. Man's relationship with God does not consist of placating a capricious and hostile deity but in obeying God's command in trust and love whether in great events or "at the level of every day's most quiet need" (Elizabeth Barrett Browning). In Abraham's mind there must have long lurked the frightening question as to whether he could bear such a terrible stress. Now he would experience a test that would show him that his loyalty to God would indeed meet any danger, and that his world mission would be successful. Abraham accepted, although with some pain, that God must have a good reason for commanding the sacrifice of Isaac. He had argued with God over his intention to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gommorah because of their wickedness. However, he did not protest the order to sacrifice his own son. Abraham brought Isaac to the site on Mount Moriah, prepared the altar and the firewood, and raised his knife to slaughter his son. At that point, a heavenly voice called to him, "Lay not your hand on the lad and do nothing to him, for now I know that you are a God-fearing man and you have not withheld your only son from Me" (22:12). Abraham learned from this experience that he could do whatever he needed to do to fulfill his mission and that he had an important purpose in life. God had also made clear to all the world that he did not demand human sacrifice. God did want man to obey his commandments and know that this would always be the best course for man to follow. **Clinical Implications:** This story illustrates vividly the ways in which life tests us. Often we may know something intellectually but still have to play it out experientially. This hands-on experiencing, often involving actions that seem unfathomable at the time, allows a kind of wisdom that cannot be transmitted through the mind alone. We must allow ourselves to enter situations that we do not fully comprehend in advance and must trust that there is a higher meaning to what we do. Many people are blocked from growing because they lack the faith to enter into an undefined situation and lack also the confidence that they will emerge in strength after taking on the temporary position of an apprentice. ## Dealing with Oaths: Jephthah and His Daughter **Biblical Narrative:** Jewish thought does not encourage the making of vows. Often one makes a vow that is unrealistic or punishing to one's self or to others. It expresses a momentary intensity of emotion that may be rooted in flighty motivation and foolish goals. Vows of abstinence too are sinful, for a person must enjoy God's world. Jephthah was a leader who made an impetuous and ill-considered vow and brought tragedy on himself and others. As so often happened in the period of the Judges, the Israelites fell under the dominion of a foreign power, in this case the Ammonites. In desperation, the Israelites called upon Jephthah, the head of an outlaw band, to lead them in battle against their oppressors. Jephthah accepted the call and began to organize an army and to negotiate with Ammon. When efforts at peace failed, Jephthah marched off to war. Before leaving, he > vowed a vow to God and he said, "If you will give the sons of Ammon into