When God Wanted to Destroy the Chosen People

Biblical Traditions and Theology on the Move

Gili Kugler

• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9783110609509
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Criticism & Interpretation

According to narratives in the Bible the threats of the people's end come from various sources, but the most significant threat comes, as learned from the Pentateuch, from God himself. What is the theological meaning of this tradition? In what circumstances did it evolve? How did it stand alongside other theological and socio-political concepts known to the ancient authors and their diverse audience?
The book employs a diachronic method that explores the stages of the tradition's formation and development, revealing the authors' exegetical purposes and ploys, and tracing the historical realities of their time.
The book proposes that the motif of the threat of destruction existed in various forms prior to the creation of the stories recorded in the final text of the Pentateuch. The inclusion of the motif within specific literary contexts attenuated the concept of destruction by presenting it as a phenomenon of specific moments in the past. Nevertheless, the threat was resurrected repeatedly by various authors, for use as a precedent or a justification for present affliction.

1 Introduction

1.1 To annihilate a chosen nation

The fear of extermination has accompanied the Jewish nation from its beginning. The statement in the medieval Passover Haggadah that “in each and every generation they rise up against us to destroy us” has been resonating in the Jewish consciousness for centuries.1 This book focuses on the earliest recorded expressions of the collective fear of national destruction, embedded in the theology of the Hebrew Bible.

Biblical stories, prophecies and historiography record crises that have threatened the existence of the people of Israel since their beginning. Whether these distresses come from political or natural circumstances, they are manifestly considered as expressions of God’s will or of the legal and retributional relationship with him. This theodicial perception reflects the ancients’ search for coherence and logic in life while rejecting arbitrary explanations for difficulties and sufferings. Together with that, this view reveals the belief in divine providence in the world, especially among those who are considered God’s followers.

A radical expression of the retributional paradigm is found in the stories about God’s plan to bring an end to the existence of Israel. The scenario of annihilating a whole nation is not impossible in the eyes of the biblical narrators, who ascribe to God a reputation as a destroyer of nations and communities. The book of Genesis describes God’s extermination of humankind almost in its entirety only a few generations after creating them (Genesis 6–8), and the total destruction of the sinful inhabitants of two cities soon after the rehabilitation of humanity (Genesis 19). The book of Joshua describes God’s assistance in defeating and destroying the former nations of Canaan (Joshua 6–11), and the book of Samuel presents the slaughter of the entire people of Amalek in compliance with divine instruction (1 Samuel 15). The people of Israel manage to avoid this destiny but not to escape its threat. In the first period of their life as a nation, after surviving Pharaoh’s attempts to destroy them, yet prior to the beginning of their own campaign to destroy other nations, the Israelites find themselves in danger of annihilation by their own God.

The image of God as a threat to the people stands in dialectic relationship with the belief of the people as God’s protégé, manifested throughout all traditions in the Pentateuch (Torah). The Priestly text in the Pentateuch presents God’s connection with the people as a statement by God promising an “…everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you” (Gen 17:7). Non-Priestly material in the Pentateuch defines the people as God’s “treasured possession out of all the peoples” and “a priestly kingdom and a holy nation” (Exod 19:5–6). The Deuteronomic source identifies God’s choice of the people with his strong affection for them:

6 For you are a people holy to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on earth to be his people, his treasured possession. 7 It was not because you were more numerous than any other people that the LORD set his heart on you and chose you – for you were the fewest of all peoples. 8 It was because the LORD loved you and kept the oath that he swore to your ancestors, that the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt (Deut 7:6–8)

The belief in the status of Israel as chosen accompanies not only traditions in the Pentateuch but also stands as fundamental to the words of the prophets. Hosea likens the relationship between God and Israel to the union of man and his wife: “And I will take you for my wife forever; I will take you for my wife in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love, and in mercy. I will take you for my wife in faithfulness; and you shall know the LORD” (Hos 2:19–20). Jeremiah equates the closeness of God with Israel to the relationship of father and son: “Is Ephraim my dear son? Is he the child I delight in? As often as I speak against him, I still remember him. Therefore I am deeply moved for him; I will surely have mercy on him, says the LORD” (Jer 31:20). Amos speaks about God’s strict supervision of the people due to the special privileges he granted to them, as a teacher who puts the burden of proof on his preferred disciple: “You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities” (Amos 3:2).

The idea of the chosen status of Israel which occurs constantly in the biblical traditions is bound to form part in any discussion about the fate of Israel. Alongside the idea of the people’s selection by God and their being protected by him, the people do not appear to be immune to danger that derives from the same power, their divine overseer. This is an expression of a central tenet in the monotheistic belief: the power that provides the foundations of life is at the same time the source of its annihilation (cf. Isa 45:7). Thus the source of the strength of Israel is at the same time the means of their extinction.

This view about the complex situation of Israel is demonstrated in God’s rebuke delivered by Ezekiel against the elders of Israel in Ezekiel 20. The rebuke begins with a reference to the moment when God had chosen the people and swore “to the offspring of the house of Jacob” to be “the Lord your God” (Ezek 20:5). It ends with a recollection of God’s consistent desire to pour out his wrath upon the people to make an end of them (vv. 8, 13. 21). Similarly, Psalm 106 describes the people as God’s “chosen” (Ps 106:5), who were saved on occasion thanks to that status (vv. 8, 10), but also as people who were at risk of being destroyed by their God (v. 23). Similarly, Deuteronomy 9 points to God’s oath and commitment to the patriarchs (Deut 9:5), followed by a determination to kill the people and replace them (v. 14), a decision only nullified thanks to Moses’ appeal on that occasion (vv. 18–19, 25–29. Cf. 2Kgs 13:23).

These passages reveal the authors’ questions about the boundaries of their national existence, as well as about the nature of their relationship with God. Thus, the texts reflect thoughts about the people’s accountability for their own choices, and their capability to affect their destiny. By portraying the danger in association with their own deeds the writers point out the autoimmune danger of the people and their responsibility for their fate, rather than blaming random external factors. In a paraphrase of the words of Amos cited above (Amos 3:2), being chosen does not reduce God’s expectations of the people. In fact, it makes his supervision of them more stringent, and requires them to prove their eligibility for such a favored status.

The engagement with questions of existence and annihilation was part of an ongoing exploration of self-definition and self-determination among ancient Israelites over a long period of time and in changing circumstances. The theme of God’s threats of destruction has not yet been discussed comprehensively in research, whether through the stories in the Pentateuch, or in regard to biblical rewritings that reflect on these narratives. An engagement with this motif, it is hoped, may provide a fresh glimpse into the intellectual and theological world of the biblical scribes.

1.2 Danger in the desert: The scope of the stories

In the liminal space of the desert, where political and international matters play a less significant role, the people’s encounter with their new and mighty God is on the agenda. This encounter seems to be part of an initiation of the people before moving to and settling in a habitable land and appointing a human as sovereign. According to the stories in the Pentateuch the initiation in the desert includes moments of distress and difficulty that could consolidate the national identity, but at the same time could lead to irreversible situations that threaten the very existence of the people.

The stories in the Pentateuch relate the rescue of the nation from God’s destruction to two figures, Moses and Phinehas, who address God on behalf of the people. However, while the latter manages to subdue the wrath of God only after a considerable number of the people have already been stricken, Moses deals with the threats of destruction from the moment they are initiated. He comes to the rescue before any action is taken by God, immediately when it comes to his, Moses’, attention.

The broader narrative of the Pentateuch, indeed, presents Moses as constantly compelled to defend the people or groups of them in facing God’s wrath. In the words of the biblical scholar Yochanan Muffs: “The whole life of Moses was one long prayer to save the people of Israel from the strike of the Lord”.2 Similarly, Midrash Tanhuma reviews the time in the desert as a sequence of Moses’ engagements for the sake of the people:

“How many times do I [Moses] bother the king?” – Here, too, Moses has done much for Israel. They sinned with the Calf, and “Moses implored the LORD” (ויחל משה, Exod 32:11); with the “complainers” (מתאוננים), “and Moses prayed” (ויתפלל משה, Num 11:2); with the “spies” – “Moses said to the LORD, ‘Then the Egyptians will hear…’” (Num 14:13). In the controversy involving Korah his hands were slack (he weakened), and he said: “[H]ow much can I trouble God?” Therefore (Num 16:4): “When Moses heard it, he fell on his face (Tanhuma, Korah 4)3

Among the events listed above two narratives relate the people stood in danger of actual annihilation by God. The first is the Golden Calf episode. God’s determination to destroy the people is referred to Moses as both a suggestion and a decision: “Now let me alone, so that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them; and of you I will make a great nation” (Exod 32:10). The second episode relates to the journey of the spies, when God informs Moses: “I will strike them with pestilence and disinherit them, and I will make of you a nation greater and mightier than they” (Num 14:12). The people’s behavior in the two incidents supposedly ignites the wrath of God so much that it leads to his decision to annihilate the people and start a new era with Moses.

While the epic of the wilderness mentions other expressions of God’s threat of destruction, the basic character of the other incidents differs from that of the Golden Calf and the spy stories. Thus, in the story of Korah (and Datan and Abiram) we hear of God’s intention to consume the congregation: “Then the LORD spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying: Separate yourselves from this congregation, so that I may consume them in a moment” (Num 16:20–21). But, as opposed to the common use of the word “congregation” (עדה) in the Priestly literature in the sense of the broader community (cf. Exod 38:25; Lev 8:3–5, 9:5, 10:6, 17; Num 1:16, 18, 14:1, 27), the word in the context of the Korah narrative refers to Korah’s specific companions who demand the shattering of Moses and Aaron’s hegemony (Num 16:5, 6, 11, 16, 19a).4 Thus, the plan for destruction in the story cannot be regarded as a threat against the Israelites as a whole.

Another occurrence that raises the possibility of destruction by God appears in the Phinehas story mentioned above, which recounts the result of the people’s interaction with Midianite or Moabite women. In this context, however, the danger is learned only in retrospect, from God’s approval of Phinehas’ deed: “Phinehas son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the Israelites by manifesting such zeal among them on my behalf that in my jealousy I did not consume the Israelites” (Num 25:11). Thus, rather than an intention to indicate a threat of destruction against the people, the story essentially aims at presenting the power of the priest’s symbolic-cultic action, suggesting that these actions have the power to appease God’s jealousy, as with the role of the Levites and the priests in restraining God’s wrath (Lev 10:6; Num 1:53, 17:11–14, 18:5).

In the Golden Calf and the spy stories, in contrast, Moses manages to prevent the verdict from the beginning, and in his arguments he deals directly with the essential willingness of God to eradicate the people. Indeed, the background of the two occasions is different; one story blames the people for deviation from the proper form of worship, and the other accuses them of doubting God’s ability to conquer the land. Both stories, however, record a similar response from God, with the wish to eradicate the people, addressed to Moses: “Now let me alone, so that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them…” (Exod 32:10); “I will strike them with pestilence and disinherit them…” (Num 14:12). Within this similarity, several elements are common and unique to these accounts, thus requiring specific examination of the two stories:

1. God expresses an explicit purpose to annihilate the people (Exod 32:9–10; Num 14:11–12).
2. God intends to replace the people with a new nation stemming from Moses (Exod 32:10; Num 14:12).
3. Moses ignores the offer addressed to him and presents a series of arguments to prevent God from realizing his plans (Exod 32:11–13; Num 14:13–19).
4. God is reconciled, and the destruction is prevented (Exod 32:14; Num 14:20).

Moses’ role in the stories is crucial. His intercession eliminates the threat against the people and enables the continuation of their existence. By protecting the people from being killed he “stands in the breach” and embodies what the prophet Ezekiel would define as the virtue needed for the sake of the people, but never found: “And I sought for anyone among them who would repair the wall and stand in the breach before me on behalf of the land, so that I would not destroy it; but I found no one” (Ezek 22:30). Having this virtue, according to Ezekiel, is a sign of a true prophet, who differs from “the senseless prophets who follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing” (13:3). While these latter prophets promise peace (v. 10), they apparently have never managed to “go up into the breaches, or repair a wall for the house of Israel, so that it might stand in battle on the day of the LORD” (v. 5). Unlike these “senseless prophets”, Moses is depicted as the prophet who protected the people from the divine wrath in the course of actual events.

Nevertheless, God’s withdrawal of the punishment comes with different consequences in each story. The Calf story ends with a renewal of the covenant (Exod 34:1, 4, 28), whereas the spy story ends with the spies’ death and a promise of an eventual death for the elders of the people in the desert (Num 14:22–23, 29, 32, 37). This disparity is part of a list of differences between the stories that can be a gateway to reveal their literary and historical-literary relationship. These relationships are further reflected and resonant in biblical historiography, and in prophecies and poetic texts that keep reviving and interpreting the myth of the nation.

1.3 Methodology

The similarity between the Golden Calf story and the story of the spies led rabbinic sages, as well as modern commentators, to read the two stories within a continuum.5 The main evidence of the continuity of the two events was Moses’ reference in the spy story to a former revelation of God’s attributes (Num 14:17). In...