Sam Reinstein Israels Election: How and Why

Professor Koller-Amos/Hosea

In Hosea 14:1-2, the nation of Samaria and the people of Israel are treated in drastically different manners. Samaria seems to be doomed to destruction for its sins in a very calamitous fashion. In contrast, in the next verse, Israel is treated to a call for compassion by G-d when He says Return, O Israel, unto the LORD thy God; for thou hast stumbled in thine iniquity. At first glance, this seems unfair. Why does Israel get so many chances, while Samaria shall bear her guilt? Of course, many times in the Bible G-d labels Israel as his chosen people. This is best seen in Deuteronomy 14:2, which says: God has chosen you to be his treasured people from all the nations on the face of the earth." Many questions arise when dealing with G-d's choosing of Israel. Why did G-d choose Israel? Why did G-d choose anyone at all? What does being the chosen people require of Israel? How are the other nations of the world supposed to react to not being chosen? How can we deal with what seems to be G-ds command of genocide of other nations? By examining the history of people that are chosen throughout the Pentateuch, how chosenness is seen in prophetic texts, and how the Rabbis have viewed these texts, I will try to unravel answers to these questions1.

Throughout the Bible, when Rashi and many other Rishonim are unsure of the definition of a word, they examine what the word means the first time it is seen, and they use this definition elsewhere, unless otherwise directed. Using a similar method, we can delve into the first time G-d chooses someone in Tanach. This is seen in the story of Cain and Abel. After each brother gives his sacrifice to G-d, Abel is chosen as it says in Genesis 4:4-5: And the LORD turned to Abel and his offering, but to Cain and his offering He did not turn. A literal reading of the text seems to be ambiguous as to why G-d chose Abel over Cain. The Rabbis have explained that since Abel gave the
1 I will be basing many of my arguments on Dr. Kaminsky's work Yet I Loved Jacob.

Sam Reinstein

Professor Koller-Amos/Hosea

firstling of his flock, while Cain just gave fruit of the ground, Abel was chosen (ibn Ezra, Radak) . However, Jon Levinson explains that this is not to be a valid argument. Looking at the text, Cain gave his offering unto the LORD, while Abel just gave his offering2. This new reading brings a fascinating question. Perhaps Abel was chosen not because of his good deeds, but rather because G-d arbitrarily decided to choose him. A father-son relationship is a good metaphor for what seems to be going on in the Abel story. A father loves his son unconditionally from his inception, and not based on his good deeds, and G-d selected Abel for such unconditional love. There are other instances where a similar situation occurs. Between Isaacs sons, it is not clear who the chosen one will be until he gives Jacob the blessing (Genesis 28:1); however, until that point, the Bible gives little to no explanation as to who the chosen one will be. It is true that in Genesis 25:23, Rebecca is told that Jacob will be chosen, even before the twins are born. Again, this begs the question, was Jacob chosen because of his good deeds or was it just G-d's capricious choosing?

Dr. Kaminsky points out three patterns in the Bible that give light to the point. The first relates to what the chosen people become after they have been chosen. Throughout Genesis, every chosen person hears G-ds calling and goes on to be great. Perhaps then, G-d's choice opens up the possibility in which the chosen person can fulfill his destiny, which thereby reinforces the Divine choice. For example, Abraham passes all his tests, but it seems as if he was chosen long before said tests were passed. Therefore, Israel was chosen because we had the capacity to follow G-d's word.

Secondly, G-d seems to have an underdog complex. Younger siblings are always chosen over older ones, in a time where primogeniture ruled. Israel is the smallest of the nations and would be comparable to a younger sibling, and it follows this pattern of choosing. The third pattern is the near
2 H.H Rowly, the Biblical Doctrine of Election, London 1950, 15

Sam Reinstein

Professor Koller-Amos/Hosea

death of the chosen. Isaac is almost killed by Abraham, Jacob faces death by Esau and Moses is almost killed by Pharaoh and at the inn. Likewise, Israel is nearly annihilated after the sin of the golden calf and has been persecuted many times throughout history. Dr. Kaminsky explains that G-d chooses people who fit these three criteria because it proves to the world that this person has become great because he was chosen by G-d, and not because of his personal might or his stature. While the text seems to be ambiguous about how someone is chosen, Rabbinical and Christian sources have taken different approaches to this idea, but I will get to that later in the paper.

Throughout Genesis, there is a progression of the nature of G-d's relationship with mankind. He first chooses Abel over Cain, but as I explained previously, that did not end well. After this, G-d evaluates all of humankind. When the people become immoral with no role models, He destroys them with a flood, and then disperses them at the Tower of Babel. With Noah and then Abraham, G-d moves from a plan in which he demands universal obedience from all humans to a two-tiered plan in which most people are held to a minimal religio-moral standard, and one man's extended family is given a special place in the divine economy requiring that its members maintain a higher religio-moral standard3. In Genesis 12:2-3, G-d explains the reason He chooses Abraham: I will bless those who bless you...and in you all the nations of the world shall be blessed. Clearly, Abraham is given the role of a conduit by which G-d gives His blessing to all mankind. G-d consults Abraham about

destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, which strongly implies that at least one part in Abraham's descendants' duty is to call G-d to account if he is acting unjustly4. However, Kaminsky explains that Abrahams or any other forefathers being is chosen always is tied to G-d expressing his deep love of Israel. I will return to this topic later in the paper.

3 Will Herberg, The Choseness' of Israel and the Jew of Today, Harper and Row, 1970, 280 4 Joel Kaminsky, Yet I loved Jacob, Abingdon Press, 2007, 83

Sam Reinstein

Professor Koller-Amos/Hosea

Additionally, sometimes one party needs to be chosen in order to further the destiny of an entire group. This is best seen in the story of Joseph and his brothers. Joseph is chosen by his father, which leads to jealousy from his older siblings. As a result, they sell him to slavery in Egypt, and only there does his purpose play out. By becoming Viceroy of Egypt, Joseph is able to feed his family during an awful famine, and instigate the nations history in Egypt. In order to fulfill their destiny, G-d had to choose Joseph so that the other brothers could be part of G-d's chosen nation. Similarly, G-d chose Israel as part of a plan with the non-elect, as I will get to later in the paper.

Many contemporary thinkers have completely rejected election theology in the Bible because as a way of consolidating one's religious identity, the wholesale slaughter of people is exactly what it (election) seems to be5. However, his argument that election must lead to genocide, which a just and good G-d could never condone, is flawed. The thinking that the election doctrine automatically leads to destruction of the other nations is not entirely true in Judaism. But Regina Schwartz writes that the other against whom Israel's identity is forged is abhorred, abject, impure, and in the 'Old Testament' vast numbers of them are obliterated.6 Schwartz is clearly referring to two specific groups, the seven nations of Canaan and the Amalekites, who are referred to as the anti-elect. As I will get to later, the Bible is much more tolerant of all other nations who are very much a part of the divine economy 7. The question remains how could G-d not only allow but prescribe destruction of these nations?

Kaminsky does a great job of showing the texts in a better light than James Cott or Schwartz reads them. Many times, G-d says that Israel needs to destroy the neighboring nations. However, this is not really what was fully intended, as many Canaanites do indeed survive. Not only does Rachab's
5 James Cott quoted by Rowly, The Biblical Doctrine of Election, 15 6 Regina Schwartz, The Curse of Cain:The Violent Legacy of Monotheism, University of Chicago Press,1997, 18-19 7 These other people are called the non-elect.

Sam Reinstein

Professor Koller-Amos/Hosea

entire family survive but so do many of the Canaanites in Mount Ephraim and in Menashe's land, along with the Philistines and much of the Geirushi. Also, there are many instances in Genesis where members of what would become Israel live peacefully with these people. For example, Abraham and Isaac each engage in a peace treaty with the Philistines, and Jacob chastises Simon and Levi for killing the inhabitants of Shechem. Thus, within the Bible, there is a paradigm of anti-elect groups living peacefully with Israel. Most likely, the commandment of destroying the nations that lived in their land was practical necessity for Israel to perform its mission and keep its identity. A small nation living within larger nations would surly assimilate into them. By doing so, the Israelites would abandon their religion for the polytheistic practices that would have surrounded them. For this reason, G-d commanded not only to get rid of the people, but also to destroy all of the idolatry that existed in the Canaan. Also, in order to conquer the land, war would have definitely been necessary. Every scholar that I saw on this topic, including Kaminsky, George Mendelhall, and Norman Gottwald, answer this question assuming that these events are not historical. But This makes the problem less severe, and more easily explained. A more troubling issue comes up in the verses about the Amalekites. Since the war between the Jews and the Amalekites is a war that the Bible describes as lasting throughout time (Exodus 17:16), it has many racial overtones. Furthermore, the unconditional requirement to kill every single person from Amalek no matter where they live or who they are has the appearance of racial genocide. This is different from G-ds view of the Canaanites because if any of the Canaanites wanted to flee Canaan, they had that choice. Therefore, their destruction was mandated because of the land that they were living in, rather anything intrinsic to the people themselves.

Kaminsky looks at Amalek in a fascinating light. The Passover Haggada says: in every generation, they stand up to destroy us, and the Holy One, blessed be He, saves us from their hand. Amalek is not just a nation but is more fundamentally an idea. Amalek is a way to make theological 5

Sam Reinstein

Professor Koller-Amos/Hosea

sense of why there is recurring evil in the world. This belief that there is one group of people that have an intractable, irrational hatred for Jews has given common understanding to the Jewish people for centuries. Judaism understands that there is evil in the world, but G-d is there to protect his chosen nation from the anti-elect nation of Amalek. In this light, it is not Israel's job to destroy a race. Rather, the job is to destroy evil in the world 8. As I have shown, the anti-elect in the Bible is not necessarily racial genocide and can be read in a more moderated fashion. Furthermore, the Bible by no means implies damnation for all other peoples by choosing one nation. The largest part of humanity is neither part of the chosen nation nor part of the anti-elect, but they are the non-elect.

Two different verses in Amos give us two very different ways of looking at the non-elect. In Amos 3:1-2, G-d tells Israel: O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up out of the land of Egypt, saying: You only have I known [ ]of all the families of the earth; therefore I will visit upon you all your iniquities. These verses display G-d's relationship with Israel as the only personal connection that He has with mankind. In fact, the word ,to know comes from the Near Eastern treaty language, showing only Israel knows G-d and has a treaty with him 9. However, at the same time, Amos in 9:7 reveals a very different type of relationship. Are ye not as the children of the Ethiopians unto Me, O children of Israel? saith the LORD. Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt, and the Philistines from Caphtor, and Aram from Kir?, which shows a comparable relationship with other nations. Therefore, Jon Collins makes the following observation: Amos' G-d is the G-d of all peoples and is responsible for everything that happens in history. 10 Amos most likely is chastising Israel in a specific way. Israel has abused its elect status and has not lived up to its potential. Therefore, it is acting like the other nations by not living up to the higher religio-moral standard that it
8 Sagi, The Punishment of Amalek in Jewish Tradition, 331-336 9 Herbert B. Huffman, The Treaty Background of Hebrew Yad, BASOR, 19966, 36-38 10 John Collins, The Exodus and Biblical Theology, 257-258

Sam Reinstein

Professor Koller-Amos/Hosea

is supposed to. In this way, Amos explains that while the Jews are G-d's chosen people, G-d is still looking after the non-elect, and only chose the elect to serve a purpose in the world that will eventually benefit both the elect and the non-elect alike.

The use of the theme of the non-elect is also seen in the story of Cain and Abel. Although Abel is chosen, Cain is certainly not portrayed as the anti-elect. Even after he kills his G-d's chosen, he is punished but is also protected from harm by G-d. This early story gives us insight into one of the roles of the non-elect. Jealous of his brother's success, Cain decides to kill Abel in hope of replacing him as G-d's chosen. Genesis 4 shows that those that are not divinely favored must learn to accept G-d's way of bringing blessing into the world even if they don't understand it11. In this way, by choosing the elect, G-d is also testing the non-elect. Cain fails this test and is punished, not because of his inferior offering, but because he failed to acknowledge his non-elect status. This is concretized by Cain being the main character in the story, rather than the elect Abel. This same theme runs through many other stories of Genesis. Esau is not happy with Jacob's elect status and tries to kill him, and Joseph's brothers do the same. It is only after the non-elect accept G-d's choice do they reap the rewards. Although Ishmael is non-elect, he is still promised progeny and never fights with Isaac over Isaac's elect status. After Joseph's brothers see that Joseph is meant to rule over them in Egypt, they too prosper. G-d also promises Abraham I will bless those who bless you, and all who curse you will be cursed.12 In this way the non-elect must accept Abraham as the elect and by doing so will be given G-d's grace. This reconciliation with the non-elect is also a very important mission for the elect. Jacob must make peace with Esau for the sake of both nations, as David strives to reconcile with Saul. Isaiah explains how this pattern will need to continue in the future when Israel will need to reconcile with the other nations13. In
11 Kaminsky, Jacob 12 Genesis 12:2-3 13 Isaiah 42:6-7

Sam Reinstein

Professor Koller-Amos/Hosea

Amos 9:11-15, G-d explains explicitly that after the Davidic throne is restored, Israel will need to reconcile with the other nations so that as one unit, all of mankind can proclaim His Name. These verses are extremely important because they give insight to Israel's election as a whole, and that part of Israel's purpose is to facilitate all the nations of the world seeing the one true G-d.

There are two factions of how to look at Israel's election, whether it is instrumental or intrinsic. Many scholars such as Rowley argue that Israels election is tied to its service. Israel is told to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.14 Rowley argues that the Jews have failed in their mission to be holy and to spread holiness throughout the world. However, by linking service to being chosen, too many questions arise. Why would G-d punish Israel by sending them into exile, but then return them? The answer is that while service and election are connected, being chosen is not contingent on the service being fulfilled. It is in texts like Hosea where G-d describes Israel as a lover that has lost her way and a son that has been rebellious, analogies that assume the unconditional love that G-d has for Israel, irrespective of how well they complete their service. This hits its apex in Hosea 2:21-22 where G-d betroths Israel to himself. It is important to note that in the Bible, while men have primary wives, they also chose for themselves other wives, as well. For example, Jacob chooses Rachel, but also marries Leah. This analogy is great for Israels election because although G-d chose Israel as His wife, this does not exclude the other nations of the world from having an intimate relationship with their creator. Out of all the stories in Genesis, a comparison between Israel as a nation and the Joseph narratives is most appropriate. While Joseph is not always a perfect person, as he flaunts his being chosen over his brothers with his dreams and his coat, he remains chosen by G-d and eventually helps the nation as a whole. So too, Israel remains chosen no matter how it performs its service, so that it help the world as a whole. Somehow, by being a model for other nations, we are supposed to raise the
14 Exodus 19:6

Sam Reinstein

Professor Koller-Amos/Hosea

world to a higher level, eventually praising G-d with all of humankind. Although we understand that service is somehow connected to Israel being chosen, since we, as humans, cannot fully grasp G-ds plan, we cannot fully understand what the purpose of G-ds election of Israel truly is. However, based on Biblical texts it seems apparent that Israel has been elected intrinsically and not based on how they serve G-ds purpose.

Election theology is prominent in both Rabbinical literature and Christian theology. These two views differ greatly about the aforementioned ideas. For example, as shown above, the Bible does not disdain those that are of the non-elect. As long as they obey minimal guidelines, namely the seven Noahite laws, the non-elect are still part of the Divine plan. In contrast, Christianity views those that do not convert as lost to G-d. So, while Christianity is more open to converts than Judaism is, they are less tolerant of the other as long as they have not converted. Since Christianity maintains that those that are part of the non-elect are also lost to G-d, Christianity has ordained that its job is to convert everyone to Christianity so that they can be saved. Since Judaism believes that the non-elect still are given Divine favor, Judaism never has tried to attract gentiles to join the Jewish religion, even though in many Talmudic texts, converts are praised. Another major dispute between rabbinical Judaism and Christianity is the argument in the previous paragraph of whether election is contingent on service. While Judaism maintains that G-d has intrinsically chosen Israel, Christianity argues that since the Jewish people have failed in their mission, the Church has become the new chosen people. This argument is a byproduct of a larger one of how Divine grace is bestowed on mankind. Christianity asserts that by having faith in G-d and doing his will, one is able to be rewarded. In this view, the commandments are conduits to reach a goal. However, in the Jewish paradigm, the giving of the commandments is itself the greatest manifestation of G-ds grace towards the human community.15 In
15 Kaminsky, Jacob

Sam Reinstein

Professor Koller-Amos/Hosea

this idea, doing the commandments is inherently worthwhile, and are not only useful to attain reward. The last major argument between Judaism and Christianity in the topic of election is how someone is chosen. Christian texts, specifically in Paul, describe G-ds choice of people as random and mysterious. In Rabbinical literature, all of the chosen people are chosen because of their good deeds or faith, because Judaism is troubled by the idea of G-d acting arbitrarily. Abraham is praised for destroying his fathers idols and going into the furnace before he is chosen, Abel is chosen because he brought a better sacrifice, and even Jacob is described as trying to get to a place of learning in the womb. It is possible this last Midrash is supposed to support the fact that Rebecca was told before the sons were born which one was the chosen one. Therefore, one of them must have done good in the womb. Lastly, Rabbinical literature even explains why Israel was chosen as a nation, because they were the only nation that, when presented with the Bible, accepted it. Its seems that in biblical literature one must do good to become G-ds chosen, but once one is chosen he is loved unconditionally. Again, the marriage metaphor used in Hosea is very apt for this, because a man and wife ideally earn each others affection and love each other unconditionally for the rest of their lives.

As is true with many theological issues, not everything is explainable and much is left unable to be described. While we many never truly know the purpose of Israels being elected, the Bible gives us many paradigms to try and get a glimpse of the answers to many questions. It seems G-d chooses someone who has the ability to do his mission and whose prosperity cannot be explained by normal causes. G-ds choice of Israel does not exclude other nations from getting divine favor; rather, the opposite is true. By believing in G-ds elected people, the other nations can in turn be blessed. Although there are commandments of genocide, these verses, when read through a biblical lens, are not as destructive as they seem. As shown, election theology has many implications as Christianity has established many of its beliefs based on this important idea. 10