Lecture 25: Complaints in the Wilderness History-telling in the Bible Last session we began looking at the narratives about the people's journey

Transcription

1 Lecture 25: Complaints in the Wilderness History-telling in the Bible Last session we began looking at the narratives about the people's journey through the wilderness, which include the pattern of the people murmuring about their conditions, both prior to their departure from Egypt and, especially, once they enter the wilderness. I noted that while this motif of murmuring remains a constant, the responses of Moses and the LORD to their complaints crescendo as the narrative progresses, although in an identifiable pattern. With the exception of one narrative, it is Moses alone who is irate with the people's complaints prior to their sojourn at Sinai, the LORD simply accedes to their demands. And the one exception to that pattern, in Exodus 16, turns out to be P's intrusion of its concerns into J's narrative, making the people's treatment of the manna rise to the level of a desecration of Shabbat by work, with the LORD chastising the people as rebels. That pattern of the LORD becoming exasperated with the people otherwise arises only from the time at Sinai on, and is intimately linked with the second motif I mentioned: the rebellion of the people. Setting aside P's intrusion of this motif into the narrative about the giving of manna in Exodus 16, the first time Israel is portrayed as rebellious is the incident in Exodus 32 in which Aaron and the people cast a golden calf while the people are camped at Mt. Sinai: When the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mountain, the people gathered around Aaron, and said to him, Come, make gods for us, who shall go before us; as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him. Aaron complies with the people s proposal, coordinates the collection of gold jewelry, crafts the image of a calf (probably a bull), after which the people acclaim it with the words, These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt! The next verse adds, When Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation and said, Tomorrow shall be a festival to the LORD. Important for understanding this passage is that final declaration by Aaron: Tomorrow shall be a festival to the LORD. The image is not understood as representing other gods, but as representing the LORD. Nevertheless, the LORD is not pleased: 7 The LORD said to Moses, Go down at once! Your people, whom you brought up out of the land of Egypt, have acted perversely; 8 they have been quick to turn aside from the way that I commanded them; they have cast for themselves an image of a calf, and have worshiped it and sacrificed to it, and said, These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!

2 Lecture 25, Complaints in the Wilderness p. 2 This is an explicit breach of the commandment given Moses in 20.23: You shall not make gods of silver alongside me, nor shall you make for yourselves gods of gold. In fact Moses later acknowledges to the LORD the people s breach of this commandment by this act, Alas, this people has sinned a great sin; they have made for themselves gods of gold. This commandment is part of the LORD's directives that Moses delivers to the people and they consent to observe in chapter And so the LORD justly accuses them of having been quick to turn aside from the way that I commanded them. Obviously, then, what fires the LORD s ire in this narrative is not the people complaining about basic needs, but their direct disobedience to his commandment. I want to spend a few moments considering where the narrator got this story of the golden calf incident because of what that reveals about the intent of this episode. First, we need to note that another account of this appears in Deuteronomy 9-10, which I ll represent in condensed form with the following verses: 9 When I went up the mountain to receive the stone tablets, the tablets of the covenant that the LORD made with you, I remained on the mountain forty days and forty nights; I neither ate bread nor drank water. 11 At the end of forty days and forty nights the LORD gave me the two stone tablets, the tablets of the covenant. 12 Then the LORD said to me, Get up, go down quickly from here, for your people whom you have brought from Egypt have acted corruptly. They have been quick to turn from the way that I commanded them; they have cast an image for themselves. 13 Further-more the LORD said to me, I have seen that this people is indeed a stubborn people. 14 Let me alone that I may destroy them and blot out their name from under heaven; and I will make of you a nation mightier and more numerous than they. 15 So I turned and went down from the mountain, while the mountain was ablaze; the two tablets of the covenant were in my two hands. 16 Then I saw that you had indeed sinned against the LORD your God, by casting for yourselves an image of a calf; you had been quick to turn from the way that the LORD had commanded you. 17 So I took hold of the two tablets and flung them from my two hands, smashing them before your eyes. 21 Then I took the sinful thing you had made, the calf, and burned it with fire and crushed it, grinding it thoroughly, until it was reduced to dust; and I threw the dust of it into the stream that runs down the mountain. 26 I prayed to the LORD and said, Lord GOD, do not destroy the people who are your very own possession, whom you redeemed in your greatness, whom you brought out of Egypt with a mighty hand. 27 Remember your servants, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; pay no attention to the stubbornness of this people, their wickedness and their sin, 28 otherwise the land from which you have brought us might say, Because the LORD was not able to bring them into the land that he promised them, and because he hated them, he has brought them out to let them die in the wilderness. 29 For they are the people of your very own possession,

3 Lecture 25, Complaints in the Wilderness p. 3 whom you brought out by your great power and by your outstretched arm And once again the LORD listened to me. The LORD was unwilling to destroy you. While this narrative is obviously parallel to Exodus 32, there are some differences. First, Deuteronomy 9 has no counterpart to the description of the creation of the calf by Aaron and the people. Even though Moses reports that upon descending the mountain he saw that the people had cast a calf for themselves, there is no story of the calf being made, nor do we get any specification of what metal was used in casting the calf. What s more, nothing is said about a declaration that these are your gods, O Israel, nor is there any mention of sacrifices offered to them or of a festival held before them. Allied with this, there is no explicit mention of Aaron s involvement in this episode. The only note that Aaron was in trouble for this incident is in v. 20, where Moses adds, The LORD was so angry with Aaron that he was ready to destroy him, but I interceded also on behalf of Aaron at that same time. We can certainly read into this the series of events involving Aaron in Exodus 32, but those events aren t narrated in Deuteronomy 9. There are other differences between these two versions of the story, but we ll deal simply with these at this point. Where did Exodus 32 come up with the details about the construction of the calf image, Aaron s introduction of it to the people, the sacrifices offered to it and the festival held in its honor? One possibility would be to suggest that Deuteronomy simply condenses the story. However, there is another passage later in the Bible in fact, one we've already explored that shows striking similarities to precisely the features absent from Deuteronomy 9. 1 Kings 12 reports events shortly after the northern tribes separated from the southern tribes, headed by Judah, to create the kingdom of Israel. According to this chapter, the northern kingdom s first ruler, Jeroboam I, carried out a series of religious reforms designed to give his kingdom its own religious identity, independent of the south: 28 So the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold. He said to the people, You have gone up to Jerusalem long enough. Here are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt. 29 He set one in Bethel, and the other he put in Dan. 30 And this thing became a sin, for the people went to worship before the one at Bethel and before the other as far as Dan. 31 He also made houses on high places, and appointed priests from among all the people, who were not Levites. 32 Jeroboam appointed a festival on the fifteenth day of the eighth month like the festival that was in Judah, and he offered sacrifices on the altar; so he did in Bethel, sacrificing to the calves that he had made. And he placed in Bethel the priests of the high places that he had made. There are some striking similarities to Exodus 32 here. First is the way King Jeroboam introduces these two golden calves to the people: Behold your gods, O

4 Lecture 25, Complaints in the Wilderness p. 4 Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt. Now recall how Aaron introduces to the people at Sinai the lone calf he has made: 4 These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt! Only in these two passages do we find this exclamation. There seems to be some sort of literary dependence here. And what s especially noteworthy is that whereas in 1 Kings 12 it makes sense for Jeroboam to introduce the two calves he has made with the plural, these are your gods, in Exodus 32 there is but one calf (in agreement with Deuteronomy 9), and yet Aaron uses the plural: These are your gods. This tips the hand as to the argument I will develop: that Exodus 32 has been composed based on both Deuteronomy 9 and 1 Kings 12. Let me note one other feature pointing in this direction. We have noticed that in Exodus 32, over against Deuteronomy 9, sacrifices are offered to the calf and a festival is held. And that is a component, also, of the narrative in 1 Kings, where, to inaugurate the use of the worship site at Bethel, Jeroboam proclaimed a festival and offered sacrifices on the altar before the calves. This, again, is a line of connection between these passages and supports the perception that Exodus 32 has been developed based not only on Deuteronomy 9, but also 1 Kings 12. What significance does this have for helping us perceive what the narrator is doing in Exodus 32? One thing to note is that whereas Deuteronomy 9, where this incident is also recounted, describes it as simply something the people did one day while Moses was on the mountain, Exodus 32 phrases it specifically as another instance of the people murmuring. In fact, while NRSV says simply that the people gathered around Aaron, more likely should the Hebrew be translated, the people gathered against Aaron. I.e. this is a threatening crowd, not pleased with Moses disappearance and demanding a change in leadership, with Aaron consulted to provide the gods who would lead them the rest of the way. Thus, it fits in the overall pattern of the people murmuring that we noted prior to their arrival at Sinai. And yet here, for the first time, their complaints take on a more sinister tone. In particular, this scene depicts the people disobeying a divine commandment. Recall what the LORD says to Moses in Deuteronomy 9 when he instructs him to head down the mountain: 12 Then the LORD said to me, Get up, go down quickly from here, for your people whom you have brought from Egypt have acted corruptly. They have been quick to turn from the way that I commanded them; they have cast an image for themselves. He says that the people have disobeyed his command by casting an image for themselves. Notice the greater specificity of Exodus 32.21, in Moses lament: Alas, this people has sinned a great sin; they have made for themselves gods of gold. Again, this keys in on the prohibition the people agreed to earlier in the legal code that includes 20.23: You shall not make

5 Lecture 25, Complaints in the Wilderness p. 5 gods of silver alongside me, nor shall you make for yourselves gods of gold. Thus, while Exodus 32 agrees with Deut 9 that the people have violated one of God s commands, it is not simply the fashioning of an image, but specifically the sort of image they have fashioned: one made out of gold. So J's narrative creates a story, based on Deut 9 & 1 Kings 12, that moves the people from simply complaining to being rebels, thus opening a new phase in its narrative. But something else happens in this scene that brings us to the third feature characteristic of these wilderness stories: the role of Moses. Immediately after the LORD has revealed to Moses that the people have sinned and has instructed Moses to descend to them, the LORD engages Moses in the following dialogue: 9 The LORD said to Moses, I have seen this people, how stiff-necked they are. 10 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. 11 But Moses implored the LORD his God, and said, O LORD, why does your wrath burn against your people, whom you brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, It was with evil intent that he brought them out to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from your fierce wrath; change your mind and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants, how you swore to them by your own self, saying to them, I will multiply your descendants like the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have promised I will give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever. 14 And the LORD changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people. Prominent here is Moses role as intercessor. That is, when the LORD reveals his intent to destroy his people, Moses steps in to plead with the LORD not to do so, and he winds up persuading the LORD to change his mind. Moses is not only the confidant of the LORD, but also Israel s representative before their God. We can gain a window on how this role for Moses has been uniquely fashioned in Exodus 32 by returning to Deuteronomy 9, which helped shape this scene. In that passage, after the LORD instructs Moses to descend the mountain to deal with the people s sin, v. 13 reports, 13 Furthermore the LORD said to me, I have seen that this people is indeed a stubborn people. 14 Let me alone that I may destroy them and blot out their name from under heaven; and I will make of you a nation mightier and more numerous than they. Recalling that at this point in Exodus 32 Moses steps in to plead on Israel s behalf, let s notice what Moses does next in Deuteronomy 9: 15 So I turned and went down from the mountain, while the mountain was ablaze; the two tablets of the covenant were in my hands. 16 Then I saw that you had indeed sinned against the LORD your God, by casting for your-selves an image of a calf; you had been

6 Lecture 25, Complaints in the Wilderness p. 6 quick to turn from the way that the LORD had commanded you. 17 So I took hold of the two tablets and flung them from my two hands, smashing them before your eyes. 21 Then I took the sinful thing you had made, the calf, and burned it with fire and crushed it, grinding it thoroughly, until it was reduced to dust; and I threw the dust of it into the stream that runs down the mountain. It is only after Moses has dealt with the destruction of the image five verses later, to be precise that he gets around to pleading on Israel s behalf: 26 I prayed to the LORD and said, Lord GOD, do not destroy the people who are your very own possession, whom you redeemed in your greatness, whom you brought out of Egypt with a mighty hand. 27 Remember your servants, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; pay no attention to the stubbornness of this people, their wickedness and their sin, 28 otherwise the land from which you have brought us might say, Because the LORD was not able to bring them into the land that he promised them, and because he hated them, he has brought them out to let them die in the wilderness. 29 For they are the people of your very own possession, whom you brought out by your great power and by your outstretched arm. In Exodus 32, on the other hand, Moses intervenes immediately after the LORD states his intent to destroy the people. There are other differences between this scene s structure in Deut 9 and in Exodus 32 that we ll observe shortly, but for now let s note that Moses intervention just after the LORD suggests starting over with him accentuates Moses role as Israel s intercessor; if it weren t for Moses, they d be toast. That role is additionally highlighted by a subsequent scene not reported in Deuteronomy: 31 So Moses returned to the LORD and said, Alas, this people has sinned a great sin; they have made for themselves gods of gold. 32 But now, if you will only forgive their sin but if not, blot me out of the book that you have written. 33 But the LORD said to Moses, Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book. 34 But now go, lead the people to the place about which I have spoken to you; see, my angel shall go in front of you. Thus in Exodus 32 Moses not only intercedes, but he even offers to have himself disqualified for the sake of Israel. Moses is intercessor without peer on behalf of his people. There is one more place in Exodus we find the image of Moses the intercessor prominently displayed. Exodus 17 contains a story about Moses unique role in the midst of a battle: 8 Then Amalek came and fought with Israel at Rephidim. 9 Moses said to Joshua, Choose some men for us and go out, fight with Amalek. Tomorrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the staff of God in my hand. 10 So Joshua did as Moses told him, and fought with Amalek, while Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill. 11 Whenever Moses held up his hand, Israel prevailed; and whenever he lowered his hand, Amalek prevailed. 12 But Moses hands grew weary; so they took a stone and put it under him, and he sat on it.

7 Lecture 25, Complaints in the Wilderness p. 7 Aaron and Hur held up his hands, one on one side, and the other on the other side; so his hands were steady until the sun set. 13 And Joshua defeated Amalek and his people with the sword. Obviously here, also, Moses fulfills the role of an intercessor. He s not holding his arms up to slay the Amalekites with a whiff of his arm pits. The idea is that as long as Moses holds up his arms, with staff in hand, the LORD enables the Israelites to prevail; it s a form of magic. Moses uplifted arms are crucial to Israel s success in battle, and thus Moses again assumes the role of intercessor in this battle, insofar as his role is crucial to their victory. Now let s compare the only reference to this event in Deuteronomy: 17 Remember what Amalek did to you on your journey out of Egypt, 18 how he attacked you on the way, when you were faint and weary, and struck down all who lagged behind you; he did not fear God. 19 Therefore when the LORD your God has given you rest from all your enemies on every hand, in the land that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance to possess, you shall blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; do not forget. Not only does this version not give Moses a role as intermediary, but it also seems to recall the attack of Amalek only as a tragedy: he attacked you on the way, when you were faint and weary, and struck down all who lagged behind you. Nothing is said about defeating Amalek and his people. Thus, it appears that the J narrative has additionally developed or accented this role of Moses as intercessor. But the distinctive role accorded Moses in Exodus incorporates also Moses task as the chief lawgiver. This is emphasized by a story carefully placed just before the people arrive at Sinai, in chapter 18. While visiting Moses, his father-in-law observes that Moses is working too hard and suggests a remedy: 13 Moses sat as judge for the people, while the people stood around him from morning until evening. 14 When Moses father-in-law saw all that he was doing for the people, he said Why do you sit alone, while all the people stand around you from morning until evening? 15 Moses said Because the people come to me to inquire of God. 16 When they have a dispute, they come to me and I decide between one person and another, and I make known to them the statutes and instructions of God. 17 Moses father-in-law said to him, What you are doing is not good. 18 You will surely wear yourself out, both you and these people with you. 19 Now listen to me. I will give you counsel, and God be with you! You should represent the people before God, and you should bring their cases before God; 20 teach them the statutes and instructions and make known to them the way they are to go and the things they are to do. 21 You should also look for able men among all the people, men who fear God, are trustworthy, and hate dishonest gain. 22 Let them sit as judges for the people at all times; let them bring every important case to you, but decide every minor case themselves. 24 So Moses listened to his father-in-law

8 Lecture 25, Complaints in the Wilderness p. 8 and did all that he had said. 25 Moses chose able men from all Israel and appointed them as heads over the people. 26 And they judged the people at all times; hard cases they brought to Moses, but any minor case they decided themselves. Even though this, from our perspective, might seem like a story about delegation of authority or corporate management, we shouldn t miss what s being said of Moses role here. Moses remains the head legal administrator. While the easy cases are farmed out to Moses assistants, the important cases must be handled by Moses. Moreover, Jethro acknowledges Moses role as Israel s representative before the LORD and as the one who teaches them the LORD s commands and instructions: You should represent the people before God, and you should bring their cases before God; 20 teach them the statutes and instructions and make known to them the way they are to go and the things they are to do. While Moses assistants will take on the minor cases, they have no role parallel to that of Moses as the one who teaches the statutes and instructions of the LORD. Moses is the supreme lawgiver. Not insignificantly, this identification of Moses is followed, in the next chapter, by the arrival of the people at Sinai, where Moses role of receiving and transmitting the LORD s statutes and instructions stands in the foreground. This role of lawgiver is subsequently conferred upon Moses by the people due to terror at what they witness when God speaks with Moses on the mountain: 18 When all the people witnessed the thunder and lightning, the sound of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking, they were afraid and trembled and stood at a distance, 19 and said to Moses, You speak to us, and we will listen; but do not let God speak to us, or we will die. So Moses role as chief lawgiver is accented by J's narrative. This leads into another facet of Moses role in these narratives: that of a prophet superior to any other prophet. We are told in a peculiar digression in Exodus 33, 7 Now Moses used to take the tent and pitch it outside the camp, far off from the camp; he called it the tent of meeting. And everyone who sought the LORD would go out to the tent of meeting, which was outside the camp. 8 Whenever Moses went out to the tent, all the people would rise and stand, each of them, at the entrance of their tents and watch Moses until he had gone into the tent. 9 When Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the entrance of the tent, and the LORD would speak with Moses. 10 When all the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance of the tent, all the people would rise and bow down, all of them, at the entrance of their tent. 11 Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend. While Mann makes it sound as if Moses first constructs this tent of meeting on this occasion in response to the LORD s threat not to go with the people and thus it serves as an emergency substitute for the tabernacle that s not how this

9 Lecture 25, Complaints in the Wilderness p. 9 digression depicts it. Rather, it means to supply background information about Moses typical practice: 7 Now Moses used to take the tent and pitch it outside the camp, far off from the camp; he called it the tent of meeting. And everyone who sought the LORD would go out to the tent of meeting, which was outside the camp. It is to this tent of meeting, then, that Moses habitually resorts in order to plead with the LORD to continue his journey among the people. The depiction of Moses meeting the LORD in a tent outside Israel s camp also stresses the unique relationship Moses enjoys with the LORD, as highlighted in the summary statement, Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend. The uniqueness of Moses relationship with the divine is further highlighted by a confrontation narrative in Numbers 12: 1 Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses 2 and they said, Has the LORD spoken only through Moses? Has he not spoken through us also? 5 Then the LORD came down in a pillar of cloud, and stood at the entrance of the tent, and called Aaron and Miriam; and they both came forward. 6 And he said, Hear my words: When there are prophets among you, I the LORD make myself known to them in visions; I speak to them in dreams. 7 Not so with my servant Moses; he is entrusted with all my house. 8 With him I speak face to face clearly, not in riddles; and he beholds the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses? 9 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them, and he departed. 10 When the cloud went away from over the tent, Miriam had become leprous, as white as snow. This story falls into the same pattern as the stories of the people s murmuring we noted in Exodus. In fact, the phrase, Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses, parallels the way those stories are introduced in terms of complaining against or gathering against Moses and Aaron only here the complaints come from Moses siblings, Miriam and Aaron. The point of this story, obviously, is that no one can get away with disputing Moses unique role as the LORD s spokesperson to the people not even his brother and sister. And the basis for this rebuke is that Moses is more than an ordinary prophet, for the LORD doesn t communicate with him like a normal prophet: With him I speak face to face clearly, not in riddles; and he beholds the form of the LORD. The fact that J plays out Moses role in this tri-fold fashion with Moses serving as the people s passionate intercessor, their unsurpassed lawgiver, and the mediator between the LORD and Israel beyond reproach all of these serve to create a figure who outstrips (certainly) any of the patriarchs. Over against the people who murmur and rebel stands Moses who saves them from divine destruction, conveys to them God s commandments, and is not to be questioned in whatever he says. So these three motifs arise regularly in J s narratives of the wilderness: the

10 Lecture 25, Complaints in the Wilderness p. 10 people s murmuring over their situation (sometimes justified), their rebellion against the LORD, and Moses distinctive role, which embraces his intercession on behalf of Israel, his appointment as the chief lawgiver conveying God s commandments to the people, and his service as more than a prophet whose word cannot be questioned. In comparing the story of the calf incident in Exodus 32 with Deuteronomy 9-10, I mentioned that there were differences between them beyond the transfer of Moses plea to the LORD to preserve Israel just after the LORD s statement of his intent to destroy the people. That difference brings us back to the theme of the promises to the patriarchs and the role it plays in the book of Exodus. Let s begin by noting that in Deuteronomy 9, as in Exodus 32, Moses reminds the LORD of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. However, he quickly turns from that reminder to beg God to pay no mind to the people s stubbornness, due to how the Egyptians will interpret the LORD s destruction of his people. Even if the people are stubborn, putting up with that is preferable to being slandered by the Egyptians for not being able to bring them into the land and hating them enough to let them die in the wilderness. Let s compare how these pieces of Moses argument are utilized in Exodus 32. After what amounts to chiding God for being angry with his people, Moses first brings up the way the LORD s action would look to the Egyptians: Why should the Egyptians say, It was with evil intent that he brought them out to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? This is similar to the primary argument Moses makes in Deuteronomy 9, although notice that here it is Moses first-line argument, standing before the appeal to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob which is the appeal that stands first in Moses argument in Deuteronomy. The second stratagem Moses adopts in Exodus 32 has to do with those three patriarchs, but in more specific terms than in Deuteronomy. Rather than simply mentioning their names (as in Deuteronomy 9), Moses reminds the LORD of his oath to the patriarchs: Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants, how you swore to them by your own self, saying to them, I will multiply your descendants like the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have promised I will give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever. Notice that in Exodus 32 Moses argument is based not simply on the patriarchs, but more specifically on promises made them of numerous progeny and land. Moreover, because the issue of how this will look to the Egyptians is raised first, the promises to the patriarchs form the clincher argument. While in Deuteronomy 9 the LORD changes his mind because Moses reminds him (briefly) of the patriarchs, but then (more so) reasons with him about how the destruction of Israel will appear to the Egyptians, in Exodus 32 Moses ultimately persuades the LORD

11 Lecture 25, Complaints in the Wilderness p. 11 by reminding him of his oath to the patriarchs. One might reasonably ask here, why couldn t the author of Deuteronomy 9 be the one responsible for these differences? Why not suggest that he condensed what he found in Exodus 32 into a simple appeal to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? The reason is that, while Deuteronomy does speak of land promised to "ancestors," in the handful of instances Deuteronomy has such promises directed to these three patriarchs, those passages can be shown to be secondary insertions. Consequently, given that the earliest stratum of Deuteronomy nowhere else speaks of a divine oath concerning land spoken to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, it is unlikely that its author simply deleted such a promise in Deut 9 and more likely that this theme has been supplied by the person composing the narrative of Exodus 32. Of course, this discussion raises the question of where else we find references to such promises to the patriarchs in the narratives of Exodus and Numbers You ll recall I ve mentioned before that the language used for the promise of land outside the stories of the Patriarchs in Genesis describes it as a land flowing with milk and honey, as we find, for example, in Exodus 3: 7 Then the LORD said, I have observed the misery of my people who are in Egypt; I have heard their cry on account of their taskmasters. Indeed, I know their sufferings, 8 and I have come down to deliver them from the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land to a good and broad land, a land flowing with milk and honey, to the country of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. Notice that, in addition to language of a land flowing with milk and honey, the land is not defined by referring to a promise made of it to the patriarchs; rather, it is defined in terms of the groups currently occupying it. Even more striking is the instruction the LORD gives Moses a few verses later: 16 Go and assemble the elders of Israel, and say to them, The LORD, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, has appeared to me, saying: I have given heed to you and to what has been done to you in Egypt. 17 I declare that I will bring you up out of the misery of Egypt, to the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, a land flowing with milk and honey. Not only does this promise concern a land flowing with milk and honey, again currently possessed by other peoples, but it also mentions the patriarchs without linking the promise of this land to them. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob here simply identify the God who has sent Moses as the God of their ancestors. The first time we find an explicit reference to a promise of land made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is in Exodus 32 that we just read, where it has been inserted into a story developed from Deuteronomy 9 and 1 Kings 12. The next time we come across it is at the start of chapter 33, where the LORD tells Moses it s time to set off from Mount Sinai: 1 The LORD said to Moses, Go, leave this

12 Lecture 25, Complaints in the Wilderness p. 12 place, you and the people whom you have brought up out of the land of Egypt, and go to the land of which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying, To your descendants I will give it. 2 I will send an angel before you, and I will drive out the Canaanites, the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. 3 Go up to a land flowing with milk and honey; but I will not go up among you, or I would consume you on the way, for you are a stiff-necked people. Notice that in vv. 2-3 we again find reference to the various ethnic groups occupying the land, coupled with a description of the land as flowing with milk and honey. But observe also that immediately prior to that the LORD refers to the land he pledged to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And note, equally, that these theme of the gift of land its promise to the three ancestors are not intertwined in a single statement. Given the distinction between these themes we have seen elsewhere in Exodus, such as in chapter 3, first in v. 8, and even more so in vv , where the land is always defined by the inhabitants of the land and the phrase, "flowing with milk and honey." It, therefore, seems likely that the story originally ran along these lines: Go, leave this place, you and the people whom you have brought up out of the land of Egypt. 2 I will send an angel before you, and I will drive out the Canaanites, the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. 3 Go up to a land flowing with milk and honey. To that J and here I do mean the author of the foundational layer Genesis (prior to P s supplements) added the words, and go to the land of which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying, To your descendants I will give it. The only other place we find a reference to the promises to the patriarchs in Exodus through Numbers is in Numbers 32, which refers back to an incident in Numbers 14 that we need to visit first. In chapter 13, Moses sent spies into the land of Canaan to bring back a report of what lay ahead, and the majority have brought back this report: 25 At the end of forty days they returned from spying out the land. 26 And they came to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation of the Israelites in the wilderness of Paran, at Kadesh; they brought back word to them and to all the congregation, and showed them the fruit of the land. 27 And they told him, We came to the land to which you sent us; it flows with milk and honey (as promised), and this is its fruit. 28 Yet the people who live in the land [N.B., = inhabitants of the land] are strong, and the towns are fortified and very large; and besides, we saw the descendants of Anak there. That disheartening report elicits the following response from the people: 1 Then all the congregation raised a loud cry, and the people wept that night. 2 And all the Israelites complained against Moses and Aaron; [notice this is another story of the people murmuring against Moses and Aaron] the whole congregation said to them, Would that we had died in the land of Egypt! Or would that we had died in this

13 Lecture 25, Complaints in the Wilderness p. 13 wilderness! 3 Why is the LORD bringing us into this land to fall by the sword? Our wives and our little ones will become booty; would it not be better for us to go back to Egypt? 4 So they said to one another, Let us choose a captain, and go back to Egypt. Needless to say, this does not please the LORD: Then the glory of the LORD appeared at the tent of meeting to all the Israelites. 11 And the LORD said to Moses, How long will this people despise me? And how long will they refuse to believe in me, in spite of all the signs that I have done among them? 12 I will strike them with pestilence and disinherit them, and I will make of you a nation greater and mightier than they. Consistent with what we ve observed in other episodes of complaint after Sinai, Moses begs the LORD not do this, pleading with him to forgive Israel partly on the grounds of what the Egyptians will conclude and what other nations will say: 15 Now if you kill this people all at one time, then the nations who have heard about you will say, 16 It is because the LORD was not able to bring this people into the land he swore to give them that he has slaughtered them in the wilderness. The LORD s response follows in vv : 20 Then the LORD said, I do forgive, just as you have asked; 21 nevertheless as I live, and as all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD 22 none of the people who have seen my glory and the signs that I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and yet have tested me these ten times and have not obeyed my voice, 23 shall see the land that I swore to give to their ancestors; none of those who despised me shall see it. Notice in these verses the rather nebulous way the promise of land is referenced. V. 15 speaks of the land he swore to give them, while v. 23 refers to the land as the land that I swore to give to their ancestors. Given that previously we have seen mention of ancestors who have been promised land, and those ancestors seem to have been predecessors in Egypt of the Exodus generation, we cannot assume that the ancestors here are the patriarchs of Genesis Ancestors simply designate a previous generation/generations. This reference to the ancestors is made specific only in Numbers 32, where Moses recalls the events in chapter 14 for two tribes who wanted to settle on the east side of the Jordan rather than enter the land: 10 The LORD s anger was kindled on that day and he swore, saying, 11 Surely none of the people who came up out of Egypt, from twenty years old and upward, shall see the land that I swore to give to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, because they have not unreservedly followed me. V.11 bears the marks of an interpretation of E.g. the phrase, none of the people who came up out of Egypt is a condensation of s none of the people who have seen my glory and the signs that I did in Egypt and in the wilderness. Similarly, the phrase, shall see the land that I swore to give to

14 Lecture 25, Complaints in the Wilderness p. 14 replicates the same phrase in But where did the author of get the age range from twenty years old and upward? It comes from an oath distinct from the one the LORD uttered after Moses plea for mercy; that new oath stands in 14.29: 26 And the LORD spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying: 27 How long shall this wicked congregation complain against me? 28 Say to them 29 all your number, included in the census, from twenty years old and upward, who have complained against me, 30 not one of you shall come into the land in which I swore to settle you. The author of has conflated two different divine oaths from chapter 14. And it is that author who also identifies the ancestors to whom the LORD swore an oath of land as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Notice how he has also felt free to transform the people the LORD rejected from those who despised the LORD to those who did not unreservedly follow him. Given this survey of passages where the promise of land is mentioned in Exodus through Numbers, it appears to have two distinct formulations. The first, not found in Genesis but engrained in narratives foundational to Exodus, characterizes the land in two ways: it is a land currently occupied by the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites and it is a land flowing with milk and honey. The second formulation, which we find frequently in the patriarchal narratives in Genesis and then sporadically afterwards, speaks of the land the LORD swore to give to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The distinctness of these formulations and the fact that the first of them appears only from Exodus on, suggests that the author we have called J inserted the second type into the narratives of Exodus through Numbers to link them with the stories of the patriarchs he had fashioned in Genesis Alongside of this I want to offer one other observation. It is widely recognized that the stories of complaint after the visit to Sinai are modeled on the story of the golden calf in Exodus 32. And if Exodus 32 is the creation of an author we call J, then it s quite likely that those subsequent stories are as well, especially those invoking the memory of a promise of land made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But why would J insert such stories? Precisely because of the argument we noted Moses carrying on with God in Exodus 32 and again later. The LORD has determined to destroy Israel precisely the threat felt by those in exile after the fall of Jerusalem. And what is the clincher argument offered by Moses? The promise of progeny and land made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For J these stories emphasize what is implicit in the giving of the LORD s unconditional oath to the patriarchs in Genesis: Israel is secure. Yes, it may endure the LORD s wrath, and it might seem as though the LORD is on the verge of destroying Israel and starting over. And yet it is always his oath to the patriarchs that catches him up short and saves Israel. Israel is assured a future in its land because of that.