The Love of God (Based on Jon Levenson’s The Love of God)

On a crisp and slightly chilly, yet beautiful and refreshing sunny Bradenton, Florida morning with the sun beaming through my windshield while driving east on State Road 70 through moderate traffic en route to work, I found myself passionately sincerely reciting the words of Shema and V’ahavta in Hebrew.  As I connected to Hashem through this glorious passage from rote memory, I couldn’t help but be grateful for reading Levinson.  While contemplating and meditating on Levinson’s love of God framework, the richness of the Shema began to crystallize, and for the first time, I began to grasp why the Rabbi’s taught that it is incumbent upon every Jew to recite the Shema three times daily as an act of daily devotion and exclusive fidelity to Hashem.   I began to sense that it is not merely an act of loyalty, but also a solidification of identity since a Jew is bound to Hashem through the eternal covenant previously made with our forefathers.   As a Jew who grew up in a secular home, it became apparent that in the recitation of the Shema – the legal and relational dimension – is an act of service and loyalty to Hashem and a perpetual reminder of who I am as s tribal affiliate of a peculiar, holy people by Hashem’s designation.  Therefore, when we recite the Shema out loud, it is an affirmation of identity, reminding us of who we are, concerning the one we love and serve exclusively with heartfelt devotion, and in this way, the words of the Shema become our reality in their legal and relational prescription.   Indeed, it is through the loyal acts of service, morality, and good deeds – undergirded from the internalization and formal daily recitation of the Shema with heartfelt devotion, that we fulfill our covenant obligation to love Hashem our God with all of our heart, with all of our soul, and with all of our strength (Deuteronomy 6:5).  

For Levinson, a covenant is like a treaty, a formal promise between two unequal parties containing both a legal and relational dimension (Levinson, p. 51).  According to Levinson, analogous of the covenant love between Hashem and Israel is an ancient type of covenant unprecedented in modern western civilization, called a Suzerain treaty.  In this specific arrangement, the two unequal parties include a suzerain, a high king or overload, and a vassal, a lesser king.  The function of this arrangement is intriguing because it establishes a bond of peace in exchange for a promise of future loyalty, legally binding both parties of the covenant.  Despite the unequalness the parties, the conditions of the agreement stipulate a mutual benefit for both parties, making the forming of an alliance attractive and beneficial for both the higher and the lesser party, for instance, the vassalage commits to ally with the suzerain, requiring covenant fidelity in acts of service and exclusive devotion to the suzerain, the more powerful king, and in turn, the Suzerain offers peace and protection against those outside the covenant or those who pose a threat to their alliance (Levinson, p. 37).  While a Suzerain treaty appears superficially dry and technical, Levinson rightfully argues that its ongoing success hinges on the performance of genuine acts of love, service, and commitment on behalf of the vassal, lest the covenant fails, and the alliance disintegrates (Levison, p. 9).  

I found this analogy particularly inspiring and useful for obtaining greater depth and insight into the richness and contextual framework of Shema recitation as an act of covenant fidelity to Hashem, who is like a Suzerain, El Elyon.  However, a striking contrast between the stipulations of Hashem’s covenant with Israel and other ancient near-eastern Suzerain treaties, is the unique placement of law, ethics, and higher morality within the legal and relational covenantal framework that becomes the decree and expression of acts of service, exclusive fidelity, and obedience to Hashem (Levinson, p. 14).  In this way, the lesser party, Israel, can only fulfill the obligations of the treaty by faithfully keeping the commands of Hashem, enabling them to become a kingdom of kohanim and a holy people obligated to live by a higher code of ethics and morality through the legal and relational framework (Exodus 19:6).  Legal, because the law demands obedience in form and function – for instance, studying Torah, reciting the Shema, placing mezuzot, wearing tzitzit, donning tefillin, reciting brachot, and davening all consist of form and function while giving tzedakah, loving the ger, and caring for orphans, widows, the underprivileged or vulnerable groups in society are functions of covenant loyalty, yet all of these mitzvot become acts of service, homage, and devotion to Hashem.  However, the internalization of the Word of God is paramount for the transformation of the heart to take place and for the intention to become a sincere reflection of the character of God, as the Jew carries out mitzvot as a genuine expression of loving and pleasing God.  For the intention to become authentic and enduring, the relational aspect of the covenant is just as significant as the legal obligation, including an emotional connection to Hashem because of who He is, coupled with the realization that God is the initiator of the love relationship warranting a reciprocal response of gratitude on our behalf.  For instance, in the Shabbat Shacharit liturgy, the second blessing of the Shema, reciting Ahava Raba affirms the reality that God loved Israel (us) with abundant love, which in turn, prepares a Jew to reciprocate that love by accepting the yoke of the kingdom of heaven while reciting the words of the Shema.  The Shema formation and vocal recitation is an essential component of the legal framework that exclusively binds the Jew to Hashem alone; yet the robustness of the relationship is contingent upon the existence of genuine, wholehearted love, commitment, and indispensable attitude of gratitude for Hashem (Levinson, p. 52).  

Levinson – Biblical vs. Midrashic Narratives

Several years ago, I was learning under a Messianic leader who held firmly to the conviction that Hashem issued a literal get to the northern Kingdom of Israel because of her promiscuity (Jeremiah 3:8, Isaiah 50:1).  The magnitude of this was so enormous that it created a disposition of reading the Tenakh through the lens of this particular theological framework.  According to the Torah, a husband who issues a get to his wife cannot remarry her if she remarries (Deuteronomy 24:4), and since the biblical account alleges that she was guilty of both adultery and idolatry, how could Hashem take her back if He terminates the marriage?   Admittingly, I found all of this to very problematic and in many ways contradicting the biblical narrative of the love between Hashem and Israel (both kingdoms), since, from the perspective of the prophets, Israel’s habitual straying as the wayward wife never seems to spell the end of the relationship.  Instead, Hashem’s objective is to punish her by casting her off temporarily until she experiences shame, guilt, and remorse for her whoredom and backsliding, causing her to seek Hashem’s face by returning to Him with a commitment to renewal and reform.  Hashem is reluctant to send her away because of his great love for her, perhaps most revealing when He says, “how can I” four times in one verse through the prophet Hosea: How can I give you up, O Ephraim?  How can I hand you over, O Israel? How can I make you like Admah?  How can I treat you like Zeboiim?  My heart recoils within me; my compassion grows warm and tender (Hosea 11:8, ESV).  While Israel has unequivocally ruptured the terms of the covenant and the romance between is on life support in desperate need of resuscitation, the prophets agree that permanent separation is not only unacceptable, it is not a possibility.  

Alternatively, as long as Israel continues in her unfaithfulness, the relationship is temporarily suspended until Israel’s teshuva at the final redemption, at which time a miraculous mending that takes place when Hashem betroths Israel to Himself once again, yet this time she will yada (know) Him for all time since God will heal the relationship spectacularly (Levinson, p. 104).  Levinson makes a pivotable point when he highlights the richness of the word yada in Hebrew, which is an ancient near-eastern context carries resonances of treaty obligation, suffice to say that Israel will finally be solely devoted to Hashem in covenant fidelity because He plans to place His Torah in her heart and mind (Jeremiah 31:33), and perhaps even more astonishing is that Hashem will betroth her with is own personal attributes – righteousness, justice, goodness, mercy, and faithfulness become the bride price in exchange for her exclusive loyalty to Him (Levinson, p. 105)

Lastly, it is essential to highlight that the bible uses multiple metaphors as literary devices to describe the relationship between God and Israel.  Based on this understanding, it is erroneous to think of the relationship between Hashem and Israel as a literal marriage; however, this does not negate that the circumstances are strikingly similar; hence the power of the metaphor and the effectiveness of Hosea’s marrying a prostitute as a prophetic sign-act, along with the meanings of the names of their children corresponding to the northern Kingdom’s condition, are markers to provoke shame and guilt for her whoredom, enabling confession of sins and teshuva. Regarding the love relationship between Hashem and Israel, the most striking difference between the biblical and midrashic narratives is historical reality vs. ideal reality.  While the Torah and the prophets focus on the actual performance of the legal and relational aspects of the relationship between Hashem and Israel, the Shir Hashirim Rabbinic midrashic interpretation tends to focus on what could have been and what will be in the future.  For instance, to awaken Israel from her spiritual slumber and turn her from her iniquities and looming calamity, the prophets announce Israel’s historical dilemma as the unfaithful bride continually straying, fracturing the bond of love between them and quenching the romance so that it’s in desperate need of resuscitation.  Notably, the prophet Jeremiah first mentions Israel as a once faithful bride (Jeremiah 2:2), but he is also quick to transition to the acute degradation of the relationship because of her idolatry and subsequent defilement (Levinson, p. 110).  However, the unchanging reality in all the biblical narratives is this: even though Israel breaches the covenant resulting in deportation and exile from the land, the relationship between Hashem and Israel is unwavering because He is faithful in keeping His part of the promise to Abraham.  In the end, divorce is not the final word (Levinson, p. 96), and it is up to Israel to return to Him for the mending of the relationship and reinstatement – for a future romance.  

The midrash, on the other hand, takes a different approach, rather than focusing on Israel historically as the adulterous nation, the emphasis is on her ideal or future state as the faithful bride desperately longing to draw near to her lover barring powerful external forces that threaten their ability to consummate the relationship (Levinson, p. 132).  Contrary to the prophets hinting at the once erotic love now requiring resurgence, the midrash seeks to use both the marriage metaphor of the prophets and the erotic language of Shir Hashim to interpret the texts through a new framework consisting of the passionate love between the two of them as the centerpiece of Tenakh.  In the midrash, erotic love and romance between Hashem and Israel are alive and well, and the metaphoric reading of a Shir Hashirm verse read in conjunction with another historical text interprets both of them and links the explanation to a concrete historical moment (Levinson, p. 132).  In conclusion, the Shir Hashirim midrashic interpretation, the metaphor of erotic, passionate love between Hashem and Israel takes center stage as the unshakable reality of the covenant, yet not at the expense of historical rendering since the Rabbi’s determine when it could have happened through associated intertextual connections.  

Moshe Changes God’s Mind

Moshe went up to Mount Sinai to receive the tablets, the Torah, and the commandment written by the hand of God (Exodus 24:12, 18).  He would be up on the mountain meeting with Hashem for forty days and forty nights, of which time he would return with Hashem’s glorious instructions for His people whom He (Hashem) had brought out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm.  Moshe ascending to Hashem to receive the Torah was the pinnacle moment for Israel since they were on the cusp obtaining the instructional blueprint that would give them an understanding of how to live as God’s people, with Hashem near to them.  Before Moshe could descend the mountain, the children Israel became impatient waiting for Moshe to return.  The first verse of chapter 32 says when the people (the children of Israel) perceived that Moshe delayed, they chose idolatry instead of waiting.  The Hebrew verb for delayed is voshaysh, from the rare Polel stem formation similar to Piel, derived from the root bsh, which means ashamed, suffice to say there may be a connection between Moshe’s alleged delay and their hearts swelling with pride resorting to shameful acts they would soon regret.  

When Hashem saw that the people had quickly turned aside from the way He commanded them by making the golden calf and then bowing down to it and worshipping it, His anger burned hot, and he threatened to consume them and start over with Moshe (32:10).  The Hebrew word for “that I may consume them” is va’akhalaym, taken from the root clh, in context means destruction or annihilation. Hashem is not playing games here, and in my view, he is not merely testing Moshe as some assert, although it undoubtedly will test his character, and this is where the narrative becomes fascinating.  The average person would not balk at the opportunity to be made famous by someone in high authority, let alone the offer coming from the El Elyon!  Nevertheless, Hashem tells Moshe that he will make an end to the people whom He foreknew, and to make “otecha legoy gadol (a great nation of Moshe),” instead (32:10).  

First, Hashem tells Moshe amecha (your people), whom הֶעֱלֵ֖יתָ he’elayta (you brought up) from the land of Egypt have corrupted themselves.  The Hebrew verb he’elayta is a Hiphil (typically causitive), Perfect form with a 2ms pronoun, informing the reader that Hashem is stating that he (Moshe, not Hashem) caused the people to come out of Egypt.  At this stage, the curious reader might become suspicious based on events that are unfolding – one may even be so bold to ask, is Hashem refusing to take responsibility for leading His people - the children of Israel - because of their horrendous sin?   Is Hashem’s anger causing him to defer that responsibility to His loyal servant Moshe?  Moreover, is he seriously considering going as far as starting over with Moshe, or are His emotions getting the best of Him at this moment, projecting a devastating outcome as a mere possibility?  And what about the covenant He made with Abraham, namely, that his physical seed would suffer four-hundred years as ger in a land that is not their own, yet He would deliver them out of bondage and give them the land of Canaan as a possession (Genesis 15:13)?  Was this covenant not made with the entire nation of Israel whom He would bring out from Egypt?  Still, one must deeply ponder the momentous offer Moshe receives from Hashem to make a great nation out of him instead.  As mentioned, most people in Moshe's sandals would strongly consider the proposal, since it presupposes what most long for – power, fame, favor, success, and prosperity. 

For the children of Israel's sake, and God's glory, Moshe was far from a typical person - he was the pinnacle of humility, and perhaps the most exceptional leader of Israel of all time (Numbers 12:3).  Panim el panim with the Elohim of Elohim with the most momentous offer of all time bestowed on him, Moshe not only rejected it, but he refuses to accept it even as a remote possibility.  In verse 11, after Hashem threatened to consume them, Moshe appeals in the form of a question, asking why He would consider obliterating the people whom He brought out of Egypt, affirming that they are His people whom He delivered out of bondage. The verse begins vay'chal Moshe penay Hashem Elohav (he implored the face of his God) to dispute His threat to annihilate them, since He (Hashem) is ultimately responsible not only for bringing them out of Egypt with the power of his mighty hand, but for leading them to the land He promised to give their forefathers.  Before one contemplates how Moshe could even question El Elyon, the careful reader should decipher the incredible bond of love and intimacy between them since the text portrays Moshe pleading with Hashem panim l’ panim.  Moshe is very strategic, maintaining proper posture as he appeals to Hashem because He is keenly aware of his role in the relationship as the servant, and Hashem as the benefactor, but he is deeply concerned that Hashem's actions could destroy His reputation.  He perceives that if God obliterates Israel off the face of the earth, it would be a disastrous move - rather than glorifying God’s name, it would bring shame and reproach to it, destroying the legacy of His name.  The Egyptians (and the nations), moreover, would cast Hashem in a negative light - as an evil tyrant who brought them out of Egypt to slaughter them (32:12).  Furthermore, destroying the nation and starting over with Moshe would alter, disrupt, and hinder the promise He made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  

Continuing in verse 12, Moshe appeals, challenging Hashem to consider His reputation seriously, because if he destroys Israel, the Egyptians will say, "with evil intent He brought them out, to kill them (32:12, ESV).”  After appealing to Hashem's reputation and attributes, Moshe positions himself to debate honestly, pleading with Hashem shuv (turn) from his catastrophic anger, by remembering His covenant with the patriarchs whom he swore by his own name to make their name (and their offspring) great (Genesis 12:2, 18:18).  Hashem, in turn, accepts Moshe’s request, conditonally agreeing to relent (33:3).   

Moshe Changes God’s Mind Continued

In chapter (33), Hashem tells Moshe and the children of Israel to laych (depart) Sinai, and begin journeying toward the land of Canaan, but despite Moshe’s argument that these are ultimately Hashem’s people, and not God’s, Hashem still insists they are Moshe’s people per the Hiphil stem, perfect form of the verb for “brought up,” הֶֽעֱלִ֖יתָ he’elita, with the 2ms personal pronoun to indicate again Moshe, not God, brought them up from Egypt.  The modification (see Micah 6:4, for 1cs rendering) of the pronoun from 1cs to 2ms is significant for two reasons:  it shifts the responsibility of leadership from Hashem to Moshe, placing an additional burden on Moshe since Hashem is reluctant to walk among them because of their stubbornness.  Secondly, by threatening to distance Himself from them, it obscures Israel's unique identity as a distinct people who are bound to Hashem by a covenant of love – for the power and presence of Hashem among them is what distinguishes Israel from all other people groups (33:16).  Therefore, as Moshe is preparing to debate, the Abrahamic covenant precludes the possibility of Hashem casting off the nation as a whole, and God dwelling among them is an imperative necessity.

After evaluating Moshe’s masterful retort of persevering God’s reputation, honoring his the Patriarchial promise, and keeping the nation as His possession (despite the golden calf incident), Moshe convinces Hashem to refrain from blotting them out; nevertheless, Hashem remains obstinate about not leading them personally (33:3).  Hashem offers to send his angel to go with them for success and protection in His place, per the text lo e’eleh אֶֽעֱלֶ֜ה, the 1cs Qal imperfect form of the verb “go up,” suffice to say, “I will not go up in your midst,” since He is still angry with them, posing a hazard should His wrath break out against them.  It is worth mentioning that at the Golden Calf incident, the children of Israel became פָרֻ֖עַ parua (unrestrained) when they broke loose to engage in debauchery (32:25).  Hashem's concern now is that their stubbornness will cause them to replicate this destructive course of action, further provoking Hashem to anger.  Scripture attests that when Israel habitually and perpetually chooses a path of unrestrained evil, God responds with unbridled fury (e.g., Ezekiel 7:8).  Despite Moshe reckoning what distinguishes the children of Israel from all other people groups, Hashem makes a strong case for maintaining a distance between them, for their safety and protection, yet, in his zeal for God and fierce tenacity, Moshe is up for the challenge of appealing on the people’s behalf.  

The Key to Convincing Hashem – the Relational Dynamic of Intimacy 

In the first dispute, Moshe convinced Hashem to relent from destroying Israel since He (not Moshe) ultimately brought them out of Egypt.  He also argued that relenting would preserve His reputation and His legacy among the nations, and would adhere to the covenant with his forefathers.  Hashem brought Israel out of Egypt to make them a distinct, holy people so that He could successfully dwell among them in an intimate way (25:8).  The golden calf incident has tragically driven a wedge in those plans, which Moshe is intends to mend through intercession.  In 34:12-17, Moshe disputes God again since he is not satisfied with the conditional stipulation, by imploring Him to consider them as his people, not abandoning them along the way.  In Moshe's mind, Hashem distancing Himself from them is unacceptable – His presence must go with them (33:15).  He's convinced that Israel's identity hinges on the reality of Hashem's presence going with them, and He's not willing to move forward otherwise.  It is important to note that Moshe winning God's favor is not about his craftiness, nor his ability to outwit El Elyon, for such is unthinkable.  Instead, the key is in the relational dynamics, namely, the enigmatic bond of intimacy between Hashem and Moshe, the navi whom Hashem spoke with panim l’panim (32:11).  It is out of that relational dynamic that Moshe can convince Hashem to go with them as opposed to the angel.  This time, Moshe skillfully appeals to Hashem's attributes of goodness and grace, when he contends: “Now, therefore, if I have found (chayn) favor in your sight, please show me now your ways, that I may know you in order to find (chayn) favor in your sight. Consider too that this nation is your people,” to which Hashem responded gracefully, saying, “panicha (my presence) will go with you, and I will give you rest.” (Exodus 33:13-14, ESV my emphasis).  

In conclusion, in Exodus 32-7-33:16, Moshe changed God's mind not merely once, but twice. When Hashem awkowledged the people making the golden calf and worshipping it, the Torah says "v'yichar afi vahem (his anger may burn hot against them)." Likewise, when Moshe came down from the mountain and saw their unrestrained debauchery, the Torah says, "v'yichar af Moshe (Moshe's anger burned hot)." (32:10, 19). In his great zeal for Hashem, Moshe's reaction to their horrendous sin precisely reflected God’s response.  Upon debating with Hashem to change His mind, Moshe never did so for personal gain; on the contrary, he did so to save the nation from destruction, to safeguard God's name and preserve His reputation, and to ensure Hashem’s presence would remain with them.  Moshe uses the latter as the crux of his contention insisting that His presence among them solidifies their identity and purpose for existing - it is what makes them unique.  “For how shall it be known that I have found favor in your sight, I and your people? Is it not in your going imanu (with us), so that we are niflaynu (distinct) and your people, from every other people on the face of the earth (33:16, ESV)?"   In the end, he masterfully convinced Hashem that this nation, albeit in its idolatrous state, is still His people, whom he promised to keep according to the Abrahamic covenant (34:13).