The Nature of God according to the Sages (2)

    The sages believed in a God who was not a projection of their own hopes and fears. They conceived of God as “over against” those hopes and fears.

ויעבר הרנה במחנה

“And a shout passed through the camp.” (1 Kgs 22:36)

א"ר אחא בר חנינא

באבוד רשעים רנה

באבוד אחאב בן עמרי רנה

 

ומי חדי קודשא בריך הוא

במפלתן של רשעים

הכתיב בצאת לפני החלוץ

ואומרים הודו לה'

כי לעולם חסדו

Rabbi Aha bar Hanina said:
“When the wicked perish, there is song.” (Prov 11:10)
At the perdition of Ahab ben Omri there was song.
But who rejoiced if not the Holy One, blessed be he,
over the downfall of the wicked?

Is it not written, “as he went out before the army,
and they were saying, ‘Give thanks to the Lord,
for his mercy endures forever’”? (2 Chr 20:21)

ואמר רבי יונתן

But rabbi Jonathan said:

מפני מה לא נאמר בהודאה זו כי טוב

לפי שאין הקדוש ברוך הוא שמח במפלתן של רשעים

For what reason is it not said in this thanksgiving, “for he is good”?
Because the Holy One, blessed be he, does not rejoice in the downfall of the wicked.

דאמר ר' שמואל בר נחמן אמר ר' יונתן

Concerning which Rabbi Samuel bar Nahman said Rabbi Jonathan said:

מאי דכתיב

ולא קרב זה אל זה כל הלילה

באותה שעה בקשו מלאכי השרת

לומר שירה לפני הקב"ה

אמר להן הקב"ה

מעשה ידי טובעין בים

ואתם אומרים שירה לפני

Why is it written:
“And one could not approach the other the whole night long” (Exod 14:21)?
In that hour the ministering angels asked
to utter the song [Exod 15]  before the Holy One, blessed be he.
The Holy One, blessed be he, said to them,
“The work of my hands [Egypt: see Isa 19:25] is drowning in the sea;
And you would utter the Song [Exod 15] before me? 

Comment: Exod 14:21, on the basis of similar wording in Isa 6:3 apropos of angels (to be precise, of Seraphim), is likewise understood to refer to angels.

אמר ר' יוסי בר חנינא

Rabbi Jose bar Hanina said:

הוא אינו שש

אבל אחרים משיש

דיקא נמי דכתיב

ישיש

ולא כתיב ישוש

“He himself does not rejoice,
but others he causes to rejoice.
The bottom line is thus, as it is written,
‘He will cause (others) to rejoice’ (Deut 28:63);
it is not written, ‘He will rejoice.’”

    Jose’s proof text, from a philological point of view, does not prove his point; ישיש in context means “he will rejoice,” not “he will cause (others) to rejoice.” Nonetheless, the point is grounded in scripture if one reads the Bible as if all the texts in it contribute to a single symphony conducted by one and the same maestro. That is, if Egypt is indeed God’s people (Isa 19:25), it stands to reason that God would not rejoice at its downfall.

    Deut 28:63, in which it is foreseen that God will rejoice at the downfall of those who defy him, is full of truth in its own right, but not to the exclusion of the contrary. It is not easy to identify a passage in the Tanakh which conceives of God as in mourning when his terrible swift sword is harvesting, but there are plenty of passages that provide an opening for such an understanding. Joel 2:18 and Jonah 3:10 come to mind. 

    The clearest passage of all, in line with the thought of the sages, comes from the New Testament, in which Jesus weeps for Jerusalem in anticipation of its devastation (Luke 19:41-44). This is one of many examples in which a trajectory can be traced from the Tanakh to the New Testament and the Talmud, a trajectory which finds the latter on the same page. 

Comments

[Bob MacDonald]

It is good to see these - thanks.
I am a bit surprised in this one not to see Ezekiel - I take no pleasure in the death of a sinner. But perhaps the connection is not verbally exact. Besides one must ask what is the nature of the song.

The rejoicing at the destruction of wickedness is definite in the psalms but the passages are ambiguous as to where the destruction is coming from and who is trapped in it.

So the song of joy may be for the victory over evil rather than the death of an individual.

I am wrestling with an interesting problem as I work through the psalms again - the tension between the individual and the corporate body. This pass I am writing up slowly and carefully - chasing down the gospel in the Psalter.

[JohnFH]

Hi Bob,

Ezekiel 18:23 and 32 are relevant. Thanks for bringing them into the discussion.

It is a common teaching among the pious that one is to hate the sin but not the sinner. The distinction certainly has its place, but doesn't change a whole lot when there is a need to "break the jaw of the wicked" (Job 29:17).

It is tempting to claim that when God is said to have hated/rejected Esau, it would have been more precise to say that God hated the evil that Esau did. But that raises the question: is this really about Esau the bad and Jacob the good?

Emphatically not.

I would add that the Genesis narrative around Jacob and Esau concludes with their reconciliation. That is unexpected given Isaac's words and the view that God rejected Esau.

The Bible is full of colpi di scena, unexpected turns of events. The Bible is the bane of systematic theologians, inclusive of "all you need is love" theologians.

[Steve Pable]

My recollection on this is incomplete, but I believe that Origen wrote also about this topic, perhaps even with a reference to God weeping over the destruction of the Egyptians?

I think this may have been in the context of trying to reconcile Ex. 9-11, "but the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart..."?

[JohnFH]

There is an interesting series of blog posts by Carl Kinbar on the theme of God who weeps. For starters, go here:

http://mjti.blogs.com/midrash/2010/06/lamentations-rabbah-petihta-24---rachel-weeping-for-her-children---part-1.html

He might know about Origen on the same theme.

[Carl Kinbar]

"The Bible is full of colpi di scena, unexpected turns of events. The Bible is the bane of systematic theologian . . ."

Likewise, and perhaps even more so, the writings of the sages. For the sages, the most constant characteristic of the Holy One is the ability to surprise, to defy expectations and neat descriptions, while at the same time somehow projecting a very coherent persona.

(I can't answer for Origen -- I only know his commentary on the Song of Songs.)