Aaron and the Golden Calf Episode
I. Introduction
With the exception of the story of Gibah in Chapter 19 of Judges and Sodom and Gomorrah in Chapter 19 of Genesis, the episode of the Golden Calf appears to be one in which the people deported themselves in one of the most despicable episodes in the Bible. While Moses is away accepting the covenant from God, the people appear to reject God and revert back to idol worship. To make matters worse, Moses’s own brother, Aaron, appears to be a leader in this transgression and apparent rebellion. Yet Aaron is designated as the leader of the Priestly sect which has the duty to lead the people and instruct them on how to fulfill their duties in their relationship with God. How can person who is instrumental in such a transgression be placed in such an important position? Furthermore, Aaron was not even punished for his role in the episode .
This essay will review the episode and propose an explanation for Aaron’s role that is reasonable and has resonance today.
II. Summary of the episode
The episode of the Golden Calf occurs in Exodus 32. The story begins when the people noticed that Moses had been too long in returning from the mountain and feared that they had been abandoned: “Come make us a god who shall go before us, for that man Moses, who brought us from th eland of Egypt – we do not know what has happened to him.” (Ex 32:1). Apparently, they said this to Aaron because he answered them in Ex 32:2 telling them to remove their gold jewelry and bring it to him. The people complied and Aaron cast a golden calf. The people adopted this calf as their god in Exodus 32: 4 “This is your god, O Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.” The people then conducted a ceremony for the idol in which they had burnt offerings and sacrifices.
God alerts Moses to the situation and tells Moses that He wishes to abandon them, even destroy them. Moses advocates for the people and persuades God not to destroy the people with his famous argument in Ex 32:12 “Let not the Egyptians say, ‘It was the evil intent that He delivered them, only to kill them off in the mountains and annihilate them from the face of the earth.’” Moses then returns to the camp with the tablets of the Pact which were inscribed with God’s writing. It should be noted that nowhere in Ex 32:7-10, does God blame Aaron for the episode. Instead, God blames the people (“For you people whom you brought up from the land of Egypt have acted corruptly…”). In 32:10, God offers to make Moses the father of a new nation, but Moses refuses, instead choosing to intercede for the people.
As soon as Moses saw for himself what was occurring, he “hurled the tablets from his hands and shattered them at the foot of the mountain (Ex 32:19). Moses then “took the calf that they had made and burned it; he ground it to powder and strewed it upon the water and so made the Israelites drink it.” (Ex 32:20).
Moses next interrogated Aaron asking “What did this people do to you that you have brought such great sin upon them?” (Ex 32:21). Aaron explained his actions in Ex 32:22-24:Aaron said, “let not my lord be enraged. You know that this people is bent on evil. They said to me, ‘Make us a god to lead us; for that man Moses, who brought us from the land of Egypt – we do not know what has happened to him.’ So I said to them, ‘Whoever has gold, take it off They gave it to me and I hurled it into the fire and out came this calf!”
Aside from the lameness of the excuse “I hurled it into the fire and – lo and behold – out came this calf” as though he had nothing to do with it, it “just happened,” the clear implication of this is that Aaron was following what the people wanted. In fact, in Ex 32:25, it is stated “Moses saw that the people were out of control – since Aaron had let them get out of control …”
Moses then took charge. He called for the people to make a decision: with him (and hence with God) or with the idol builders? Moses then instructed the ones who had declared for him to slay the others in Ex 32:27-28: “Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel: Each of you put sword on thigh, go back and forth from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay brother, neighbor, and kin.” Then, following Moses’s instructions, “The Levites did as Moses had bidden; and some three thousand of the people fell that day.” Ex 32:28.
Moses then instructed the people how to repent for their transgression, they did and Moses returned to God and asked God to give them another chance. Of course, He did, and the story of the trek from slavery in Egypt to freedom in the Promised Land continues.
III. Aaron’s role in the episode
A. An initial thought of the episode
Moses had not yet gained the full trust of the people.
It is possible that Moses was away from Egypt so long that the people did not even recognize him (he may even have adopted a foreign accent so his speech would be foreign to the slaves) and thus were reluctant to follow him. On the other hand, Aaron had resided among these people and thus had their trust. In the Golden Calf episode, the people had not yet given Moses their full trust when they initially arrived at Mt. Sinai and Moses disappeared for so long. This disappearance may have confirmed their fears and mistrust of Moses (did this foreigner take them out of their homes so he could abandon them?) and may have driven them back to Aaron whom they trusted. Perhaps this is why the people complained so much when they were in the desert, they did not yet fully trust Moses and followed him only because they trusted Aaron and Miriam and those two told the people to follow Moses. Such “trust” is tenuous at best.
B. Moses’s authority versus Aaron’s authority.
Moses returned from the mountain and saw the people worshiping the Golden Calf. He threw down the commandments and caused the people to punish themselves. Moses led the people against their own desires toward what he knew was the correct path. On the other hand, Aaron followed the people’s wishes and did their bidding.
Moses could lead while Aaron was compelled to follow. This situation can be understood because Moses had the authority of God and answered only to God; whereas, Aaron had no such authority and his authority came from the people . Moses could only be fired by God, Aaron could be fired by the people . This makes a huge difference in the way the “leader” acts toward his congregation. Still further, one has to wonder where Aaron’s loyalty was: with the people, with Moses or with God? This issue has resonance today for modern Rabbis: are they loyal to the congregation, to the leaders of the religion or to God?
IV. The Golden Calf Episode has resonance today
The Golden Calf episode may seem like a fantasy and a made-up story for the Bible. But, it is still re-enacted today, albeit not so dramatically, in nearly every synagogue in the world.
A. Background
There are numerous issues facing humans, both Jews and non-Jews, today. Issues such as pro-active euthanasia, the death penalty, human cloning, reproductive cloning, assisted suicide, abortion, organ transplantation and the like are merely a few examples . The debates that are discussed here do not concern those issues per se, but are other debates which are created by issues such as these. Many issues faced by modern congregations are more mundane than these, but may be no less divisive. Whatever the actual issue, the debates being discussed in this essay stem from the issues which are faced by and argued in modern congregations. Actually, the overall debate is a two-faceted debate with the second debate being related to the first.
With regard to those, and similar issues, it is quite likely that each branch of Judaism has established a stance, a policy and/or a position, such as in opposition to the death penalty but accepting of abortion under certain conditions. Papers are published, conferences are conducted, responsa are published discussing these issues and the arguments on all sides of the issue as well as the consistency of the policies and stances with each other and with other policies and stances.
However, the vast majority of congregants do not expose themselves to these discussions. Even if they did, they probably would not fully grasp them as they do not have the background to do so. As such, the majority of congregants base their opinions on issues such as these upon the media, the news media, books and articles that are written for the public, and the like. Since this information is written for general consumption, it is often, if not always, much shallower than the information intended for professionals. In fact, the information can actually be wrong. For example, a news report of an interview with Leon Kass regarding an issue in medical ethics may be written by a journalist who may have little or no knowledge of the particular subject and as such is likely to contain erroneous information; then, that article will be further edited to fit the space requirements presenting further opportunity for errors. Thus, the basis of the public’s opinions will most likely be shallow and can even be wrong. However, this does not stop them from forming an opinion on these issues. Thus, the congregation may have an opinion which is based on shallow, or even erroneous, information and as such may be wrong or off. In addition, since the congregation may not have access to responsa, or papers or conferences which are intended for professionals, the congregation may have an opinion on an issue that is different from, and perhaps at odds with, the stance of their branch of Judaism.
Rabbis, as professionals, do read these articles and papers and do attend the conferences and are aware of the responsa and the policies and stances of Judaism, and in particular their branch of Judaism. They are fully capable of understanding the issues and all of the arguments associated with the issues. As such, rabbis do know and understand an issue as well as the stance and policy associated with an issue.
B. Debates
With this background, the debates can be framed as follows.
(1) Debate One – lead or follow?
Since most congregants do not fully appreciate the nuances of an issue, let alone know the stance, policy or position of Judaism on a particular issue, yet may have a strong opinion on the issue, which may be at odds with the facts and/or the stance of Judaism, and Rabbis do know and appreciate an issue and the stance and policy, is it the Rabbi’s job to lead his congregation to the stance and policy of Judaism or should he or she follow the opinion of the congregation? Of course, if the opinion of the congregation is totally wrong, then the path is easy. What is difficult is when the opinion of the congregation is close to correct, or may even be correct, but is at odds with the policy of the branch of Judaism. It is assumed that the Rabbi had little or no choice in jobs or in moving from this job and thus must take his job security into consideration when dealing with an issue which is sensitive and on which the congregation has an opinion that differs from the stance of their branch of Judaism, or which the Rabbi feels is in error. Is it up to the rabbi to prevent the people from getting “out of control” as Aaron had, or should the rabbi comply with the wishes of the people as Aaron did? That is, should the Rabbi guide the people of his congregation back to the stance of their branch of Judaism (i.e. prevent them from getting “out of control”) or should he go along with the views of the congregation (perhaps to save his job, especially if the issue is very sensitive, perhaps explosive and divisive)? What if the Rabbi’s personal views differ from both the view of his branch of Judaism and the view of his congregation? What if the rabbi’s view differs from that of his congretation on issues that do not pertain to religion (such as politics)? It should be noted that a rabbi is more likely to be fired due to their stance on political issues than because of their stance on theology. The job of a leader is to lead, not follow the thought and trend of those whom he is supposed to be leading – even if it means going against the thoughts and desires of those being led. But how far can a rabbi go if his job is on the line? That is the essence of Debate One.
(2) Debate Number Two – to whom does the Rabbi owe loyalty?
Most Rabbis are hired (and fired or do not have their contract renewed) by the Board of Directors. Many members of the Board are selected because they are active, or because they are large donors, or simply because they are willing to serve. This does not, per se, correlate with being representative of, or even aware of, the opinions of the congregation. Therefore, this raises a related issue for debate: Does a Rabbi owe loyalty to the Board of Directors who hired (and can fire) him, or to the congregation? This is especially sharp if the opinion of the Board of Directors or influential members of the Board, differs from that of the congregants on an issue. Thus, an additional issue is layered onto the already thorny issue of the congregation wishing to follow a path which is at odds with the policy of Judaism, with the additional issue rising from a possibility that the Board of Directors may have yet another opinion .
Layered onto this thorny issue is one which arises because most modern synagogues are located in municipalities which have their own laws, which may actually be at odds with the duties and responsibilities of a modern rabbi. For example, suppose a young pre-teen girl comes to a rabbi and confides in him that her father is abusing her. The rabbi has a duty of confidence with this young girl. However, some municipalities have laws requiring the disclosure to authorities of any abuse. To whom does the rabbi owe allegiance and loyalty: the duty of confidence or the law of the land? Aaron of course did not face this, but a modern rabbi could.
(3) Debate Number Three – Judaism versus American Zeitgeist
From Lionel Grilling to Philip Roth, traditional Judaism ranks somewhere between irrelevant and objectionable. With political movements such as J Street, IfNotNow, and the like, which are being viewed as social justice, traditional Judiasm is being subsumed into politics masquerading as social justice. And with the concept of tiklum olam being diluted and misunderstood and misapplied, Jewish thought and tradition are being lost in favor of politics. Judaism has been reduced to just another religion in the minds of many modern congregants. As such, it and its teachings can be marginalized or even ignored.
It might even be said that politics has become the idol worshipped by modern Jew in place of the idols which were so hateful to the prophets of the Bible. The assertion that social justice as defined by the politics of today has replaced idolatry as the path to assimilation that was so hateful to the Biblical prophets. These prophets viewed idolatry as a step toward assimilation into a society in which Judaism would die due to atrophy; today’s politics represents the same path to assimilation.
Given this situation, would a rabbi be ready, willing and able to present sermons and teaching that the teachings and demands of Judaism, including chosenness, are more important than the demands of current politics? How about a sermon having the theme that the State of Israel is more important than current political movements such as If Not Now? Or a theme that abortion is contrary to the commandment of “Thou Shalt Not Kill”? When Judaism follows the general trend of thought or feeling characteristic of the day (zeitgeist), what remains of the moral conflicts, the self-conscious cognitive dissonance that is the heart of Judaism? Are rabbis willing to lead the thought back to basic Jewish principles, even if their congregation has forgotten them? Can rabbis lead their congregations back to imagining Judaism as something greater than current thought? Aaron couldn’t and the people nearly lost the covenant with God at Mt. Sinai over the golden calf.
It might be observed that more rabbis have been terminated over difference between their politics and those of the congregation than over differences between their theology and that of the congregation.
C. Today
Aaron played the role of the modern rabbi who must answer either to the congregation or to the Board of Directors or to the tenants of Judaism or to his own conscience, and thus must frame his or her role accordingly . The modern rabbi must lead through negotiation, compromise and gentle urging, but must always account for his own conscience, the policies of Judaism as well as the will and bidding of the people of the congregation and/or the Board of Directors and shape and perhaps compromise the Rabbi’s own view accordingly- like Aaron. On the other hand, Moses did not have to answer to a congregation or to a Board of Directors and did not have to act correspondingly and could frame his role in the way he thought proper and best for the people – even if it meant leading them in a direction that was contrary to their desires. The modern rabbi does not have this luxury.
V. Conclusion
This essay does not, and cannot, provide any answer or even suggest an approach to an answer, for the questions raised above. Those questions must be answered according to the individual situation. The purpose of this essay is merely to raise the issues and hope that the essay engenders discussion, and certainly understanding, of the difficult position and choices which must be faced and made by modern rabbis of diverse and sometimes assertive and restive congregations
AARON AND THE GOLDEN CALF
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. Why didn’t Moses instruct the people to treat Aaron as is full surrogate?
2. Where was Miriam? Was she complicit in this?
3. How does such a rebellion get started in the first place? Was there a leader of the rebellion? Were there meetings?
4. If the Levites were so loyal that they killed 3000 people under Moses’s instructions, where were they before the calf was built?
5. How could Aaron have dissuaded the people from building the calf? Do you think he even tried? Or did he see this as an opportunity to usurp Moses’s place?
6. Why did God not punish Aaron? At least strip him of his power as a leader since he had proved that he was not a trustworthy leader?
7. Why did God not send Moses back immediately when the people began to build the calf to nip the rebellion in the bud rather than waiting until they had transgressed?
8. Do you think it was a unanimous decision to build the idol? If not, why were all the people punished? Collective guilt?
9.If some of the people would have refused to destroy the calf, what would God have done to the people who resisted destroying the calf? Would there have been a split? A civil war? How would Jewish history have changed if only some of the people had agreed to follow God and self punish for building the calf and then gone their own way? Maybe this is actually what happened: some people left the tribes and went their own way and the story only followed the people who stayed within the tribes and wrote the others out of the story.
10.If Judaism is a meritocracy and anybody from any background can rise to spiritual heights, why did God designate Aaron and his lineage for the hereditary priesthood? Why does Judaism need a hereditary priesthood anyway? Aren’t all Jews priests (Ex 19:6 “…you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests…”)? Further, why Aaron, and not someone else, for example one of the people who refused to go along with the scheme to build the Golden Calf?
11. Many believe that the Israelite worshipping the Golden Calf was idolatry, which violates the first commandment of “You shall have no other gods before me.” However, there is evidence that they were not intending to worship that image as a god and that they surely knew who rescued them out of Egypt. The Covenant Code states that gods shall not be made of silver, but out of gold. Could the case be made that the worship of the Golden Calf was not worship of a foreign god, but rather the incorrect worship of the proper god?