Support the Café

Search our Site

The Slaughter in the Wilderness

The Slaughter in the Wilderness

Tuesday, May 1, 2012 –– Week of 4 Easter

Saint Philip and Saint James, Apostles

Today’s Readings for the Daily Office


Tuesday of Week of 4 Easter (p. 961)

Psalms 45 (morning) 47, 48 (evening

Exodus 32:21-34

1 Thessalonians 1:1-10

Matthew 5:11-16


Feast of Saints Philip & James (p. 997)

Morning Prayer: Psalm 119:137-160 / Job 23:1-12 / John 1:43-51

Evening Prayer: Psalm 139/ Proverbs 4:7-18 / John 12:20-26

I chose the readings for Tuesday of 4 Easter

[Go to for an online version of the Daily Office including today’s scripture readings.]

What would we call it today? A slaughter; a massacre; religious genocide?

Moses returns from his absence on the mountain and finds that the people have turned from their loyalty to the God of Abraham and made a golden idol of a bull, a symbol of power and fecundity. They have been feasting and engaging in acts of religious or wanton sex, according to the custom of some cultic rituals. Moses confronts his brother Aaron, who offers a pitiful excuse. From the camp gate Moses cries, “Who is on the Lord’s side? Come to me!” The sons of Levi respond, and Moses has them take swords and set upon the camp. “Go back and forth from gate to gate throughout the camp, and each of you kill your brother, your friend, and your neighbor.” The text says that about three thousand people died that day. (A comparison: Over 900 died in the Jonestown, Guyana, suicide-killings among the People’s Temple cult of Jim Jones.)

Taken at face value, it is a grizzly story. It darkens deeply the narrative of Moses. If it is a memory of the days of the Exodus, the story may reflect a rebellion or civil war against Moses leadership, which Moses had to put down by force.

Some scholars have speculated that there may be other influences present in the story as it comes to us. The text of the long Sinai section of Exodus was composed largely by the Priestly tradition of redactors, written sometime after the fall in 587 BCE. The Priestly writers had access to many very ancient traditions, stories and texts. As they put their particular stamp upon the material, they emphasized their central priestly interest over various cultic matters involving the tabernacle, sacred objects, sacrifices and priesthood.

From the perspective of the Priestly writers, there is another civil war and rebellion that is of great significance: Jeroboam’s rebellion in the 900’s BCE which separated the Northern Kingdom (Israel) from the Southern Kingdom (Judah) and established a rival capital in Shechem. To prevent his people from returning to the Temple in Jerusalem, Jeroboam erected two temples at the ends of his Northern Kingdom, one in Dan and one in Bethel. He made two statues of a golden calf, one for each shrine, and he spoke the same words over them as Aaron says in Exodus: “Here are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.” (1 Kings 12:28)

The Priestly authors are loyal to Jerusalem and to the Southern Kingdom. They want to condemn the apostasy of Jeroboam. Some scholars think that they have linked the story of Jeroboam with the story of the calf in Exodus. A few think the Exodus story was created whole as a polemic against the Northern king.

It is very possible that the bull was an alternative symbol representing not the Canaanite deities but the God of Abraham and Moses. In the North, the bull was a symbol of El, with whom the God of Abraham and Moses was identified, possibly as the invisible God atop the bull, much like the invisible God seated upon the cherubim of the Ark of the Covenant.

So, the story of the golden calf in Exodus may be a fiction to condemn the Northern rebellion, or it may have historical roots in the Exodus story, or both. It’s hard to know with certainty.

What seems clear is that Moses faced murmurings, conflict and resistance to his leadership in the wilderness. The Hebrew people were challenged and tempted by the established religious cults, rituals and shrines related to the sacred bull traditions. And the division between northern and southern kingdoms created deep scars, present in the Gospel accounts in the hostility between Jew and Samaritan. Doubtless, all of these conflicts were bitter, costly and at times bloody.

As a 21st century Christian, I’m fed up with wars in the name of God. I want the world’s powers to use their military might to stop genocide, especially religious genocide. I reject a God who commands slaughter in the name of right belief or ethnic purity. I embrace the God of Jesus Christ who absorbed such violence on the cross. And I turn to an ethic marked by yesterday’s gospel reading of the Beatitudes and today’s peaceful reminder, “You are the light of the world… [L]et your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.” (Matthew 5:14a, 16)


Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Richard E. Helmer

Thanks for this thought-provoking piece, Margaret! You touch close to something I’ve been thinking about the past few days: our current cultural propensity to both wittingly and unwittingly undermine authority and institutions. It’s destructive where we need the power of institutions to help empower good things, it’s creative where the institutions have become millstones, and most challenging of all – the institutional Church can be both millstone and a resource for empowerment much of the time! If only Peter had known what Jesus meant when he called him a rock upon which he would build it… But then, it’s good many of us don’t fully know what we’re getting into when it comes to involvement with the Church!

You remind me, too, so vividly in all of the current back-and-forth not to lose sight of our most basic mission, which is fundamentally planted and carried in no institutions other than human hearts and relationships…

Leonardo Ricardo

Powerless/acceptance/fallingoff place


Accepting help/willingness

Inventory/assets and not

Admitting wrongs/profound accountability (before God and trusted human beings)

Making appropriate amends/genuine/humble-considerate

Ongoing review/update/responsible

Trusting God in the doing and trusting in the not being able to do.

¨…the answers will come if we want them.¨

(it´s true)

it's margaret

Hi Mike –sorry for the delay –put a couple hundred miles on the car today!

Yeah, nimbleness etc. is the lingo and priority we seem to have bought in to… fine…. I think it is a knee-jerk reaction to the stalemate we have been experiencing. But, I have found that sometimes, working without a rush is really pleasant –and certainly, at this point, commendably counter-cultural!

But what you describe in grassroots networking makes me terribly nervous –the risk of descending in to the good ol’ boy network, who ya know and patron systems is too close to the bone with that kind of ‘process’ –particularly without some kind of oversight, prioritization etc….

Mike –come and stay a bit and see the work on the Reservations. There is nothing but grassroots out here… literally –in this, the poorest county in our Nation.

Thank you June.

Margaret Watson


I am so pleased that Margaret articulated much of what has been in my mind and heart for some time now. I am struck particularly by the two final paragraphs quoted here. The death is coming, and I, too, will grieve the great death. I haven’t formulated exactly what the new life of the church will/should look like, but I find Margaret’s suggestion of something modeled on AA intriguing and worthy of consideration.

June Butler

Michael Russell


I am about as far out on the progressive side of TEC as one can get and at the same time a loud voice for limiting the responsibilities of our central structure to a minimum.

I do not hold that same position with respect to Federal power, so I suppose I am atypical of your analysis.

That said TEC and the Federal Government are different kinds of entities overseeing different kinds of structures and having different kinds of responsibilities. (Although I can see TEC as having repelled foreign invasions and worked for domestic tranquility!)

My sense of adaptive change and nimbleness, as well as imagination and inventiveness, are that they bubble up from the grassroots and not down from above. I think this is true for TEC. My push to empower and fund the grassroots by not processing the money through a centralized office means that more money should end up and be available locally not less. And while I do not trust States to do the right thing, I do trust the Holy Spirit to inspire us in ways that take our passions and make them manifest.

In 2006 and 2009 the most compelling hearings were the ones in which local folks came to plead for funding from TEC. They told the best stories and those stories need to be told more widely, not just to a PB&F. Would not some system of lateral communications and sharing be more efficient than sending the money upstream to have an admin cut taken and then a portion returned downstream? I think so.

Support the Café
Past Posts

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café