Israel, God’s Chosen People?

In Deuteronomy, YHWH chooses Israel to be his holy (kadosh) and treasured (segulah) people. What does this mean in its original context, and can it be reconciled with contemporary universalist notions?

Dr. Rabbi

Michael Marmur

Dr. Rabbi

Michael Marmur

Categories:

Nitzavim

The traditional blessing for reading the Torah, found in the Babylonian Talmud (Berakhot 11b), blesses God:

אֲשֶׁר בָּחַר בָּנוּ מִכָּל הָעַמִּים וְנָתַן לָנוּ אֶת תּוֹרָתוֹ

Who chose us from all of the peoples and gave us His Torah.^[1]

This ancient formulation is included in the new Siddur of the Reform Movement in Israel, published in 2020.^[2] In addition, the editors of the new prayerbook, Dalia Marx and Alona Lisitsa, have included two alternative versions, both of which employ the imagery of a God Who chooses. Each, however, offers a quite different kind of choice.

One modern formulation focuses on Israel’s mission, and blesses God:

אשר בחר בנו ליחד את שמו וקרבנו לעבודתו

Who chose us in order to single out God’s name, and brought us close to God’s service.

The third is more innovative, though based on rabbinic traditions from the Land of Israel found in the Cairo Genizah. It blesses God:

אשר בחר בתורה הזאת

Who has chosen this Torah.

The inclusion of more than one version is indicative of the challenge felt by many modern Jews by the implications of a claim made explicitly in the Hebrew Bible: that God chose Israel. Some have rejected this claim outright. Mordecai Kaplan (1881–1983), founder of the Reconstructionist Movement, made this explicit:

The idea of Israel as the Chosen People must… be understood as belonging to a thought world which we no longer inhabit… Nowadays for any people to call itself “chosen” is to be guilty of self-infatuation.^[3]

Yet, Israel’s chosenness is a core concept in the Bible.^[4]

God Chooses Israel: Deuteronomy’s Formulation

In the Bible, God is often portrayed as choosing. In some cases, particular individuals are said to have been chosen by God, in other cases, groups.^[5] While the precise phrase “ the chosen people” is absent from the Bible,^[6] Deuteronomy does make use of this same verb root ב.ח.ר, “to choose,” in describing YHWH’s relationship to Israel.^[7] For example:

^{דברים ז:ו} כִּי עַם קָדוֹשׁ אַתָּה לַי־הֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּךָ בָּחַר יְ־הֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְעַם סְגֻלָּה מִכֹּל הָעַמִּים אֲשֶׁר עַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה:

^{Deut 7:6} For you are a people kadosh to YHWH your God: of all the peoples on earth YHWH your God chose you to be His segulah people.^[8]

As noted by Tikva Frymer-Kensky (1943–2006), late Professor of Assyriology and Biblical Studies at the University of Chicago, this statement appears within a series of verses containing “most of the components of Israel’s ideas about its special relationship with God.”^[9]

In addition to God choosing Israel, this verse notes that Israel is a kadosh people and a segulah people.^[10] These two terms come together again later in Deuteronomy, which instead of describing YHWH as choosing Israel, describes the reciprocal relationship between YHWH and Israel:

^{דברים כו:יז} אֶת יְ־הֹוָה הֶאֱמַרְתָּ הַיּוֹם לִהְיוֹת לְךָ לֵאלֹהִים וְלָלֶכֶת בִּדְרָכָיו וְלִשְׁמֹר חֻקָּיו וּמִצְוֹתָיו וּמִשְׁפָּטָיו וְלִשְׁמֹעַ בְּקֹלוֹ: ^כו:יח וַי־הֹוָה הֶאֱמִירְךָ הַיּוֹם לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְעַם סְגֻלָּה כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר לָךְ וְלִשְׁמֹר כָּל מִצְוֹתָיו: ^כו:יט וּלְתִתְּךָ עֶלְיוֹן עַל כָּל הַגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לִתְהִלָּה וּלְשֵׁם וּלְתִפְאָרֶת וְלִהְיֹתְךָ עַם קָדשׁ לַי־הֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֵּר:

^{Deut 26:17} You have affirmed this day that YHWH is your God, that you will walk in His ways, that you will observe His laws and commandments and rules, and that you will obey Him. ^26:18 And YHWH has affirmed this day that you are, as He promised you, His segulah people who shall observe all His commandments. ^26:19 And that He will set you, in fame and renown and glory, high above all the nations that He has made; and that you shall be, as He promised, a kadosh people to YHWH your God.^[11]

The idea that YHWH has a special relationship with Israel appears throughout the Bible, but it is especially pervasive in Deuteronomy, whether expressed as a choice or, as here, as an affirmation.^[12]

Kadosh People

What does it mean to be an עַם קָדוֹשׁ (ʿam kadosh)? The first word means “a people,” while the second denotes holiness, sanctity, consecration, i.e., that which is set apart.^[13] Thus, in Deuteronomy, Israel is a people “holy” or “consecrated” to YHWH.^[14] The term is not simply a positive evaluation of the Israelites, but is used to explain Israel’s requirement to follow YHWH’s commandments.^[15]

In one case, the point is expressed in general terms:

^{דברים כח:ט} יְקִימְךָ יְ־הֹוָה לוֹ לְעַם קָדוֹשׁ כַּאֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע לָךְ כִּי תִשְׁמֹר אֶת מִצְוֹת יְ־הֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ וְהָלַכְתָּ בִּדְרָכָיו:

^{Deut 28:9} YHWH will establish you as His holy people, as He swore to you, if you keep the commandments of YHWH your God and walk in His ways.

In two cases, Deuteronomy uses this as an explanation for why certain laws must be kept:

^{דברים יד:כא} לֹא תֹאכְלוּ כָל נְבֵלָה לַגֵּר אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ תִּתְּנֶנָּה וַאֲכָלָהּ אוֹ מָכֹר לְנָכְרִי כִּי עַם קָדוֹשׁ אַתָּה לַי־הוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ...

^{Deut 14:21} You shall not eat anything that has died a natural death; give it to the stranger in your community to eat, or you may sell it to a foreigner. For you are a people consecrated to YHWH your God…

^{דברים יד:א} בָּנִים אַתֶּם לַי־הוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם לֹא תִתְגֹּדְדוּ וְלֹא תָשִׂימוּ קָרְחָה בֵּין עֵינֵיכֶם לָמֵת. ^יד:ב כִּי עַם קָדוֹשׁ אַתָּה לַי־הוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ וּבְךָ בָּחַר יְ־הוָה לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְעַם סְגֻלָּה מִכֹּל הָעַמִּים אֲשֶׁר עַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה.

^{Deut 14:1} You are children of YHWH your God. You shall not gash yourselves or shave the front of your heads because of the dead. ^14:2 For you are a people consecrated to YHWH your God: YHWH your God chose you from among all other peoples on earth to be His segulah people.

The idea here is that certain behaviors, which are perfectly acceptable among other nations, are prohibited for Israelites because they violate the norms preferred by Israel’s God YHWH, who chose them as His people. Here again, the term kadosh people is coupled with the term segulah people, which is more enigmatic.

What Is a Segulah?

Based on a study of cognate terms in other ancient Semitic languages, as well as some biblical parallels (see appendix), scholars understand the term “segulah” to mean “property” or “treasure.”^[16] Thus,

^{שמות יט:ה} וְעַתָּה אִם שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמְעוּ בְּקֹלִי וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת בְּרִיתִי וִהְיִיתֶם לִי סְגֻלָּה מִכָּל הָעַמִּים כִּי לִי כָּל הָאָרֶץ:

^{Exod 19:5} Now then, if you will obey Me faithfully and keep My covenant, you shall be my treasure among all the peoples.^[17]

^{מלאכי ג:יז} וְהָיוּ לִי אָמַר יְ־הֹוָה צְבָאוֹת לַיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי עֹשֶׂה סְגֻלָּה וְחָמַלְתִּי עֲלֵיהֶם כַּאֲשֶׁר יַחְמֹל אִישׁ עַל בְּנוֹ הָעֹבֵד אֹתוֹ:

^{Malachi 3:17} And on the day that I am preparing, said YHWH of Hosts, they shall be my treasure; I will be tender toward them is a man is tender toward a son who ministers to him.

^{תהלים קלה:ד} כִּי יַעֲקֹב בָּחַר לוֹ יָהּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לִסְגֻלָּתוֹ:

^{Ps 135:4} For Yah has chosen Jacob for Himself, Israel as his treasure.^[18]

In Deuteronomy, the term means something like “treasured people,” implying both that Israel is very valuable to YHWH, and at the same time they are YHWH’s possession. As the term segulah is used in Ugaritic texts to express that a given king is a vassal to a higher king (see appendix), this is likely also implied in the usage here in Deuteronomy; in other words, Israel is YHWH’s possession in the sense that YHWH is their beloved overlord and they his treasured and loyal vassal.

A Conditional Choice?

These verses from Deuteronomy express that Israel is in a uniquely important position with YHWH, but that this position may be conditional on Israel’s observance of YHWH’s commandments.^[19] At the very least, YHWH promises to punish Israel with unique harshness if they violate his commandments,^[20] though at the same time, YHWH promises that afterwards, their relationship will be reinstated.^[21]

Pre-Modern Precedents for Reconceptualizing Election

Core biblical concepts of election have been understood in different ways throughout Jewish history. The complexity and uncertainty of this perennial theme was expressed in Sifrei, the Tannaitic commentary to the Book of Deuteronomy (§312):

ואין אנו יודעים אם הקדוש ברוך הוא בחר לו ישראל לסגולתו ואם ישראל בחרו בהקדוש ברוך הוא

…the matter still remains unclear, since we do not know whether the Holy One, blessed be He, chose Israel to be his own segula, or whether Israel chose the Holy One, blessed be He…

The midrash goes on to offer scriptural proofs for both of these possibilities. It is clear from Deuteronomy 14:2 that God chose the people, while a verse from Jeremiah is adduced to prove that Jacob chose God.

Over a millennium later, the Renaissance Italian-Jewish philosopher and exegete, R. Obadiah Sforno (1475–1550), addressed a philosophical problem raised by the notion that the God of all has a specific preference. In his gloss on Deuteronomy 33:3 he interprets the expression חובב עמים, “lover of peoples,” as evidence that God regards all humanity as a segulah.

אף חבב עמים – ואף על פי שאתה חובב עמים, כאמרך "והייתם לי סגלה מכל העמים" (שמות י"ט:ה'), ובזה הודעת שכל המין האנושי "סגולה" אצלך, כאמרם ז"ל: 'חביב אדם שנברא בצלם' (אבות ג':י"ח), מכל מקום כל קדשיו בידיך – הנה אמרת שכל קדושיו של "קדש" של "אש דת" הם "בידיך" כצרור הכסף, שהם חביבים משאר המין, כאמרו "ואתם תהיו לי ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש" (שמות י"ט:ו'), כאמרם ז"ל: 'חביבין ישראל שנקראו בנים למקום' (אבות שם).

“Lover indeed of peoples” —Even though you love peoples, as it says (Exod 19:5), “you will be a treasure from all the nations,” with this you indicate that all of humanity is a treasure to you, as the Sages said (m. Abot 3:18), “beloved is man for he was created in the image [of God],” still “their holy ones are in your hands,”… like a bag of silver, that they are more beloved to you than the rest of their species, as it says (Exod 19:6), “and you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation,” and as [the Sages] said (m. Avot 3:18), “beloved is Israel, for they are called the children of God.”

While Sforno denies the claim that God does not treasure other peoples, he still clings to the idea that God prefers Israel to others.

This contrast exemplifies Sforno:^[22] On one hand, he was a universalist, with a broad general education. He knew Arabic and Latin and studied together with Catholic clergy. His philosophical work אור עמים, “Light of the Nations,” was meant for both a Jewish and gentile audience, and he even translated it into Latin, and dedicated the Latin edition to King Henry II of France (ruled 1547–1559). On the other hand, in some of his Hebrew works, that were meant for Jewish consumption only, Sforno polemicizes against specific Christian doctrines; this is true of his commentaries on the Bible, especially that of Psalms.^[23]

While Sforno in the 16^th century is not bothered by Israel being “first among equals,” a century later, the doctrine is challenged by a much less traditional Jewish thinker.

Spinoza’s Reaction to the Chosen People Claim

The Dutch Jewish philosopher, Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677), may be the first Jewish commentator to take issue with the claim of Israel’s election. Well-versed in the classical sources of the tradition from which he had been excommunicated, he did not offer an outright rejection of those verses in Deuteronomy that suggest that God holds Israel in a special proximity. Rather, in Chapter Three of his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, he argued that such assertions were not to be understood literally. Moses made these claims to his audience to persuade and motivate them, but not as an expression of Truth.^[24]

Spinoza’s God is synonymous with Nature. A God who makes any choices or has any preferences is not God, because God/Nature is, but is not subject to whims and wants. To say that the Jews are elected is no more than to say that conditions of nature and history have dealt them a special hand. Others throughout history have also been convinced of their own manifest destiny, and to assert it is no more and no less than saying: thank God that things are going well. When they stop going well, the claim of Divine preference would simply wither.

Spinoza deployed a number of Biblical verses including Psalm 145:18 to demonstrate that the Hebrew Bible itself acknowledged that God’s grace is bestowed upon all humanity,

^{תהלים קמה:יח} קָרוֹב יְ־הוָה לְכָל קֹרְאָיו לְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִקְרָאֻהוּ בֶאֱמֶת.

^{Ps 145:18} YHWH is near to all who call Him, to all who call Him with sincerity.^[25]

The Deuteronomic claim that God holds Israel in special regard, therefore, should not be understood as evidence of capricious Divine choice, but rather a descriptive statement relating to a particular time and place.

Modern Approaches to Jewish Election

Modern Jewish thinkers have constructed a variety of strategies for responding to the challenges set down by Spinoza in his condemnation of the doctrine of election when understood literally. In some quarters, election is synonymous with triumphalism; in others, it is understood as part of a demanding network of laws and commitments.

Some philosophers, such as Mordecai Kaplan^[26] and Judith Plaskow,^[27] reject a hierarchical and supernatural notion they cannot support, and search for alternative models. Others, such as Jon Levenson,^[28] Will Herberg^[29] and Michael Wyschogrod,^[30] remain comfortable with a God who loves and demands a particular people (as well as all peoples), and insist that any future of dignity and honesty between peoples demands embracing our particular embodied identities.

A third strategy calls for reinterpretation of this key concept. In his reading of the Deuteronomy passages, for example, doyen of contemporary Israeli Jewish thought Eliezer Schweid uses the term as the basis for a communitarian Jewish political philosophy.^[31]

Whichever strategy is adopted, the Deuteronomic terms ‘am segula and ‘am kadosh offer a rich basis for teasing out the delicate relationship between equality and uniqueness.

Appendix

The Term Segulah in its Ancient Near Eastern Context

One helpful indicator of the meaning of the term segulah is the cognate usage of its root in other Semitic languages.

Literal Usage—In Akkadian, the verb sakālu^[32] means “to acquire, hoard,” and the noun form, sikiltu(m) means “acquisitions, (hoarded) property.”^[33] So, for instance, Laws of Hammurabi §141 addresses a case in which a woman is planning to run away from her husband and sikiltam isakkil, “she appropriated the possessions.” In Ugaritic, a language very close to Hebrew, the term sglt means “treasure, private property.”^[34]

A translation of “wealth” or “property” works well in two late biblical sources.^[35] In Chronicles, when King David and Solomon are gathering the resources needed for Solomon to eventually build the Temple, David announces to the people:

^{דברי הימים א כט:ג} וְעוֹד בִּרְצוֹתִי בְּבֵית אֱלֹהַי יֶשׁ לִי סְגֻלָּה זָהָב וָכָסֶף נָתַתִּי לְבֵית אֱלֹהַי...

^{1 Chron 29:3} Besides, out of my solicitude for the House of my God, I gave over my segulah of gold and silver to the House of my God…

Similarly, in Ecclesiastes, which is written to reflect the voice of an Israelite king, the speaker says:

^{קהלת ב:ח} כָּנַסְתִּי לִי גַּם כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב וּסְגֻלַּת מְלָכִים וְהַמְּדִינוֹת...

^{Eccl 2:8} I further amassed silver and gold and the segulah of kings and provinces…

Metaphorical Usage—The term also has a long history as a metaphor. In a seal impression found in Bronze Age city of Alalakh (in modern-day southern Turkey), the owner is referred to as “the servant of Adad, the beloved of Adad, the sikiltum of Adad.” Possession here has a positive valence, something like “treasure.” This is likely the meaning of the personal theophoric name Sikultu-Adad, “treasure of Adad,” also found in Alalakh.^[36]

Like the Akkadian term, the Ugaritic term can be used metaphorically, and it may express a vassal relationship.^[37] Thus, in the 12^th century, the Hittite King writes to his vassal Ammurapi, king of Ugarit (RS 18.038):

Now you also belong to the sun your master, a servant indeed, his possession (sglt) you are.^[38]

Based on this comparative evidence, scholars suggest that when applied by God to the Israelites, the term also means personal property, with the positive connotation of something very valuable, thus “my treasure” or “my treasured people.”^[39]

TheTorah.com is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
We rely on the support of readers like you. Please support us.

Published

September 15, 2020

Last Updated

November 23, 2024

Previous in the Series

Next in the Series

Before you continue...

TheTorah.com needs your support. A generous friend has offered to match end-of-year donations. Every contribution makes a difference.

Please Donate

Footnotes

View Footnotes

Published

September 15, 2020

Last Updated

November 23, 2024

[1] A similar idea appears in the Ashkenazi version of the Friday night kiddush recited before the Shabbat meal:

כִּי בָנוּ בָחַרְתָּ וְאוֹתָנוּ קִדַּשְׁתָּ מִכָּל הָעַמִּים

For you have chosen us and sanctified us out of all the nations.

[2] Tefillat HaAdam, due for publication before the end of 2020.

[3] Mordecai M. Kaplan, The Future of the American Jew (New York: Macmillan, 1949), 211. Kaplan believed, however, that the biblical formulation of chosenness was designed to militate against chauvinism, asserting that “[i]n the Bible, the assumption of Israel’s election merely implies that YHWH, the God whom Israel acknowledged as its god, was so incomparably greater than the gods of the other nations, that the Israelites might well consider themselves fortunate in being His people.” Kaplan, The Future of the American Jew, 212.

[4] In reality, a number of theologies of election can be identified within the Hebrew Bible, and the search for the “One Biblical View” of this concept is bound to end in frustration. Rather than attempting to offer an essentialist view, I chose here to explore the Deuteronomic terms ‘am segula and ‘am kadosh, which offer resonant expressions of chosenness.

[5] Examples include Abraham (Nehemiah 9:7), Jacob (Isaiah 41:8), Moses and Aaron (by implication in Numbers 16 and 17 respectively). Three successive kings are all said to be thus chosen– Saul (1 Samuel 10:24), David (for example 2 Samuel 6:21, 1 Kings 8:18, 11:34-36, 2Kings 23:27 and Psalms 78:70) and Solomon (1 Chronicles 28:5-10, 29:1). Zerubbabel is also chosen by God, according to the prophet Haggai (2:23). So too is the tribe of Judah (Psalms 78:68) and the priests (Deuteronomy 18:5, 21:5). The city of Jerusalem has been chosen (1 Kings 8:44,11:12-13, 21:7), and at its heart the Temple (2 Chronicles 7:12,16). God also is described as offering a choice to Israel and exhorting the people to choose life (Deuteronomy 30:19), to choose God (Joshua 24:22), and to choose what God desires, holding fast to the covenant (Isaiah 56:4).

[6] Perhaps the closest to the term “chosen people” in the Hebrew Bible can be found in the expression עמי בחירי (Isaiah 43:20), “my people, my chosen” which was translated in the Septuagint as genos eklekton. This term found its way into the New Testament (see 1 Peter 2:9-10), where it is used to describe a new Chosen People. See William, W. Klein, ‘The New Chosen People’: A Corporate View of Election (Eugene OR: Wipf & Stock, 2015). The Hebrew expression העם הנבחר, ha’am hanivchar, is notable by its absence from Rabbinic literature, perhaps in response to its polemical usage in Christianity. Discussions of these ideas in the three great monotheistic traditions are surveyed in an accessible way by Reuven Firestone, Who Are the Real Chosen People? The Meaning of Chosenness in Judaism, Christianity and Islam (Woodstock VT: SkyPaths, 2008). The Hebrew term does appear in some medieval texts, such as Pirkei Mashiach and the commentaries of Gersonides. On the significance of the concept for this latter thinker, see Robert Eisen, Gersonides on Providence, Covenant and the Chosen People (Albany NY: State University of New York Press, 1995).

[7] This verb root appears over 170 times in the Hebrew Bible.

[8] The text continues by repeating Israel’s chosenness and explaining that it is not on account of their importance:

^{דברים ז:ז} לֹא מֵרֻבְּכֶם מִכָּל הָעַמִּים חָשַׁק יְ־הֹוָה בָּכֶם וַיִּבְחַר בָּכֶם כִּי אַתֶּם הַמְעַט מִכָּל הָעַמִּים:

^{Deut 7:7} It is not because you are the most numerous of peoples that YHWH set his heart on you and chose you – indeed, you are the smallest of all peoples.

Outside Deuteronomy, the description of God as choosing Israel is averred by prophets (e.g., Ezekiel 20.5, Isaiah 14.1, 44.1), and in Psalms (33:12, 135:4).

[9] Tikva Frymer-Kensky, “Biblical Voices on Chosenness”, in: Covenant and Chosenness in Judaism and Mormonism, ed. Raphael Jospe, Truman G. Madsen & Seth Ward (Madison: Farleigh Dickinson University Press, 2001), 23.

[10] A third term used elsewhere in Deuteronomy is עַם נַחֲלָה, a nachalah people, which can be translated as domain, estate, legacy, or inheritance:

^{דברים ד:כ} וְאֶתְכֶם לָקַח יְ־הֹוָה וַיּוֹצִא אֶתְכֶם מִכּוּר הַבַּרְזֶל מִמִּצְרָיִם לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְעַם נַחֲלָה כַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה:

^{Deut 4:20} But you YHWH took and brought out of Egypt, that iron blast furnace, to be His very own people of inheritance, as is now the case.

[11] We see this conception again, a few chapters later, when Moses explains that YHWH is making a covenant with all the people of Israel:

^{דברים כט:יב} לְמַעַן הָקִים אֹתְךָ הַיּוֹם לוֹ לְעָם וְהוּא יִהְיֶה לְּךָ לֵאלֹהִים כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר לָךְ וְכַאֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע לַאֲבֹתֶיךָ לְאַבְרָהָם לְיִצְחָק וּלְיַעֲקֹב:

^{Deut 29:12} To the end that He may establish you this day as His people and be your God, as He promised you and as He swore to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

[12] This idea, that YHWH has designated Israel as his own people עָם (ʿam) appears throughout the Torah, usually expressed by YHWH in the first person. For instance, in his second introductory speech to Moses in Exodus:

^{שמות ו:ז} וְלָקַחְתִּי אֶתְכֶם לִי לְעָם וְהָיִיתִי לָכֶם לֵאלֹהִים וִידַעְתֶּם כִּי אֲנִי יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם...

^{Exod 6:7} And I will take you to be My people, and I will be your God. And you shall know that I, YHWH, am your God…

Critical scholars identify this text with the Holiness School (H), a Priestly school that was influenced by Deuteronomy. See Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School, trans. Jackie Feldman and Peretz Rodman (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007; repr. of, Minneapolis, MN; Fortress Press, 1995), 61; trans. of מקדש הדממה: עיון ברובדי היצירה הכוהנית שבתורה (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1992). Other examples are, Leviticus 26:12, Jeremiah 7:23, 11:4, 24:7, 30:22, 31.1, 31.33, 32:38, Ezekiel 11:20, 14:11, 36:28, 37:23, 37:27, Zachariah 8:8.

[13] The first word, ʿam, in proto-Semitic means “paternal uncle” (see the entry for עם in HALOT for more details), and this remains the meaning in Arabic (عم), with khal (خال) as maternal uncle. More broadly, in ancient Semitic cultures, the family of one’s father was also a man’s ʿam or clan. While these meanings are rare in the Bible, the biblical meaning of ʿam as “a people” derives from them. As for the second word, kedushah, and its meaning in the Bible, see discussion in Israel Knohl, “The Concept of Kedushah (Sanctity),” TheTorah (2014).

[14] Outside of Deuteronomy, the term appears in Daniel 12:7, while the variant ʿam ha-kodesh, appears in Isaiah 62:12 and ʿam kodshekha in Isaiah 63:18.

[15] For a comparison of Deuteronomy’s concept of holiness here with that of the Priestly schools, see Eyal Regev, “Priestly Dynamic Holiness and Deuteronomic Static Holiness,” Vetus Testamentum 51.2 (2001): 243–261.

[16] See Yigal Bloch, "עיון מחודש במשמעות המונח סגולה" [Segulla – A Re-examination of the Meaning of the Term Based on Two Assyrian Documents from the Thirteenth Century B.C.E], Shnaton le-Heker Ha-Mikra ve-Hamizrah ha-Kadum 21 (2012): 111-140; Harold O. Forshey, “Segulah and Nachalah as Designations of the Covenant Community,” Hebrew Abstracts 15 (1974): 85-86; Moshe Greenberg, “Hebrew segulla: Akkadian sikiltu,” Journal of the American Oriental Society, 71.3 (1951): 172-174; Moshe Held, “A Faithful Lover in an Old Babylonian Dialogue,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 15.1 (1961): 1-26; Samuel E. Loewenstamm, “Am S’gulla,” in: From Babylon to Cannan: Studies in the Bible and Its Oriental Background (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992), 268-279. For a discussion of this term’s metamorphosis and deployment in current Israeli political discourse, see Gedaliah Afterman, Understanding the Theology of Israel’s Extreme Religious Right: ‘The Chosen People’ and ‘The Land of Israel’ from the Bible to the ‘expulsion from Gush Katif’, Ph.D Thesis (University of Melbourne, 2007), 18–47; 99–114.

[17] In Mekhilta Bahodesh Yitro 2 on this verse, Rabbi Joshua ben Karha is at pains to emphasize that Israel’s relationship to God cannot be compared to other segula situations – where, for example, a wife saves up money provided over time by her husband, or a son by his father. All of creation is already God’s, yet still the terminology of accrued possession is employed, if only to grab the attention of the listener.

[18] Most of the traditional Rabbinic and medieval commentaries interpret the word from the context of its appearances in the Hebrew Bible, hence they tend to suggest it denotes a hidden treasure, a pleasing thing, or a rank which includes a direct link to God, with no celestial bureaucracy allowed to interfere. Over time the root s-g-l came to have varied and remarkable meanings. For example, in contemporary Hebrew a teaching faculty is a segel, and to be capable is to be mesugal. Words constructed from this root mean also the preparation of ground, and in its reflexive form, the capacity to adjust and prepare for change.

[19] See Joel S. Kaminsky, “Can Election Be Forfeited?”, in The Call of Abraham – Essays on the Election of Israel in Honor of Jon D. Levenson, ed. Joel S. Kaminsky & Gary A. Anderson (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2013): 44–66.

[20] This is a standard part of ANE vassal treaties. For a discussion of Deuteronomy’s use of vassal treaty language, see Deena Grant, “Loving God Beyond the Way You Love Ashurbanipal,” TheTorah (2016); Jon Levenson, “The Shema and the Commandment to Love God in Its Ancient Contexts,” TheTorah (2016); Pamela Barmash, “The Novel Introduction of Blessings into Our Treaty with God,” TheTorah (2014).

[21] Whether this latter promise is integral to Deuteronomy or a later revision is a matter of debate. See discussion in Marc Zvi Brettler, “Comparing Curses,” TheTorah (2016).

[22] For a discussion of the contrasting universalist and particularist sides of Sforno’s philosophy, see Moshe Rachimi “'הכומר הצועק נגדי': פולמוס יהודי-נוצרי בפירוש ר' עובדיה ספורנו לתהלים” [“‘Shouting Opposite Me’: The Jewish-Christian Polemic in R. Obadiah Sforno's Commentary to Psalms”], Hebrew Union College Annual 82–83 (2011–2012): 79–111.

[23] Rachimi, “Shouting Opposite Me,” p. 89 n 57.

[24] Editor’s note: For more on Spinoza’s approach to the Bible, see Steven Nadler, “Spinoza: Who Wrote the Bible Determines How We Read It,” TheTorah (2020).

[25] He also quotes an earlier verse in the same (145:9), as well as Ps 33:15, Job 29:28, and Jonah 4:2.

[26] For one among many examples of Kaplan’s rejection of the concept of Divine election, see Mordecai M. Kaplan, The Future of the American Jew (New York: Macmillan, 1949), 211-231.

[27] Judith Plaskow, Standing Again at Sinai: Judaism From a Feminist Perspective (San Francisco: Harper & Row), 96-107.

[28] Jon D. Levenson, “The Universal Horizon of Biblical Particularism”, in Mark G. Brett, Ethnicity and the Bible (Boston/Leiden: Brill, 2002), 143-169; “Chosenness and Its Enemies”, Commentary December 2008, 25-31; “Miscategorizing Chosenness”, in: Shelley L. Birdsong & Serge Frolov (eds.), Partners With God: Theological and Critical Reading of the Bible in Honor of Marvin A. Sweeney (Claremont CA: Claremont Press, 2017), 327-343.

[29] Will Herberg, “The ‘Chosenness’ of Israel and the Jew of Today” in Arguments and Doctrines: A Reader of Jewish Thinking in the Aftermath of the Holocaust, ed. Arthur A. Cohen, (New York: Harper & Row, 1970), 267-283.

[30] Michael Wyschogrod, The Body of Faith: Judaism as Corporal Election (New York: Seabury Press, 1983), 58-70.

[31] Eliezer Schweid, רעיון העם הנבחר והליברליות החדשה [The Idea of the Chosen People and the New Liberalism], (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 2016).

[32] The hard g sound (voiced velar plosive/stop) and the k sound (voiceless velar plosive/stop) are similar to each other and are sometimes interchanged in the switch between languages. Thus the city of Agade is also known as Akkad; the Sumerian word egal (temple or palace) becomes Akkadian ekallu, etc.

[33] The definitions follow Jeremy Black, Andrew George, Nicholas Postgate, A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian (CDA), 2^nd ed., Santag 5 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,1999), 312, 322.

[34] The definition follows Gregorio del Olme Lette and Joaquin Sanmartin, A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition, trans. Wilfred Watson, Handbook of Oriental Studies 67 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 2.754.

[35] This is also the meaning of the term in the Babylonian Talmud Baba Kama 87b, where it is taught that compensation due to a minor should be invested as a segula, a gift likely to provide steady profits for the beneficiary over time. The Talmud offers two examples of what such a long-term trust fund might be. One sage suggests a Torah scroll, another a date palm. In each case, the meaning of segula is of something put aside to accrue benefit over time. It is a gift that keeps on giving.

[36] See discussion in Daniel I. Block, How I Love Your Torah, O LORD!: Studies in the Book of Deuteronomy (Wipf and Stock, 2011), 152–153 [n 33].

[37] Binyamin Uffenheimer, "סגולה" [The Semantics of Segula], Beit Mikra 4 (1977): 427-434. Its original sense has been well captured by Moshe Weinfeld, who suggests that “the basic meaning of the root sakalu is to set aside a thing or certain property either with good intention… or with an evil purpose.” Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (London: Oxford University Press, 1972), 226 n.2.

[38] Translation from COS 3.95.

[39] Sincere thanks are due to the editors of this site for the ways in which they have enriched this essay. Their contribution has been immeasurable.