God and history: do events carry a “message”?

“Remember the days of old”

The Torah says: “Remember the days of old, consider the years of generation after generation.” That is, learn from history. And that is what the prophets did: they explained to the people “why the land was destroyed,” and which sin brought which punishment. But notice what there was then: there was prophecy, which said explicitly what God was doing and why. Today there are no prophets, and we have no tool to decode a “message” from an event. And whoever tries projects onto the event what he thought before.

“Perhaps God steers only the big processes?”

Some say: true, God does not intervene in the life of the individual, but he directs the great history, of the nations and certainly of the people of Israel. With “broad brushstrokes” he steers reality. This is possible, but not plausible, for two reasons. The first: the fate of a people is simply the sum of the fates of the people in it. If the fate of each person is determined by the laws of nature and by his choices and those of others, the fate of the whole people is determined that way too. There is no “extra floor” on which someone decides the outcome. The second: even if God decreed something on a whole people, each person within it would still be free to choose. Maimonides (Laws of Repentance 6:5) asks: if God decreed that the Egyptians would enslave Israel, why were they punished? And answers: he did not decree on any particular Egyptian that he would enslave. Every Egyptian who harmed Israel, had he not wanted to, would not have done it. God only knew that “the seed of Abraham” would be enslaved. In other words, even when it comes to a people, the actual decision is in the hands of human beings.

The best proof: contradictory interpretations

The best proof that there is no knowledge here is the fact that the same event is interpreted in opposite ways. Haredim concluded from the Holocaust that Zionism is a sin. Religious Zionists concluded from it that exile is a sin and that one must make aliyah. The founding of the state is “the beginning of redemption” for some and “the work of Satan” for others. The same event, opposite interpretations. This does not mean neither is correct. It means neither is knowledge. Each side found in the event what it was looking for.

And so the conclusion: one should not give a theological interpretation to historical events, and there is no point looking in them for a message from God. There is also a theological argument for this: if God wanted us to learn a lesson from the event, he would have made sure the lesson was clear. And there is also a logical argument, which we have already seen: God does not bring about the events, and so there is no “message” of his in them.

“Let us search and examine our ways”

Does this mean a disaster tells us nothing? No. A disaster is an opportunity to examine our deeds. Not because God sent it, but because an upheaval stops us and makes us think. But the conclusions must come from what the person already believes, not from “decoding” the disaster. A Haredi who goes through a disaster will check whether he opposes Zionism enough. A religious Zionist will check whether he is Zionist enough. The disaster does not decide between them, it only reminds each one what he thinks. And there is a difference between a “didactic” event, meant to teach us something, and an event of “policy,” in which God (if he acts) runs the world for his purposes. The second possibility is not grounded either: there is no way to know what the purposes are, or whether there are any.