Amos's River of Justice

Category: America’s Hebrew Connection

The biblical story found in the Book of Exodus held a personal meaning for the people of the American colonies. It was natural for the first colonists to liken themselves to the ancient Hebrews and to think of the American Continent as the Promised Land. Today, the American people continue to feel a kinship with modern Israel, for better or for worse. This is America’s Hebrew connection.

  • Modern Israel is Anti-West

    Modern Israel is Anti-West

    In this article, I hope to correct the way progressives think about modern Israel. I think much of our secular sympathy for Jewish people comes from the fact that the Nazi regime hated them and persecuted them. In retrospect, we had that in common with the Jews: the Nazis hated the West as well. But Israel has more in common with war-time Germany than it does with the West. Modern Israel is anti-West. In short, progressives seem stuck on the political contradictions of Israel. Christians give the Jews an additional benefit of the doubt because Christianity and Judaism are kin, religiously speaking.

    The West is Israel’s Biggest Victim

    Sometimes this preference for modern Israel takes the form of a belief. We believe that the Israeli government’s atrocities are aberrations from Israel’s ideal nature. I will argue on the contrary that Israel’s behavior is the result of her true nature. To put it plainly, modern Israel does not now and never has possessed an ideal nature separate from its atrocities. Worse, Western countries are not simple bystanders to Israel’s actions. The West may be powerful enablers of Israel’s drama, but The West is also Israel’s biggest victim.

    Israel and the West Against Hamas

    Where Does the Far Right End and Israel Begin?

    Where doest the Far Right End and Israel Begin? To the United States, the German far right’s critique of the West, seems completely unique to World War II. But Israel hijacked our thinking. According to Rabbi Simon Jacobson of Chabad, Israel opposes the West as much as Germany ever did. For that matter, Israel opposes the entire world. Why? Modern Israel has a race theory that rivals that of the Nazis. Richard Rothschild calls Chabad’s race theory Modern, ‘Moral,’ Reactionary Jewish Racism. This racism does not admit political causes of the strife in Palestine.

    Similar to the Netanyahu government’s dependence on the Old Testament story of Amalek, Rabbi Jacobson argues that the conflict in the Middle East started not with rivalry over the land, but with Jacob and Esau. Israel and Palestine are at war because they are descended from two archetypes. It’s a clash of civilizations.

    A Clash of Archetypes/Civilizations

    Rebecca, the mother of Jacob and Esau, was told she had two nations within her. Jacob was the father of the jewish people and Esau represented Western Roman Christianity. They remain at odds. Their immediate ancestors, Ishmael and Isaac, were not at peace either. Therefore, it’s not a surprise at all in Jacobson’s telling that their children and grandchildren are still enemies.

    Strangely, after explaining how the line of Jacob is superior to the line of Esau, Jacobson then claims to promote peace. For example, he says Christianity’s war against Judaism proves that peace is possible, because Christianity was ‘tamed’. Translation: peace means the acknowledgement of Jewish supremacy.

    Self-Serving Interpretations of Scripture

    Based on a mix of sources, including the Zohar, Jacobson says ‘one regrets Hagar had Ishmael‘ (Ishmael was Abraham’s son through Hagar, Sarah’s handmaid). He points out that Ishmael was not circumcised until 13 years of age. As a result, God gave Ishmael’s posterity a portion for a period of time in Israel, and decreed that the children of Ishmael will rule the land for that time. But like their circumcision, which was not complete, it will be temporary. And it will be over a period of time when the land will be desolate. Then these people will prevent the children of Israel from returning to their place until the time has come to return the land to the Jewish people.

    As a citation for this astonishing conclusion, Jacobson gives the page number: 32-A in the Zohar. I didn’t find his citations helpful, but I include them on the chance that someone else can use them. Then he continues: The children of Ishmael, the Arab nations and the Muslim nations, will cause great wars in the world, and the Children of Esau will gather against them. It’s a war between the West the the Muslim Arab world.

    The Defeat of the Christian West

    The war will go back and forth where the children of Esau, the Christians, and Romans and so on, will rule over the Ishmaelites. But the Children of Esau will not inhabit the land. The Holy Land will not be given over to them. At that time a nation from the ends of the earth will be aroused against evil Rome, and wage war against it for three months. Nations will gather there and Rome, referring to the Western World, will fall into their hands until all the children of Esau will gather against the nation, against that nation, from all the corners of the world. Then God will be roused against them. (And this is the meaning of the verse, for God is a sacrifice in Butra?). (That’s in Isaiah 3:46?) and afterwards it is written that it may take hold of the ends of the earth in (Job 38:31?) and he will defeat the descendants of Esau from the land and break all the powers of the nations, the nations’ guardian angels.

    There will not remain any power of any people on earth except the power of Israel on earth (and this is the meaning God is your shade upon your right hand in the book of Psalms 12:15?), and then he concludes with verses talking about how ultimately we will come to the end of days, where on that day, God shall be one and his name one, and all the people of the nations of the world will recognize the name, and the truth of this one God each in their own way, (and that’s from the Book of Safia 3:9?) and then Blessed is God forever, amen and amen, and that’s how the Zohar ends.

    False Humility

    From here, he spends some time giving advice on humility and on how God wants harmony. But before peace can happen, there will be the period of these confrontations. What does that mean and translate in our lives he asks? That we all have within ourselves conflicts between our faith and the values that we believe in, and sometimes how do you implement that for example that has not compromised some of your ideals, due to so-called the realities on the ground. The challenge is how do you integrate the two.

    Indeed!

    Rothschild criticizes this belief system in more detail. For example, it is extremely disturbing that Chabad teaches similar divisions between peoples as the European far right. In this view, peoples of different nationalities belong to different species, with nothing in common. There is no universal man.

    Modern Israel considers the West her enemy. And after squandering the West’s support, the Israeli’s believe that they will rule over the West with the approval of a Jewish God. Modern Israel is anti-West.

  • Political Zionism is an Anachronism

    Political Zionism is an Anachronism
    Political Zionism

    Morris Jastrow1 wrote in 1919 that Israel is a ‘glorified ghetto’. When you think about it, the conditions of Jewish life before the Enlightenment have been perfectly reproduced in Palestine. It’s no wonder the Israelis and their allies are cracking up. Political Zionism is an anachronism.

    Many Israeli leaders have claimed religious sanction for their treatment of the Palestinians. At the center of the current bombardment of Gaza is Benjamin Netanyahu, who claims to be following the admonition of Moses (Deut. 25:12–19) that “The Eternal will be at war against Amalek throughout the ages.” 

    This implies that Israel is commanded to wage a holy war of extermination against Amalek (Deut. 25:12–19), for in the early days “the wars of Israel” and the “wars of the Lord” were synonymous expressions (cf., e.g., Judg. 5:23).

    But, unfortunately for Netanyahu, even his supporters did not buy his analogy. His supporters don’t necessarily object to the carnage, just the rhetoric. They worry that announcing a holy war is not a good look for him. But his use of a story from ancient Israel to justify his war reveals the central mistake of the Zionists.

    Zionism does not understand the Hebrew Prophets or Jesus

    The use of the Old Testament in this way reveals that Zionism is a movement out of place and time. According to Morris Jastrow, this movement ignores what was accomplished by the Hebrew Prophets and Jesus. Jastrow calls Jesus the successor of the Prophets.

    Political Zionism is an anachronism

    Jastrow had sympathy for religious and economic Zionism. But as a political measure, Zionism was an anachronism. However, the political aspect has dominated since 1897. (p. 31) The only way the Zionists could have pulled this off is by ignoring or denying the religious aspect.

    The Prophets: From Ancient Israel to Judaism

    If Christians and Jews understood how the Old and New Testament fit together they would reject Zionism immediately. But instead, they are led by dramatic verses taken out of context, such as the story of Amalek. In fact, the Zionist movement itself is out of context.

    The Zionists seem unaware that the Prophets made major changes in the religion of ancient Israel. These changes are recorded in the Old Testament. The central concept that resulted from their teachings had to do with nationality and citizenship.

    Antiquity interpreted religion in terms of nationality. The basis of nationality and citizenship was a nation’s language and gods. This influenced the organization of religion, including the ancient Hebrew religion.

    The Hebrews had a national deity, whom they called Yahweh. He was their protector within the boundaries of their own territory. Within those borders, they were the chosen people of Yahweh. The groups around them were no different. They had been chosen by some other god.

    What was the message of the Prophets?

    However, for the Hebrews the ancient concept of religion changed with the rise of the Prophets. The Prophets taught that Yahweh is unlike other gods. His concern is conditioned on the obedience of his followers to certain principles. These principles involved ethical distinctions between right and wrong.

    But, this was not a theoretical lesson on ethics. The Prophets announced that Yahweh had rejected his people because of the oppression of the poor by the rich, the injustice in the courts of justice, and rampant crime. They said Yahweh would punish the people for their sins unless they would mend their ways.

    The Prophet Amos was the first to preach this message. He was followed by Hosea, who made the same prophecy. Then came Isaiah. Isaiah emphasized that sacrifices and tribute are an abomination to Yahweh, and that he does not want his worshippers to defile his holy place by coming there with unclean hands.

    These teachings represented a new (religious) language. Their significance lay in the emphasis on the conduct of the individual as the test of religion. From this point onward, the group was considered to represent an entity composed of individuals.

    In this process, the national Yahweh was transformed into a universal Jehovah. In other words, Judaism made its first appearance at that time. Judaism is a religion based on a monotheistic conception of divine government, which makes the conduct of the individual the test of religious life. But this transformation would soon be tested.

    The effect of the Babylonian exile

    Hebrew nationalism was made extinct after a Babylonian monarch, Nebuchadnezzar, destroyed the Jewish state. As a result, the Hebrew religion changed. It came to worship a God who was no longer tribal and confined to a specific territory. It worshipped a God who was universal, a God who was concerned for all mankind. The experience of exile and the new understanding of God that accompanied the exiles cut the bond between religion and nationality. The transformation into Judaism was complete.

    It is a fact of the utmost significance that the great contribution of the Jews to the world’s spiritual treasure was made not while the national life was flourishing, but as it was ebbing away. The Prophets with their revolutionary doctrines made their appearance when the northern Kingdom was beginning to show symptoms of decline, and the movement reached its height after this kingdom had disappeared and the national existence of the southern Kingdom was threatened. The religion of the Prophets is the swan song of ancient Hebraism, and the example of a people flourishing without a national background had to be furnished to the world in order to bring the new conception of religion to fruition, which divorced religion from nationality and made it solely the expression of the individual’s aspiration for the higher life and for communion with the source of all being. The ancient Hebrews disappeared. It was the Jews, as we should call the people after the Babylonian Exile, who survived, and they survived despite the fact that they never recovered their national independence in the full sense of the word.

    Jastrow, p. 38

    The theocratic state

    Judaism changed the people from a political to a religious unit. However, this process proved to be too much for the masses and they yearned to go back to their nationalistic ways. Jastrow defines what they were going through as the ‘wrenching of the political from the religious life’. He thought the strange phenomenon of a Prophet who is also a Priest was a response to this difficulty. But it was a step backward.

    The Prophet-Priest Ezra created a new code. Ezra’s code was combined with the two earlier codes in Exodus and the Book of Deuteronomy. This framework of early traditions and tribal experiences became the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch served as the basis of religious life. It also recognized the solidarity of the Jews as a political unit. The result was that Israel was so dominated by the priestly ideal that a theocratic state came to be.

    The ministry of Jesus

    Second Isaiah and the other ‘writing’ Prophets after the Babylonian exile opposed this development because the theocratic state led the Jews to focus on national aspirations.

    Beginning with Amos, the Prophets before the exile had envisioned a time when the Jewish people would set an example for the world to worship the ‘supreme Author of all being‘. But the theocratic state reattached the religion to what remained of the national life. This was the situation Jesus confronted in his lifetime.

    The universal Jehovah had not entirely put aside the rule of the tribal Yahweh. Yahweh was still viewed as the special protector of His chosen people by the side of His traits as the God of universal scope. The crisis came in the days of Jesus, who, as the successor of the Hebrew Prophets, drew the logical conclusion from their premises and substituted for the national ideal that of the ‘Kingdom of God…Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s’. By such a single saying Jesus broke definitely with all nationalistic aims, which even during the period of Roman control, strict and complete as it was, the Jews did not entirely abandon.

    Jastrow, pp. 41-42

    According to Jastrow, it is an error to suppose that the Jews rejected the religious teachings of Jesus. They could not have rejected his teachings. Jesus taught in the same spirit as their own Prophets. What they rejected was Jesus’s uncompromising insistence that religion was a matter between the individual and his conscience. They were prevented from accepting this idea both by their own traditions and attitudes and by the religious concepts that surrounded them.

    When St. Paul came to give the doctrinal setting to the teachings of Jesus, and to interpret the meaning of his life with its tragic end, he laid the chief emphasis on the salvation of the individual through the acceptance of the belief in Jesus. The sins of the world were washed away through the blood of Jesus as a vicarious offering for mankind. Every individual was offered the opportunity of securing salvation for his soul by accepting Jesus as his saviour…

    Jastrow p. 45
    Did something similar happen to Christianity?

    However, Jastrow also identifies a continuing tendency to connect religion and nationality among Christians. He blames this on the Church’s ‘Zionistic temptation’ to become allied with Rome. I hesitate to bring this up because of the fear that some denominations will feel justified in their criticism of Catholicism. But it’s important to remember that many Protestant denominations built forts around their own theology. If I’m not misunderstanding Jastrow, I think this Zionistic tendency can be interpreted differently.

    It could be argued that it was the Roman emperors who first legalized Christianity and then made it the official religion of the Roman Empire. If the Church fathers agreed to this, perhaps they mistook it as a universalistic alliance. Jastrow does say (p. 45) that this alliance appeared in a form that at first appeared international.

    Conclusion

    This article demonstrates that political Zionism is anachronistic. Christian and Jewish Zionists are trying to carry out a scenario that no longer exists, and can’t be defended in the scriptures. In fact, they are going in the opposite direction to what their own Prophets intended. If we look again at Netanyahu’s use of the story of Amalek as justification for bombing Gaza, it becomes clear that a tribal Israel ruled by a nationalistic God is a thing of the past. The wars of Israel and the wars of the Lord are no longer synonymous. Israel’s God became a universal God when the Israelite nation was destroyed and the people were carried away to Babylon. Then Jesus, as the successor to the Prophets, reinforced the Prophetic teachings.

    Christianity, as we have seen, broke at its foundation with Jewish nationalism. It definitely cut the thread that bound religion to the limitations inherent in associating religion with the group.

    Jastrow p. 44

    Next it will be necessary to understand the difference between the religious practice of Christian Zionists, orthodox Christians and Jews.

    1. Morris Jastrow Jr. Ph.D, LL.D, Zionism and the future of Palestine: the Fallacies and Dangers of Political Zionism, The Macmillan Company, NY, 1999 ↩︎

  • Defeating Zionism

    I recently wrote about Morris Jastrow‘s 1919 book about Zionism. In the last century, events have transpired with no relation to the understanding he tried to convey. The result is that in spite of his efforts, Zionism has prospered. But, as I read his words, I am certain that his voice still matters. Jastrow’s book is an important source for defeating Zionism.

    Relgious belief or geopolitical maneuvering?

    Readers may think Jastrow’s approach is too simple, that it merely deals with mistaken notions which led Jews to accept Zionism. Some prefer to focus on manipulation by Western imperialists. In my opinion, geopolitical maneuvering is important, but it should not be the first priority. I suspect changes in Jewish religious beliefs are central to the success of Zionism.

    I’m not implying that we should be led by Jastrow alone. But his experience and education provide important information about the changes that took place in European and American Judaism in the late nineteenth and early 20th century. This is important because we may be seeing the effects of these changes today.

    However, an important misunderstanding about his religious views might distract from his usefulness. Therefore, before I talk about Jastrow’s book I will share my understanding of where he stood in relation to changes taking place in Judaism in his lifetime. I’m not an expert on this period of Jewish history, so I’m using an article that explains this relationship. I encourage the reader to check the article for accuracy.

    Did Jastrow repudiate traditional Judaism?

    A key aspect of Jastrow’s development, his relationship to Judaism, was misunderstood in his lifetime. According to Wikipedia, Jastrow repudiated traditional Judaism in 1886. But the The New York Times article cited by Wikipedia might be misleading, especially for gentile readers.

    The two most important factors in Morris’s experience were rising anti-Semitism in Russia, the U.S., and Germany, and the situation of liberal Judaism in America. Jastrow took issue with the influences on his religion during this period. Both Morris Jastrow, Jr. and his father, Marcus Jastrow, held similar opinions on this. Marcus, who had a PhD from Halle and was the rabbi of Philadelphia’s Rodef Shalom congregation, defended Judaism from both uncritical adherence to tradition, and extreme radicalism. Therefore, the NYT article is misleading when it says Morris Jastrow Jr. repudiated traditional Judaism.

    Morris Jastrow’s education and professional background

    In 1881, Jastrow earned a baccalaureate from the University of Pennsylvania. Then he sailed for Breslau to attend its Jewish theological seminary. His plan was to return to the United States after completing his education. Then he would prepare to take the place of his father.

    When Morris returned to Philadelphia, he began a rabbinical apprenticeship, but it only lasted for a year. One Sabbath, he gave the final sermon to his congregation. This is the speech mentioned by the NYT. According to this account, it was a long and pessimistic speech.

    He did not say in the speech what he would do next. But it turned out he had already accepted a professorship in Semitics at the University of Pennsylvania.

    This would not have been a surprise to his father. His reasons had to do with the forces he had encountered in Europe and America, and the role of Jews and Jewish learning in the late 19th century university.

    Jastrow’s response to secularization

    The process of secularization influenced several Jewish scholars in Jastrow’s generation. Some moved away from liberal Judaism, but for Jastrow, religious considerations were central in his choices. Leaving the rabbinate did not mean he would disengage with religion.

    Careful parental nurturing, a combination of an American and a European education, an apprenticeship under their father’s supervision, all helped cultivate a generation which would complete the evolution of an alternative to Orthodoxy and indifference.

    Wechsler, Harold S. “Pulpit or Professoriate: The Case of Morris Jastrow.” American Jewish History, vol. 74, no. 4, 1985, pp. 338–55. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23882681. Accessed 3 Dec. 2023.
    Jewish life in the late 19th century

    During the late 19th century, Western institutions of education did not admit Jews. Applicants were required to be members of a denomination. In addition, religious instruction was limited to dogma. But in Jastrow’s lifetime, these institutions were undergoing a process of liberalization. Many Jews were being offered academic positions in this period.

    This was a critical time in world Jewry. But there were differences between American and European liberalization. In America, Jewish life was congregational. In Europe it was communal. This meant that America was more open to liberal Judaism than Europe.

    The political situation

    The political situation also influenced Judaism. Increasing nationalism was one of Jastrow’s concerns. On the one hand, he couldn’t understand how people could give up their right to popular government or recognize anyone as superior due to birth position. He could not identify at all with the German brand of nationalism. At the same time, he thought nationalism was a healthy corrective for German materialism.

    Jastrow also had a conflicting interpretation of Treitschke’s claim that the ‘Jews are our misfortune’. Jastrow himself blamed the German Jews for a type of materialism that he observed during his stay in Europe. Therefore, he attributed Treitschke’s criticism to a lack of patriotism and idealism among German Jews. However, he also disagreed with the German idealists who identified German Jewry with Judaism. In his opinion, there was a drastic contrast between the Jewish Religion and the Jews in Germany.

    Jastrow also disapproved of the Jewish pursuit of the professions for the purpose of material gains, honor, influence and power. His own conception of idealism was that the only legitimate rewards for the professional are the benefits to mankind.

    Due to his experiences and observations in Europe, Jastrow concluded ‘that Germany will not be the land whence Jewish thought and Jewish enthusiasm for and attachment to the Jewish religion will spring‘. For a while, he was more optimistic about America. It all depended on the quality of Jewish leadership.

    But during his years in Europe this outlook changed. He was especially concerned about the rise in America of Isaac Mayer Wise. When Wise finally ‘cast his lot’ with the organized Reform movement and assumed its leadership, Reform’s universalism became the outlook of one faction, and American Jewry was permanently divided. Unity became impossible.

    The competing influence of Isaac Mayer Wise

    Before Jastrow left for Europe, Isaac Mayer Wise organized a domestic seminary for the education of American rabbis. Jastrow’s father had criticized Wise’s extreme liberalism and considered his personality inappropriate for leading America’s only seminary. It was partly due to Wise’s influence in America that Jastrow’s father sent him abroad for his education.

    When Jastrow Jr. returned home, he volunteered his services as a lecturer at the University of Pennsylvania. This gave him a year to think about his future. By the end of the year, he had decided to leave the rabbinate. In the speech reported by the NYT, he shared with his congregation his observations about the rising generation of American Jews.

  • Peace is the Only Choice

    Five parties are involved in the carnage in the Middle East. They are Israel, the United States and her allies, the Zionists, AIPAC and Hamas. It’s no surprise that it’s complicated. All of the parties have real reasons for being there, however in some cases the real reasons are not stated outright. I believe this is largely due to the long history of the Jewish people and the way they were shaped by their experiences. Many factors have gone into the present turmoil, but there are two sides to every story. Peace is the only choice for Palestine and Israel.

    (more…)

  • Question the Far-Right’s Claim to God’s Favor

    The right wing’s narrative describes a world in which evangelical Christians and their allies have God on their side.   Normally I wouldn’t disagree–according to Christian doctrine, God is on the side of the human race.  But they are actually saying God approves of their politics.  They apparently assume this will convince believers to vote for them and paint the political opposition as evil.  In my opinion, the left must respect religion enough to question the far-right’s claim to God’s favor.  This doesn’t require a personal calling from God.  It just requires the patience to listen to the far-right’s claims and compare them to the Bible.

    Since Evangelical Christians believe Donald Trump is a messianic figure, the relevant verses would be those that refer to the messianic age.  In Ezekiel 47 the Lord God showed Ezekiel a vision of abundance and blessing and joy.

    Afterward he brought me again unto the door of the house; and, behold, waters issued out from under the threshold of the house eastward: for the forefront of the house stood toward the east, and the waters came down from under the right side of the house, at the south side of the altar.

    Then brought he me out of the way of the gate northward, and led me about the way without unto the utter gate by the way that looketh eastward; and, behold, there ran out waters on the right side.

    And when the man that had the line in his hand went forth eastward, he measured a thousand cubits, and he brought me through the waters; the waters were to the ankles.

    Again he measured a thousand, and brought me through the waters; the waters were to the knees.  Again he measured a thousand, and brought me through; the waters were to the loins.

    Afterward he measured a thousand; and it was a river that I could not pass over: for the waters were risen, waters to swim in, a river that could not be passed over.

    And he said unto me, Son of man, hast thou seen this?  Then he brought me, and caused me to return to the brink of the river.

    Now when I had returned, behold, at the bank of the river were very many trees on the one side and on the other.

    Then said he unto me, These waters issue out toward the east country, and go down into the desert, and go into the sea: which being brought forth into the sea, the waters shall be healed.

    And it shall come to pass, that every thing that liveth, which moveth, whithersoever the rivers shall come, shall live: and there shall be a very great multitude of fish, because these waters shall come thither: for they shall be healed; and every thing shall live wither the river cometh.

    And it shall come to pass, that the fishers shall stand upon it from En-gedi even unto En-eglaim; they shall be a place to spread forth nets; their fish shall be according to their kinds, as the fish of the great sea, exceeding many.

    But the miry places thereof and the marishes thereof shall not be healed; they shall be given to salt.((Ezekiel 47:1-11))

    Ezekiel is then told that the fruit of the trees will be for meat and the leaf will be for medicine.  The leaf will not fade and the fruit will never be consumed because their waters issued out of the sanctuary.  And finally, the Lord God describes the borders whereby the twelve tribes of Israel will inherit the land.  This is not a Zionists’ dream, however.  At least not the Zionists we know.  Nor is it the dream of American wall-builders and imprisoners of immigrant children.

    And it shall come to pass, that ye shall divide it by lot for an inheritance unto you, and to the strangers that sojourn among you, which shall beget children among you: and they shall be unto you as born in the country among the children of Israel; they shall have inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel.

    And it shall come to pass, that in what tribe the stranger sojourneth, there shall ye give him his inheritance, saith the Lord God.((Ezekiel 47:22,23))

    This does not sound like Donald Trump and his supporters at all.  Instead, it seems to describe the hopes of progressive supporters of Bernie Sanders.

    Some say the Son of man is not a single person.  The Son of man is a collective.   Of course, Bernie has no intention of being a messiah.  You may recall the day he waved away Birdie Sanders, the bird that landed on his podium during a campaign speech.  He is a politician after all, not a religious leader.  But what about the rest of us?  We thought for a few glorious moments we saw the end of the old regime, and we projected all our hopes on this amazing candidate who appeared out of nowhere.  And they were hopes of peace and fairness and inclusion.

    See also: The Israel Lobby is Spending Millions to Defeat Progressive Democrats https://youtu.be/djZVm1n_XNA
                       Is the GOP Morphing into Christian Nationalism? https://youtu.be/kQQd90mbbDs
                         Reverend Calls Out Marjorie Greene  https://youtu.be/OExYtrfXotQ
                            Lauren Boebert Wants a Biblical Citizenship Test  https://youtu.be/oDQyj8C8PoE
                             American Heretics: The Politics of the Gospel (Christian Nationalism Documentary)  https://youtu.be/B-ePCiUgD0Y
                                The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism is Un-American  https://youtu.be/nVEqYk-hjNM
                                  The Psychology of Christian Nationalism  https://youtu.be/nVEqYk-hjNM
                                     Baptist Leader Speaks Out: Christian Nationalism is Not Christianity https://youtu.be/vZukWuT9lcA

  • Onan and the Patriarchal Agenda (Updated)

    If I had to name one issue that is central to any discussion about political reform, it would have to be women’s rights. It can be argued that women’s rights are synonymous with human rights, or that repression of women is the foundation of all repression. Every repressive regime the world over has developed a rationale for limiting the freedom of the female sex. Unfortunately, there are ongoing influences that make women’s rights seem like a peripheral issue. Systems of male rule are conjoined with religion and accepted as proper, inevitable, and even moral. And they are sustained by claims to great antiquity. Until the eighteenth century, educated classes in Europe and the United States believed that Abraham established the patriarchal order and that his posterity carried it forward until the time when it radiated from the temple of Solomon to the rest of the world. Although the originality of patriarchy has been disproved by archaeological and historical scholarship, the belief persists that patriarchy was the original form of social organization. This belief is still used in defense of female subjection.

    My suggestion for self-governing, matrilineal communities was based on a pre-patriarchal model of society. I am aware that such a revolutionary change is improbable. However, I think it would be a waste of time to talk about reform without confronting the ideas that have made reform necessary. I will use the matrilineal model to identify the principles that lead to strong families and communities. I will also call into question the dogmas that obscure these principles.

    We haven’t yet had the discussion of Christianity that it deserves. We’ve talked about its Hermeticism and about the ‘heretical’ teachings of some sects, like the Dispensationalists, but our purpose was to analyze their influence on current events. In this post I want to expand on another troubling tendency that I have already mentioned, the tendency to disguise unrelated ideas as the religion of Israel. An example of this practice is found in the Biblical story of Onan, the son of Judah. Onan married his sister-in-law Tamar, but instead of fathering a child with her, he practiced the withdrawal method of birth control, after which he was killed by Yahweh for spilling his seed on the ground. This story is especially relevant today because the Quiverfull movement, which is the vanguard religion of America’s pronatalist agenda, rejects any form of birth control including the withdrawal method, which they call Onanism.

    Onan is introduced in the account of Judah and Tamar, in Genesis 38: 1-30. Immediately after Joseph is sold into slavery, Judah leaves the family to go and live in the Canaanite lowlands to the West.

    At about that time, Judah parted from his brothers and put in with a certain Adullamite named Hirah.

    There Judah met the daughter of a Canaanite named Shua, and he married her and cohabited with her.

    She conceived and bore a son, who was named Er.

    She conceived again and bore a son, whom she named Onan.

    Then she bore still another son, whom she named Shelah; they were at Chezib when she bore him.

    Judah got a wife for his first-born Er, and her name was Tamar.

    but Er, Judah’s first-born displeased Yahweh, and Yahweh took his life.

    Then Judah said to Onan, “Unite with your brother’s widow, fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law, and thus maintain your brother’s line.”

    But Onan, knowing that the seed would not count as his, let it go to waste on the ground every time that he cohabited with his brother’s widow, so as not to contribute offspring for his brother.

    What he did displeased Yahweh, and he took his life too.

    Whereupon Judah said to his daughter-in-law, “Stay as widow in your father’s house until my son Shelah grows up” –for he feared that this one also might die like his brothers. So Tamar went to live in her father’s house.

    A long time afterward, Judah’s wife, the daughter of Shua, died. When the period of sorrow was over, Judah went to Timnah for the shearing of his sheep, in the company of his friend Hirah the Adullamite.

    When Tamar was told, “Your father-in-law is on his way to Timnah for the sheep-shearing,” she took off her widow’s garb, wrapped a veil about her to disguise herself, and sat down at the entrance to Enaim, which is on the way to Timnah; for she saw that, although Shelah was grown up, she had not been given to him in marriage.

    When Judah saw her, he took her for a harlot, since she had covered her face.

    So he turned aside to her by the roadside, and said, “See now, let me lie with you” –not realizing that she was his daughter-in-law. She answered, “What will you pay me for lying with me?”

    He replied, “I will send you a kid from my flock.” but she answered, “you will have to leave a pledge until such time as you send it.”

    He asked, “What pledge shall I leave you?” She answered, “your seal-and-cord, and the staff you carry.” So he gave them to her, and lay with her, and she conceived by him.

    She left soon, took off her veil, and resumed her widow’s garb.

    Judah sent the kid by his friend the Adullamite to redeem the pledge from the woman, but he could not find her.

    He inquired of the men of that place, “Where is the votary, the one by the Enaim road?” They answered, “there has never been here a votary!”

    So he went back to Judah and said to him, “I couldn’t find her. What is more, the townspeople told me, ‘there has never been here a votary.”

    And Judah replied, “Let her keep the things, or we shall become a laughingstock. I did my part in sending her the kid, but you never found her.”

    About three months later, Judah was told, “Your daughter-in-law has played the harlot; moreover, she is with child from harlotry.” “Bring her out,” Judah shouted, “and she shall be burned!”

    As they were taking her out, she sent word to her father-in-law, “It is by the man to whom these things belong that I am with child. Please verify,” she said, “to whom these things belong–the seal-and-cord and the staff!”

    Judah recognized them, and said, “she is more in the right than I, inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Shelah.” Nor was he intimate with her again.

    There are several problems with this story, but the most obvious one would be the way in which Levirate marriage is portrayed. According to Yaffa Eliach, Levirate marriage simply didn’t work that way. The obligation to remarry belonged to the widow. This obligation was taken quite seriously and there were legal ramifications if it was breached. While the woman was obliged to remarry, her brother-in-law could release her from her obligation to him by providing a legal document relinquishing his claim. ((Eliach, Yaffa. There Once Was a World: A 900 Year Chronicle of the Shtetle of Eishyshok. Back Bay Books, 1999)) Yet, in this story we have Tamar mooning over Judah’s ‘seed’ as though she knows it represents a royal line, or as though these are the last men left on earth.

    It seems to me that if Levirate marriage obligated the widow rather than her brother-in-law this suggests a different dynamic than what we see in this story. It would make more sense if it were associated with the custom of matrilineal inheritance, and/or a payment made to the bride’s family by the groom. The Bible does not provide detailed information about Israelite custom in this matter, but according to Roland de Vaux, the mohar was a sum paid by the groom to the bride’s family, as compensation for the loss of their daughter. The bride’s father could use the profits from this payment, but the principal reverted to her at the time of ‘succession’ or her husband’s death. (This explains why Rachel and Leah complained in Genesis 31: 15 that their father ‘devoured’ their money after having ‘sold’ them. Apparently he used the principal of the mohar, rather than holding it in trust for his daughters.)

    The Palestinian Arabs of today have a similar custom, the makr, and part of it goes to the bride’s trousseau. In Babylonian law, the tirhatu was paid to the girl’s father, and was administered by him, but it reverted to her if she was widowed, or to her children after her death. In Assyria, the tirhani was given to the girl herself. There was a parallel in the Jewish colony of Elephantine, where the mohat was paid to the girl’s father, but was counted among her possessions.

    In Israel, parents might give their daughter gifts after her wedding, and these were considered her property. In Babylon, the father gave his daughter presents that belonged to her in her own right, but while she was married, her husband had the use of them. They reverted to her if she was widowed or divorced, without fault on her part. Assyrian law has similar provisions. ((de Vaux, Roland, Ancient Israel, Its Life and Institution. John McHugh translation. William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Co. Grand Rapids. 1997))

    You could argue that under such a system the groom’s family would have stood to lose their investment in the marriage if their son died prematurely. They would also lose any benefits that accrued from the bride’s property while the marriage lasted. Levirate marriage would protect this investment. This would explain why it was the man’s right to release the woman from this obligation and not the other way around. It also makes nonsense of Onan’s stated motive. He should have given Tamar a letter releasing her from her obligation.

    Of course, the story doesn’t attribute monetary concerns to Onan. It says he was reluctant to ‘raise seed to his brother.’ In my opinion, this presents its own difficulties. It seems to me that It implies either non-Hebrew religious beliefs or a non-Hebrew political organization. The following is my own speculation.  The belief that one could raise seed to a deceased brother is consistent with the belief in a fully functional afterlife. Unfortunately, the Hebrews didn’t have such a belief at that time.  But perhaps Onan’s reluctance was connected to a more worldly aspiration–to be the father of a dynasty. Maybe he resented the fact that the royal line would be attributed to his brother. Again, the Hebrews didn’t have kings in this period, not to mention dynastic succession.  On the contrary, the modes of inheritance mentioned above indicate a matrilineal system, although it takes a rare scholar to admit this. It is customary to call the inheritance a gift, but property belonged to the woman in her own right. It follows that any ‘seed’ would have belonged to Tamar’s line, regardless of who the father was, unless her father’s family had received bridewealth.

    According to the Anchor Bible, this episode is attributed to the Bible’s ‘J’ author, who had an interest in tracing the lineage of King David from the tribe of Judah. Unfortunately, the Judah of this story can’t be reconciled with the brother of Joseph. This Judah stays in Canaan long enough for his three sons to reach manhood, but when the story of Joseph resumes there has been no corresponding passage of time and Judah is still living with Jacob’s family. ((Genesis: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary by E.A. Speiser. Doubleday and Co. Garden City, NY. 1986))

    I conclude that the story of Onan is suspect. Perhaps it was never anything more than pro-patriarchy, pronatalist propaganda. After all, that is how it is used today. This isn’t the first time we have seen a ruling class agenda in the Bible and, as usual, it hinges on the subjection of women–especially of their reproductive potential.

    Recently, I found corroboration in Moor’s Hindu Pantheon for my theory that the story of Onan is an Indo-European idea.

    “To the four deities of purification, Maruta, Indra, Vrihaspati, and Agni, goes all the divine light, which the Veda had imparted, from the student who commits the foul sin avacirna.”–Ib. v. 122.

    According to this source, avacirna is a term for anyone who commits the sin of Onanism. Specific instructions must be followed in order to expiate this sin.

    “…sacrifice a black or a one-eyed ass, by way of a meat offering to Nirriti, patroness of the south-west, by night, in a place where four ways meet….Let him daily offer to her in fire the fat of that ass; and, at the close of the ceremony let him offer clarified butter, with the holy text Sem, and so forth, to Pavana, to Indra, to Vrihaspati, and to Agni, regent of wind, clouds, a planet, and fire.”–Ins. of Menu, Chap. XI. verses 119, 120.

    Israel has been held accountable for the imposition of patriarchy on the world, which is not surprising considering the effort that has gone into making it appear that way. However, the story of Onan is not evidence for a patriarchal system in Israel. It is only evidence that the ruling class has no shame.

    (I’ve edited this since it was first published.  The first version didn’t distinguish my arguments from the the cited material.  The custom of giving gifts to the bride’s family and the bride were described by Roland de Vaux.  The details about Levirate marriage were provided by Yaffa Eliach’s book.)

  • Nomads and City Dwellers Institutions and Worldview

          Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions
    Roland de Vaux

    The Bible is not reliable for ethnographic information. This is especially true in regard to nomads’ and city dwellers’ institutions and worldview. Sheep-breeding tribes who are beginning to settle down were formerly camel-breeders who had begun to raise cattle so they are not comparable to the people of ancient Israel . However, the nomadic Arabs were closely related to the Israelites and are comparable in patterns of life and institutions. For this reason, the knowledge of pre-Islamic, modern and contemporary Arab life can help in understanding the primitive organization of Israel. Biblical parallels strengthen this comparison.

    (more…)

    Pages: 1 2

  • Israel and Iran: War Religion and Politics

    Israel’s apparent desire to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities can’t help but draw Americans in to a very confusing drama. For many reasons Israel is important to Americans. For some American Christians the Jews represent spiritual kin. Still, other Christians, such as Christian Zionists, emphasize the division between Christians and Jews.

    The relationship between the U.S. and Israel is every bit as complex as the relations between Christians and Jews. In both cases conflicting opinions about Jewish destiny muddy the waters. For example, it has been argued that Israel acts as the United States’ peacekeeper in the Middle East. This contrasts with the claim that the U.S. is Israel’s pawn. Some believe the “ruling class” in the U.S. wants to limit Israel’s territory–not an easy argument to follow, in part because there is disagreement about whether the ruling class is represented by Democrats or Republicans. It is clear, however, that the pro-Israel lobbies in Washington have taken the stance that Israel can do no wrong. They tend to encourage territorial expansion of the State of Israel. The pro-Israel lobbies are perhaps the most troubling part of this troubling story. Israel’s recent threats to Iran may serve to bring the lobbies into focus. This, in turn, may shed some light on various other mystifying events, such as the United States’ involvement in the Iraq War.

    At the center of the storm is the Christian Zionist movement. Many elements of this movement have been called heretical. The main influence behind Christian Zionism is Christian Dispensationalism, which has been influential in the U.S. for about 150 years. The majority of Christian Dispensationalists are Evangelical Christians and tend to favor a Middle Eastern War, believing that war is necessary for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Also included are most of the Southern Baptist churches, as well as fundamentalist sects. However, many Christians are opposed to this movement, including Christians in Palestine. When Jesus returns, the Dispensationalists say, he will rule over the Jews in the earthly kingdom of Jerusalem and also over Christians, who will reside in Heaven, directly above Jerusalem. But I can’t imagine that they have made it clear to the Jews who immigrate to Palestine that they expect the majority of them to perish during the coming “tribulation”.

    “Crucial to the dispensationalist reading of biblical prophecy is the conviction that the period of tribulation is imminent along with the secret rapture of the Church and the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple in place of, or along side, the Dome of the Rock. This will signal the return of the Lord to restore the Kingdom to Israel centered on Jerusalem. This pivotal event is also seen as the trigger for the start of the war of Armageddon in which most of the world’s population together with large numbers of Jews will suffer and die.

    “Convinced that a nuclear Armageddon is an inevitable event within the divine scheme of things, many evangelical dispensationalists have committed themselves to a course for Israel that by their own admission, will lead directly to a holocaust indescribably more savage and widespread than any vision of carnage that could have been generated in Adolf Hitler’s criminal mind….”

    Again, according to Dispensationalists such as author Hal Lindsey, these events are desirable, as they will merely hasten the return of Jesus Christ as King of the Jews, who will rule over the nations from the rebuilt Jewish temple in Jerusalem. This doctrine actually depends on Islamic resistance, envisioning that it will lead to a nuclear holocaust centered on Jerusalem, “with the 200 mile valley from the Sea of Galilee to Eilat flowing with irradiated blood several feet deep.”((http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/31794-christian-zionism-dispensationalism-roots-sectarian-theology.html title=”Christian Zionism: Dispensationalism and the Roots of Sectarian Theology”))

    Religious believers, together with certain members of Congress (who may or may not think this is simply a political issue) represent the War Party. Fear-mongering is an important tool in the War Party’s arsenal. Presently Iran is being held up as the next great threat to the Middle East and the world. However, a new U.S. intelligence report concerning Iran’s possible nuclear weapons program was released November 8, 2011 and it agrees with the last report, which states that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003.Unfortunately, that may not be the end of it. In NPR’s eerie coverage of the latest intelligence report the part about the lack of evidence was presented in a rather mealy-mouthed fashion, toward the end of the segment. Worse, it was alleged that regardless of the lack of hard evidence, secret activities may still be taking place.

    There are several foci in this for our American conversation. One focus has been provided by Mark M. Hanna, Ph.D., a Dispensationalist working against Christian Zionism. Hanna argues among other things, that when the Bible refers to Israel as a nation it means ‘a people’, not a territory or state.This is an important point.

    When I wrote [intlink id=”226″ type=”post”]The Community of Ancient Israel[/intlink] I wanted to explore how people in the 21st century who are isolated, alienated and solitary, might begin to forge the bonds of kinship necessary for a true community. This seemed crucial because traditionally holiness, or sanctity, was manifest at the center of human communities. Unfortunately, war has always worked to tear societies apart, leaving individuals open to the lure of centralized authority and universal religious systems.

    In this light, it is interesting to remember that the Jews who first developed the universal ideals held today by Christianity no longer had a unified, coherent social structure. This was the result of conquest, the Babylonian exile and Hellenization. Yet they seem to have had no illusions about returning to a simpler, bygone age. It might be interesting to reexamine their vision for starters, as it has never really been tried–Christianity had its own unique, non-Jewish character from the beginning.

    Although Christianity has always had a universal tendency, individual churches and sects provide a sense of community and family, which could never be provided by nations or empires. However, this function is not limited to Christian churches. The lodges of the Freemasons fulfilled the same function for members. It almost seems that sects with divergent beliefs call into question the meaning of universalism and nationalism. A case in point: Christian Dispensationalists don’t represent the entire population, but the sect has political clout and a universal agenda. Currently, there are more than 120 pro-Israel organizations and lobbies influential in Washington D.C. with the proven ability to influence national policy.

    Regardless of religious claims of bloody inevitability, I insist that we can still decide to forgo the War Party’s dreadful scenario. This blog has been the attempt to build. War does the opposite–it tears down. It is not possible to build and tear down at the same time. Now the alternative comes clearly into focus. The alternative is, go to war for the sake of a virtual tribe that is plotting secretly for their religious agenda. Then perhaps those who survive after everyone else has been killed will go to live in the sky with Jesus. There they will hover over the earthly city of Jerusalem and gaze down at the little remnant of Jews who somehow manage to escape the blood bath and nuclear holocaust.

    In our society, one is free to chose religious beliefs. History has shown it is also easy to deny responsibility for the consequences of one’s religious and political beliefs. However, some of America’s enemies have already said they hold the American people responsible for the actions of their government. If Dispensationalism is the reason that so many Americans supported the Iraq War, I’m afraid I can’t argue with them. Religious beliefs are no excuse for an unjust war–one freely chooses such beliefs. Dire predictions and drastic scenarios carry an obligation to get the facts straight. Here is food for thought:

    1. Dispensationalist teachings say that only the Jews who believe in Jesus Christ will survive the holocaust. However, in the early days of the Church Jews were not allowed to live in Jerusalem, not even those who had converted to Christianity.
    2. The Dispensationalists’ claimed that Saddam Hussein was re-building Babylon. It wasn’t true, although this was part of the rhetoric leading up to the Iraq War.
    3. Christianity did not have to go in this direction. The idea of a divine messiah who glories in the end of human history is a Zoroastrian idea. In other words, this state of affairs can’t be blamed on a Hebrew named Jesus.

    Dispensationalism is currently being disseminated to the rest of the world through the work of the Dallas Theological Seminary. The Seminary was founded in 1924 by Lewis Sperry Chafer. Chafer was a student of Cyrus I. Scofield who began a Comprehensive Bible correspondence Course in 1890 (later taken over by the Moody Bible Institute). During the 1890s Scofield was also the principal of the Southwestern School of the Bible which became the Dallas Theological Seminary.

  • The Community of Ancient Israel

    Robert Bellah wrote in “The Broken Covenant” that American Civil Religion helped form a unified nation. Bellah assumed civil religion was necessary because America was the world’s first ‘new’ nation, a nation of unrelated immigrants who do not share a common history or religion as the populations of other countries do. However, Bellah was not the first to perceive the need for unifying ideas. It was Enlightenment thinker J. J. Rousseau who first proposed this idea. Both Bellah and Rousseau were in search of a source of political unity in lieu of the Church.

    In the Judeo-Christian tradition, Ancient Israel is the primal community unified by blood, religion, law, and history. It is assumed that theirs was a natural association not possible in modern times, except perhaps in the case of Israel’s descendants. However in modern Judaism, the idea that Ancient Israel was a separate race of people is a matter of debate. Critics of this idea argue it was religion that united Israel, and that the religion was never limited to Jews. Critics of Zionism also debate whether modern Jews were meant to create the political state of Israel in Palestine. Even the Jewish historian Josephus has been criticized for his nationalistic tendencies.

    Hebrew mythology and nomadic custom offer a different explanation for the unity of the family of Israel. Central to nomadic custom is the obligation of hospitality. Nomadic people exist in a hostile environment. Anyone left alone could die, therefore requests for asylum were never denied. You helped each individual or group who needed help because next time you may be in need. Nomadic tribes were bound to welcome refugees for a certain period of time. If the refugees chose to stay permanently the simple statement, “I adopt you,” made the newcomers one with the tribe who sheltered them. In this case, they would take the new tribe’s name and forget their old affiliations. In addition, people often embellished genealogies to explain the new family relationships. Today, genealogies are often assumed to be lists of human ancestors. However, ancient genealogies were mythological and political.

    Moses led the exodus of several distinct tribes. (Their shared determination to leave Egypt is significant and will be discussed later.) Nomadic tribes initially took their names from nature and myth. Similar to Arabic tribes who took names such as “the Sons of the Rain,” Hebrew tribes took names such as “Sons of the Longhaired” or “Sons of the Multiplier. These names endured for a long time, eventually serving as names for Jacob’s sons. This was the beginning of the genealogical tradition, which traces the people of Israel to its first father, Jacob and thence goes back to his father and to Abraham.” This indicates a purposeful and methodical creation of family ties as a basis for political alliance.

    Now it is interesting to think in this way of the tribes of Judah and Israel after they settled in Palestine. De Vaux laments that during their brief period of sovereignty they wasted time fighting each other. However, this was not exactly a family squabble. The religion and custom of Israel and Judah were not identical. For example, Judah was dynastic from the time of David. Israel was not dynastic until Omri. This is a fundamental difference. They were often allies, however, having more in common than either of them had with the Canaanites.

    For the information about tribal names and the material in quotation marks see:

    Goldziher, Ignaz and Heymann Steinthal. “Mythology Among the Hebrews and its Historical Development.” Cooper Square Publishers. New York. 1967.

    See also:

    The Genealogy of Adam and Eve

    Adam, Noah and the Snake King

    Nomads and City Dwellers: Institutions, Worldview

error: Content is protected !!