Onto Dangerous Ground
I don't know much about politics; I know even less about the modern middle east. But one strange phenomenon I see, a result of reading the Bible, specifically the HB, as the literal words of God, is that events in modern day Palestine are interpreted through the lens of the Torah.
And it is quite clear: according to the first six books anyway, Palestine was given to Israel, to Abraham, forever; when they re entered the land after the Egyptian captivity they were to butcher entire cities because of Canaanite religious practices (offering children to Molech and other much less heinous things like tattoos). In the OT story, the Israelites are the intended heroes. Obedience to the Torah their ticket to being a global witness for their God. If a few small civilizations get wiped out, including in some cases the children and animals, so be it. The Holy God has spoken.
Now this is a very, very interesting perspective. And Christians have to concede, for whatever reason, the Savior was born into a Jewish family, in Israel, though centuries after the alleged events of the conquest of Canaan.
I have a number of problems with this story line. For one, I am not sure the ancient Jews were the only people God was speaking to and through. Did they have a special covenant or agreement with God? This is possible. The stories in Exodus and Leviticus about God's Glory settling on the tent of meeting, participating with and among the people...these are powerful stories indeed. But there is much content in here I would be surprised to find unique: extensive animal sacrifice, the altar, perhaps even the general structure of the tent itself, the graduating levels of holy regions, the garments and sacred lots the priests wore. Did all these rise out of nothing among Israel? Direct commandments of God? Here my skeptical self kicks in again.
But this is what this short (and largely uninformed) post is about: I think that even if the special covenant with Israel is accepted, it's pretty clear they blew it as a nation. Their own texts admit it via the Babylonian captivity and one could argue the Roman occupation. If Jesus was in fact the Messiah, only a portion of the nation responded, and, whether by accident or Divine purpose, the Temple was laid flat in 70 by Titus and diaspora became the norm until a few decades ago, when Israel was restored and, unfortunately, Palestinians were thrown out of their homes with a tone rather reminiscent of the original conquest literature in the HB.
Now, I find many Christians supporting Israel as if they are still God's chosen vehicle to reveal Himself to the world. With all respect to my Jewish friends and to Israel itself, Christians have to see the Church as having been handed this role. Paul says (oh, where) that a true Jew is one who is a Jew inwardly. The new religion (our religion) opened its boundaries to include Jew and gentile. From that moment on, any special status Israel may or may not have held must have shifted.
All that said, I still don't think God told the migrating Jews to butcher entire cities. I know they believed that He did, and my well-arguing fundamentalists friends will tell me that a Holy God was using Israel to exact judgement on nations He considered immoral, and to keep Israel from falling intermingling with such people they had to die (they intermingled anyway).
It is easy to forget that Jesus, in any fair reading, began to work outside the temple cultus completely. He forgave sins personally; he rewrote portions of the Torah in his speeches; he re interpreted the ancient codes. He distilled them, as some of the other prophets had done before him, into loving action. We do not see Jesus arguing for enhanced Temple ritual; his action in the Temple (and scholars debate what to call this) seems, if anything, a prophetic gesture directed towards the predicted end of the Temple cult and quite clearly the Temple itself. If nothing else, Jesus was right about that. The Temple was destroyed and within the lifetime of some of those who heard his prediction.
It is typical for ancient peoples, nearly all I know, to see divine action in historical events. A natural or military disaster must be the action of God or gods, and hence a reflection on the religious purity of the clan or nation. What did we do to bring this on ourselves? Ancient Israel clearly believed they held a special status with God and other nations were to be either eliminated or drawn to God through their example, depending where one reads. I really do not know if I believe this, but I very much think it is dangerous to apply this reasoning today. I have seen this idea transferred to my own country: America is viewed by so many Christians as the chosen nation, the new Israel, and to me that is simply absurd. It has been used to justify aggression against innocent persons. I know of one massacre of native Americans (including women and children) during colonial times that was later defended using those same examples of wholesale slaughter from the Torah.
From what little I know, I do not think Israel is innocent in their treatment of Palestinians from the 1940's on. Nor do I support, of course, terrorism or missile attacks or suicide bombings, especially of civilian persons. I am a believer in non-violence whenever such is possible. But what little of the mess I know over there tells me both sides need to make concessions, need to seek peaceful resolution; find an end to the hatred. I cannot believe Israel continues in some special status with God over and above any other people, including the Palestinians. Anti-semitism I find repugnant; what thinking person would not. But the fundamentalist view that Israel is still God's chosen people, that they have a right to that land at any cost...that they are innocent or justified in all that they do in Palestine as they are still God's holy warriors...this view I find very troubling.
***
I want to write a series of posts; heck, I'd like to write an article or two if I had any idea where to send it and how to do the necessary research considering where I live, on Jesus' comments on the Hebrew Scriptures. His positions are not unified or always clear; some redaction must be accounted for. But I have always found it interesting, when the divorce question comes up (and as in so many cases, Jesus is answering in a manner to confound his would-be confounders) Jesus says that Moses wrote this because of the hardness of your heart. Now, the passage from the Torah his interlocutors quote is supposed to God-given law, the Divine instruction, without error; Jesus does not read it that way in this context, as he goes deeper than the old commandment and stresses, as my brother notes, the nature of the heart. That all hearts are adulterous, all lust, all fall short of the loving ideal of the lifetime companion. Some in reality, some in thought, it does not matter to God. But, in this passage, Jesus seems to toss out a small portion of the Torah. He says equally puzzling things in other places, and there are hints he does not keep all the ritual practice. Whether, as I have heard argued, he only sets aside the oral tradition (and what makes that less important; the Jews saw it as equally important and many still do) and keeps the written Torah is an interesting question. In short, it is a complex subject and if anyone knows of any books on the topic (Jesus' statements regarding the HB and especially the Torah) I'd dig reading them. As with anything else in NT studies, my guess is the answer is going to be complex. Even the historical use of the HB during Jesus life was complex, I know.
Well, enough for now. I am going to go and darken the door of my gym for the first time in about a year. My back injury is not healed (and I need to plod to another specialist) even though I am told soft tissue injuries always heal in time; mine should have been fully healed a year ago. Anyway, it seems to be doing well enough that I can work out some. I miss the gym very much. Exercise has been important to me since my late 20's, and I could write an entire post on the ruined cathedral of what used to be my personal fitness. There is nothing like it for stress; and I find weights, and sometimes cardio, lots of fun. Oh, do wish I had not lost my ipod. It blows working out without an ipod.
Well, love to all. Being on vacation I have no excuse not to make the 30 minute drive to the gym. Wish me luck. I will be careful, take it easy, lift lightly (so my arms don't snap out of socket) and try to get in the all critical cardio. Sighs. Been a tough year without any serious working out.
And it is quite clear: according to the first six books anyway, Palestine was given to Israel, to Abraham, forever; when they re entered the land after the Egyptian captivity they were to butcher entire cities because of Canaanite religious practices (offering children to Molech and other much less heinous things like tattoos). In the OT story, the Israelites are the intended heroes. Obedience to the Torah their ticket to being a global witness for their God. If a few small civilizations get wiped out, including in some cases the children and animals, so be it. The Holy God has spoken.
Now this is a very, very interesting perspective. And Christians have to concede, for whatever reason, the Savior was born into a Jewish family, in Israel, though centuries after the alleged events of the conquest of Canaan.
I have a number of problems with this story line. For one, I am not sure the ancient Jews were the only people God was speaking to and through. Did they have a special covenant or agreement with God? This is possible. The stories in Exodus and Leviticus about God's Glory settling on the tent of meeting, participating with and among the people...these are powerful stories indeed. But there is much content in here I would be surprised to find unique: extensive animal sacrifice, the altar, perhaps even the general structure of the tent itself, the graduating levels of holy regions, the garments and sacred lots the priests wore. Did all these rise out of nothing among Israel? Direct commandments of God? Here my skeptical self kicks in again.
But this is what this short (and largely uninformed) post is about: I think that even if the special covenant with Israel is accepted, it's pretty clear they blew it as a nation. Their own texts admit it via the Babylonian captivity and one could argue the Roman occupation. If Jesus was in fact the Messiah, only a portion of the nation responded, and, whether by accident or Divine purpose, the Temple was laid flat in 70 by Titus and diaspora became the norm until a few decades ago, when Israel was restored and, unfortunately, Palestinians were thrown out of their homes with a tone rather reminiscent of the original conquest literature in the HB.
Now, I find many Christians supporting Israel as if they are still God's chosen vehicle to reveal Himself to the world. With all respect to my Jewish friends and to Israel itself, Christians have to see the Church as having been handed this role. Paul says (oh, where) that a true Jew is one who is a Jew inwardly. The new religion (our religion) opened its boundaries to include Jew and gentile. From that moment on, any special status Israel may or may not have held must have shifted.
All that said, I still don't think God told the migrating Jews to butcher entire cities. I know they believed that He did, and my well-arguing fundamentalists friends will tell me that a Holy God was using Israel to exact judgement on nations He considered immoral, and to keep Israel from falling intermingling with such people they had to die (they intermingled anyway).
It is easy to forget that Jesus, in any fair reading, began to work outside the temple cultus completely. He forgave sins personally; he rewrote portions of the Torah in his speeches; he re interpreted the ancient codes. He distilled them, as some of the other prophets had done before him, into loving action. We do not see Jesus arguing for enhanced Temple ritual; his action in the Temple (and scholars debate what to call this) seems, if anything, a prophetic gesture directed towards the predicted end of the Temple cult and quite clearly the Temple itself. If nothing else, Jesus was right about that. The Temple was destroyed and within the lifetime of some of those who heard his prediction.
It is typical for ancient peoples, nearly all I know, to see divine action in historical events. A natural or military disaster must be the action of God or gods, and hence a reflection on the religious purity of the clan or nation. What did we do to bring this on ourselves? Ancient Israel clearly believed they held a special status with God and other nations were to be either eliminated or drawn to God through their example, depending where one reads. I really do not know if I believe this, but I very much think it is dangerous to apply this reasoning today. I have seen this idea transferred to my own country: America is viewed by so many Christians as the chosen nation, the new Israel, and to me that is simply absurd. It has been used to justify aggression against innocent persons. I know of one massacre of native Americans (including women and children) during colonial times that was later defended using those same examples of wholesale slaughter from the Torah.
From what little I know, I do not think Israel is innocent in their treatment of Palestinians from the 1940's on. Nor do I support, of course, terrorism or missile attacks or suicide bombings, especially of civilian persons. I am a believer in non-violence whenever such is possible. But what little of the mess I know over there tells me both sides need to make concessions, need to seek peaceful resolution; find an end to the hatred. I cannot believe Israel continues in some special status with God over and above any other people, including the Palestinians. Anti-semitism I find repugnant; what thinking person would not. But the fundamentalist view that Israel is still God's chosen people, that they have a right to that land at any cost...that they are innocent or justified in all that they do in Palestine as they are still God's holy warriors...this view I find very troubling.
***
I want to write a series of posts; heck, I'd like to write an article or two if I had any idea where to send it and how to do the necessary research considering where I live, on Jesus' comments on the Hebrew Scriptures. His positions are not unified or always clear; some redaction must be accounted for. But I have always found it interesting, when the divorce question comes up (and as in so many cases, Jesus is answering in a manner to confound his would-be confounders) Jesus says that Moses wrote this because of the hardness of your heart. Now, the passage from the Torah his interlocutors quote is supposed to God-given law, the Divine instruction, without error; Jesus does not read it that way in this context, as he goes deeper than the old commandment and stresses, as my brother notes, the nature of the heart. That all hearts are adulterous, all lust, all fall short of the loving ideal of the lifetime companion. Some in reality, some in thought, it does not matter to God. But, in this passage, Jesus seems to toss out a small portion of the Torah. He says equally puzzling things in other places, and there are hints he does not keep all the ritual practice. Whether, as I have heard argued, he only sets aside the oral tradition (and what makes that less important; the Jews saw it as equally important and many still do) and keeps the written Torah is an interesting question. In short, it is a complex subject and if anyone knows of any books on the topic (Jesus' statements regarding the HB and especially the Torah) I'd dig reading them. As with anything else in NT studies, my guess is the answer is going to be complex. Even the historical use of the HB during Jesus life was complex, I know.
Well, enough for now. I am going to go and darken the door of my gym for the first time in about a year. My back injury is not healed (and I need to plod to another specialist) even though I am told soft tissue injuries always heal in time; mine should have been fully healed a year ago. Anyway, it seems to be doing well enough that I can work out some. I miss the gym very much. Exercise has been important to me since my late 20's, and I could write an entire post on the ruined cathedral of what used to be my personal fitness. There is nothing like it for stress; and I find weights, and sometimes cardio, lots of fun. Oh, do wish I had not lost my ipod. It blows working out without an ipod.
Well, love to all. Being on vacation I have no excuse not to make the 30 minute drive to the gym. Wish me luck. I will be careful, take it easy, lift lightly (so my arms don't snap out of socket) and try to get in the all critical cardio. Sighs. Been a tough year without any serious working out.
Comments