Vine and Fig Tree

2008-03-31T22:38:00.001-05:00

2008-01-22T20:42:00.000-06:00

The Politics of Genesis
A Nonviolent Commentary on the Garden Narrative

2:15 Humanity works in the garden. Our tendency to envision paradise as a place where people do not work is an indictment of how coercive domination has defined and debased work.

2:17 The phrase “knowledge, good and evil” signifies our presumed ability to use evil means for good ends. Presuming this ability for ourselves is humanity’s greatest temptation, and is used to justify all manner of evil. The phrase reappears in reference to the discernment of kings (2 Sam 14:17, 1 Kings 3:9) who justify capital punishment, revenge, war, and slavery to secure their kingdoms and their legacies (1 Sam 8:11-18).

2:20 God creates the animals to be Adam’s partners but Adam gives names to all of them, symbolizing his dominion over them. None are his equals.

2:23 God creates the woman and Adam recognizes her as his equal. He does not name her. Although he does call her woman, the Hebrew word for name is not used.

3:1 The serpent is cunning or shrewd, words used to describe adeptness at using manipulative means and deception for one’s own ends. Whenever we are tempted to use evil means for a perceived good, we have fallen victim to a cunning justification and self-deception that often places the welfare of a selected group of humanity above others.

3:5 The ability to use and control evil means for good ends is beyond human capability. Its use by human beings is often justified by claiming divine authorization or inspiration. Violent behavior in animals is sometimes used to bolster the deification of the inequity and violence of the status quo.

3:7 In Hebrew, the word for naked looks like the word for shrewd. The humans now hide their intentions from each other.

3:12 The male is willing to sacrifice the female to save his own skin. He has learned how to morally justify his actions to himself.

3:14 “Having flagrantly exalted itself in a challenge to God, [the serpent] is now doomed to a posture of humiliation.”- Etz Hayim. Our image of God is to be learned from examples of human love and solidarity, not nature red in tooth and claw, which is decidedly not an image of god.

3:15 Our desire to affirm coercive domination as “natural” or necessary on the basis of violence in nature makes it harder for us to see the abundant examples of mutual aid in nature.

3:16a “The word etzev is not the usual biblical word for ‘pain.’ It recurs in 6:6 referring to God’s regret at the way humanity turned out in the days of Noah.”-Etz Hayim. Throughout history mothers have always suffered most and been the most active in opposing war.

3:16b,19 Coercive domination so debases our marital relationships and our working lives that for many it makes what should be joyous and spiritual into a curse. God is not doing the cursing. God is stating the consequences of our actions when some portion of humanity tries to act “like a god” over another part of humanity.

3:20 Adam names Eve, the Hebrew word for name is used just as it was used when Adam named the animals in 2:19-20, signifying inequality and domination entering into human relationships. Adam is acting “like a god” by adjusting the divinely created boundary between humanity (which is created in the image of God) and animals (which are not) so that some of humanity is placed with the animals. Alternatively, Adam can be viewed as “acting like a god” by creating a new boundary between humans of perceived higher and lower value. A third interpretation, which will reappear in the story of the tower of Babel, is that Adam is transgressing the boundary between heaven and earth, whereby he now perceives himself “like a god” with the divine authority to subjugate other humans. This act immediately precedes the expulsion from the garden and is concomitant with it.

3:24 God places winged sphinxes or cherubim with a flaming sword at the entrance to the garden. One can not enter back into the garden through the same means with which one left it, the means of domination of humans over humans. Instead we are called to model our communities on the basis of cooperation, equality, and love, in the image of God to get back home.

2007-12-03T16:35:00.000-06:00

Not by Might, nor by Power, but by My Spirit, Says the Lord of Hosts

There are four books that go by the name Macabees. The book 1 Maccabees attribute the retaking of Jerusalem primarily to Judas Maccabeus and his army. However, this is not true of 2 Macabees or 4 Macabees which attribute the retaking of Jerusalem primarily (2 Macabees) or entirely (4 Macabees) to martyrs who suffered nonviolently for their faith. 3 Macabees covers different events entirely and is silent on the retaking of Jerusalem.

In 1 Macabees, Judas Maccabeus and his army violently retake Jerusalem with God’s help (3-4:35). They then rededicate the Temple after which the Hanukkah celebration is held (4:36-4:59). Emperor Antiochus later falls terribly ill as a result of his despondency over Judas’ victory (6:8-6:16).

2 Macabees tells a very different story. 2 Macabees includes the story of the martyrdom of Eleazer and of the seven sons and their mother (6:18-7:42). They accept torture from Antiochus rather than defy Jewish laws. The seventh son predicts that Antiochus will experience worse torture than the martyrs and that God will then free the Jews. “I, like my brothers, give up body and life for the laws of our ancestors, appealing to God to show mercy soon to our nation and by trials and plagues to make you confess that he alone is God, and through me and my brothers to bring to an end the wrath of the Almighty that has justly fallen on our whole nation (7:37-38).” The Macabees then take Jerusalem (8:1-36) and when the emperor Antiochus is about to attack, God strikes Antiochus with an illness that causes him to suffer torturous pain worse than those of the Jews he had tortured to death (9:1-10). Antiochus then repents, announces that he wants to become a Jew and decides to let the Jews live in freedom. (9:11-17) Only after this, the Maccabees rededicate the Temple and the Hanukah celebration is held (10:1-9).

4 Macabees is a sermon based on the martyrdom of Eliezer, the seven brothers and their mother described in 2 Macabees. It makes explicit what is implicit in the 2 Macabees account. The author of 4 Macabees tells us that “Through the blood of those devout ones and their death as an atoning sacrifice, divine Providence preserved Israel that previously had been mistreated (17:22).” Despite its name, 4 Macabees makes no mention of Macabeus or any act of war committed by Jews to win their freedom.

2007-10-03T21:15:00.000-05:00

From Isaac Bashevis Singer's 1978 Nobel Prize Lecture

The high honor bestowed upon me by the Sweedish Academy is also a recognition of the Yiddish language - a language of exile, without a land, without frontiers, not supported by any government, a language which possesses no words for weapons, ammunition, military exercises, war tactics; a language that was despised by both gentiles and emancipated Jews. The truth is that what the great religions preached, the Yiddish-speaking people of the ghettos practiced day in and day out. They were the people of The Book in the truest sense of the word. They knew of no greater joy than the study of man and human relations, which they called Torah, Talmud, Mussar, Cabala. The ghetto was not only a place of refuge for a persecuted minority but a great experiment in peace, in self-discipline and in humanism. As such it still exists and refuses to give up in spite of all the brutality that surrounds it. I was brought up among those people. My father's home on Krochmalna Street in Warsaw was a study house, a court of justice, a house of prayer, of storytelling, as well as a place for weddings and Chassidic banquets. As a child I had heard from my older brother and master, I. J. Singer, who later wrote The Brothers Ashkenazi, all the arguments that the rationalists from Spinoza to Max Nordau brought out against religion. I have heard from my father and mother all the answers that faith in God could offer to those who doubt and search for the truth. In our home and in many other homes the eternal questions were more actual than the latest news in the Yiddish newspaper. In spite of all the disenchantments and all my skepticism I believe that the nations can learn much from those Jews, their way of thinking, their way of bringing up children, their finding happiness where others see nothing but misery and humiliation. To me the Yiddish language and the conduct of those who spoke it are identical. One can find in the Yiddish tongue and in the Yiddish spirit expressions of pious joy, lust for life, longing for the Messiah, patience and deep appreciation of human individuality. There is a quiet humor in Yiddish and a gratitude for every day of life, every crumb of success, each encounter of love. The Yiddish mentality is not haughty. It does not take victory for granted. It does not demand and command but it muddles through, sneaks by, smuggles itself amidst the powers of destruction, knowing somewhere that God's plan for Creation is still at the very beginning.

2007-06-14T18:41:00.000-05:00

Rabbi Aaron Samuel Tamaret, A Rabbi of Nonviolence
By Rabbi Everett Gendler
This article appeared in Tikkun Magazine in 2003, on the 36th anniversary of the Six Day War.

Thirty-six, 36, lamed-vav: in its classical source, Isaiah 30:15–18, the number is associated with righteousness, justice, and the hopeful certainty of Divine redemption through "turning and stillness, tranquillity and trust." In later tradition, thirty-six alludes to the thirty-six righteous who, usually unrecognized, quietly sustain the world. Invariably poignant, on this year, the thirty-sixth anniversary of the Six Day War, the number also stirs in me pain and distress. Why?
Thirty-six years have passed since the "realists" promised us that peace was at hand due to the preponderance of Israeli power. In real-politik, after all, are not power and peace coordinates? Why, then, despite the plaintive cries for "peace, peace," is there no peace? Is it entirely obduracy on the part of those who oppose a Jewish Israel? Or is it that power was the wrong path? Certainly Isaiah would have been profoundly skeptical; he had long ago proclaimed that peace would be "the work of righteousness," and that the longed-for "tranquillity and trust for ever" would also be "the result of righteousness" (32:15–18).
If we follow Isaiah, this thirty-sixth anniversary of the war that redrew Israel's boundaries invites a re-examination of the possible elements of injustice, residues of unrighteousness, that were embedded in the very beginnings of the Zionist movement. These need full, yet sympathetic, acknowledgement if ever a peaceful future is to become a reality.
This is no easy task. Apart from unresolved general issues of social causality, there are also the passions of the moment. Who is to be trusted? To which voices shall we give ear? When are criticisms of Israeli injustice genuine, when do they mask other motives, provide expression for simple anti-Semitism? If only we could escape from the entrapment of our own times, hear a fresh voice that we can trust, know that its challenges and criticisms emerge from love of the Jewish people, not hatred, from fidelity to Jewish values, not their rejection!
There is, in fact, such a voice: Rabbi Aaron Samuel Tamaret's final pained and impassioned critique of political Zionism, Sh'losha Zivugim Bilti Hagunim, Three Unsuitable Unions, written in response to the Hebron riots of 1929. (Does nothing ever change in the Middle East?) Born in 1869 and soon dubbed "the prodigy from Maltsh" in recognition of his prodigious talmudic and biblical learning, Tamaret served as rabbi of the village of Milejczyce, Poland, from 1893 until his death in 1931. In contrast to most of his Orthodox colleagues, he early joined the political Zionist movement, and was a delegate to the Fourth Zionist Congress in London in 1900. That experience was profoundly disillusioning to him, however, and after a period of distressed silence, he began to denounce Zionism specifically and nationalism in general, a denunciation that became more intense with the passing years.
But can an outcry from seventy years ago contribute to a critical inquiry today? I believe that it can, by affording us a fresh perspective on a number of recurrent basic issues, issues whose avoidance has impeded any genuine solution to the agony of the Middle East today. Here, I have provided English translations of Tameret's words along with my own commentary.

In the aftermath of World War I, Jews successfully appealed to the League of Nations to receive lands the British had won in what was then Palestine. The Balfour Declaration, and its implementation by Zionists, worried Tamaret, in that the terms of the Declaration appeared to validate the prior bloodshed and destruction of the War. He believed that this compromise with modern nationalism compromised both Jewish values and Jewish identity. He notes, for example, that Zionists (whom he often calls Balfourists) were willing to join forces with the ordinary Russians (whom he calls "Nikolai Nikolovitz") even though they had initiated pogroms against the Jews. Here are some of Tamaret's words on this issue, in translation from the Hebrew:

The World War should have been truly assessed for what it was: an unmixed defeat for humanity. Any decent man should have scorned its outcome, never excusing its brutality and blood-letting by any purported future results. For nothing can compensate for millions of young lives lost, millions of parents deeply bereaved, and millions of joyless, suffering disabled. And what of the utter pollution of the spiritual atmosphere, which turned men into beasts of prey and ambush!…men have become wolves to one another, life has deteriorated seriously, and Jews, always the target, are more maligned than ever.
…But our political Zionists have taken it upon themselves to praise and glorify this age of a new heaven and a new earth created by the war. Never do they cease from singing the praise of the spirit of "liberty" and "justice" which has awakened in the world as the result of nations girding themselves with swords and going forth to "free lands," or of the "righteousness" which has been awakened in the hearts of nations to correct the "historic burden" of Israel by returning it to its "birthplace."…
Not only in theory and words have our Balfourists shown solidarity with the rulers of the earth, but in practice as well. They founded the Jewish Legion to fight with Nilolai Nikolovitz—otherwise a persecutor of Jews—to liberate Palestine from Turkey. Nor was this help insignificant.
Physically, of course, the help of a few hundred Jewish soldiers was inconsequential compared with the millions of men fighting in the Allied cause. The ethical help, however, was substantial indeed, consisting, as it did, in the destruction of ethical feeling and the removal from men's hearts of any remains of religious reverence, prerequisites for enabling men to wage war and attack others whom they had not previously so much as seen or known. Such was the very considerable moral contribution of the Jewish Legion to 'Nikolai Nikolovitz.'

Tamaret took seriously the idea that Jews have a Divinely directed moral mission in the world, and while a fully observant, halakhic Jew, he understood our purpose in universal ethical terms. Using Torah terms, his belief that one small nation could influence the morality of the whole world might now seem archaic to us. Yet, even a cursory consideration of the current world interest in the Tibetan exile community, together with the adulation of the Dalai Lama for his nonviolent teachings, might suggest that Tamaret was an astute and realistic diagnostician of this deep human moral hunger. Am I the only one to whom it seems that, in recent decades, saffron robes have become the update of Jochanan ben Zakkai's tallit?
In the first half of the twentieth century, Jews played that role. To say so was not simply fantasy on Tamaret's part. For evidence in support of his contention, look, for example, at the excerpt from Judah Magnes' Journal in which Magnes reports on his interview with President Truman in May, 1948 ( especially pp. 494–495 in Dissenter in Zion, edited by Arthur A. Goren, Harvard U. Press). There Magnes recounts Truman's dream that "peoples whose life was based on the same moral code might get to understand one another." After referring to the common basis of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim moral codes, and his hope that this understanding "might help to lift the world from the materialism which was holding the world down to the ground and might destroy it, " Truman laments: "But here it is—you Jews and you Arabs are spoiling things. You are not giving the Jews and the Christians and the Moslems of the rest of the world a chance to have confidence in one another. That is one of the reasons why I deplore so deeply this conflict in the Holy Land." However one may evaluate Truman's statement, it is clear testimony to the importance of the Jewish and monotheistic moral stance in affecting human affairs.
It was Tamaret's clear sense of Judaism's role as a moral guide that led him to criticize the Balfourist nationalists so harshly. In Tamaret's view, if Jews were to adopt the time-dishonored, ethically tainted tactics of violent statecraft, a grievous moral injury would be inflicted on all of humankind.

Small and humble is Jacob, and his ability to influence humanity for good is indeed limited. On the other hand, his ability to corrupt and pollute the moral atmosphere of the earth, should he pervert his way, is greater than anyone else's. For it unfortunately follows logically: if this frail and tender people, whose existence has always been secured by Moral Force, at last acknowledges the sword, how shall one answer those nations who have always lived by the Sword? …
For Jews have suffered each time they saw, even from afar, the glittering helmets and flashing spears of a troop of soldiers approaching, and know well the terror which sends innocents running from shelter to shelter…
But it is not only because of Israel's extraordinary suffering at the blade of the sword that Jacob, should he, too, now begin to lust after sword and ammunition, has this special capacity to befoul the ethical atmosphere more than any other nation; it is also because of his distinction as "the chosen people."
How terrible is that corruption which would result from any evil example set by "Jacob, selected by God, Israel, His special treasure," were he, also, at last to adopt the faith of Esau.… One may be sure that when Jacob behaves deviously or dishonorably, the example will be duly noted along with his distinction, and suddenly he will become a valued authority who serves to sanction their own misdeeds….

"Jacob's" role in the settlement of Palestine was all the more damaging to Jewry, in Tamaret's view, because the Zionists insisted that Judaism itself be redefined around the nationalist project. Tamaret rejected this Israel-centrism and Diaspora Jews' willingness to go along with it.

Political Zionism, as developed thus far, clearly imperils the character of Judaism, which has survived so many centuries free from the defilements of "nationalism" and "homelandism."
Additionally, the establishment of the desired political state with a Jewish majority would adversely affect Jews elsewhere, both physically and spiritually. Physically, this proclaimed preferable place for Jews gives implicit sanction to persecutors elsewhere who would like to oust "alien" Jews from other lands, for they can now say: Jews, what complaints have you against us? Why do you insist on residing here where, by your own Zionist admission, you are mere temporary aliens? Go on to your own country, Palestine, where you are now the dominant majority; and en route, be sure to thank us for our kindness in recognizing your "historic rights" to the land of Israel!
As for the spiritual damage to Jews elsewhere, by exaggerating the delights and the incomparable dignity which Jews supposedly enjoy in the "fatherland," Jews elsewhere will come to despair of the quality of their lives as Jews.
The Zionists, of course, insist that everywhere in the world Jews will point with pride to Israel, and the people there will come to subject themselves to the "fatherland," and will finally accept it as the source of a spiritual revolution.
Yet, I find these consolations offered the millions of Jews outside of Israel—namely, knowing that there, in the "homeland," a handful of Jews live a "life of honor" and "are equal to all men"—are even emptier than the promise of the Feast of Leviathan, which others offer to presently suffering Jews. For the latter at least promises a personal recompense in the future for the sufferings of the present, while the prophets of the idol called "homeland" offer merely generic consolations: that lowly Jews in the Diaspora shall enjoy vicariously the lives of the proud Jews in Tel Aviv who dance the hora, and be satisfied that they are members of the same family. And even this, only on condition that the Jews of the Diaspora place themselves under the influence of the fortunate ones in Israel.
Do you hear? We had always imagined that as a Diaspora people, purified and cleansed of the pride of the sword, we should be able to share a goodly teaching with others. But now come the Balfourists and reveal to us the secret that we are lowly creatures who have no salvation except to listen to what proceeds from the mouths of our distinguished brothers in the "homeland," to make of their teachings a crown for our heads and whose words shall be our light.
However, if it is simply by virtue of dwelling in a "homeland" or "fatherland" that our Balfourists have become superior men, sanctified already in the wombs of their mothers to be teachers and guides, providers of fare for the souls of all the Diaspora, then consider: distinguished teachers such as these already abound for Jews in the Diaspora! For in every single land where Jews dwell, there are many who try with all their might to stuff us with their own cultures, the culture of "by your sword shall you live." The Jews of the Diaspora have no need whatsoever to bring from afar such false bread as this!

Balfourists were intent not only on refocusing Jewish energy on the homeland, but on establishing Israel as Judaism's "spiritual center." Tamaret's principled religious rejection of this notion clearly reveals his understanding of traditional Judaism and its ultimate purpose.

As for building a "spiritual center" for Judaism, such advocates reveal a failure to grasp the nature of Judaism. For Judaism at root is not some religious concentration which can be localized or situated in a single territory…. Neither is Judaism a matter of "nationality" in the sense of modern nationalism, fit to be woven into the famous three-fold mesh of "homeland, army, and heroic songs." No, Judaism is Torah, ethics, and exaltation of spirit.
If Judaism is truly Torah, then it cannot be reduced to the confines of any particular territory. For as Scripture said of Torah: "Its measure is greater than the earth…" (Job 11:9).
Neither is Torah the monopoly of particular persons or particular places. Our Sages said of Torah (Yoma), and it is repeated by Maimonides (Laws of the Study of Torah): "The crown of Torah is prepared for all Israel." And in Abot our Sages said:
Prepare yourself to learn Torah, for it is not a biological inheritance." If Torah is not inherited from the womb, all the less is it the automatic inheritance of any "country."
If Judaism is ethics and exaltation of spirit, then its task is not simply to perfect peoples, societies, or other such abstractions, neglecting on their behalf the particular person. Rather is its task the perfection of the individual human being, living and actual.
Hence the true locus and center of Judaism is within the heart, within the heart of every Jew whose heart is of flesh, not of stone. Wherever on all this earth such a Jew is found, there is the place of Judaism.

Tamaret's analysis can neither be complete, adequate, nor without need of some qualification. Living before Hitler and the full Nazi expression of demonically destructive racist nationalism directed against Jews, Tamaret does not, of course, address himself to that appalling phenomenon. Would it have affected his analysis, attitude, or response? Might it have confirmed his worse fears about the ultimate distortions to which modern nationalism may be prone? Would it also have prompted a change of policy on his part, or would he have insisted that even then, "en kategor naaseh sanegor," that extending the malady of modern nationalism was no way to cure the cancer itself? Would he have agreed that under the circumstances the Jewish people had to become "like all the nations" in order to save Jewish lives, or would he have rejected this as, finally, both a short-sighted, illusory solution and an ominous renunciation of the Jewish Messianic function in world history? Who can say? The questions, unfortunately, must remain unanswered and unanswerable.
Notwithstanding, Tamaret's response to issues of hostile surroundings and persecution are important, for they strongly suggest that his stance would have been realistic if applied in the early stages of that period of horror, and that his position has relevance for us today. One example: Tamaret was, from the beginning of his rabbinate, concerned with societal problems; it was his activism that led to his early involvement with the Zionist movement. After breaking with political Zionism and directing his attention to matters near at hand, as early as 1905 he advocated the formation of groups of Jews to monitor the relations between Jews and the people among whom they resided, urging timely responses to tensions that arose. These responses were to include, internally, the Jewish communal cultivation of the spirit of "living in peace and amity with all people, whether or not they be of the Jewish religion;" and externally, "whenever plans are afoot to stir up hatred among the common people by intrigues and agitators, to turn to the masses of the common people, and in their language, invite them to peace and brotherhood, at the same time showing them clearly the falseness of the accusations leveled against us…" Tamaret also discusses the advisability of "revealing before the masses the source of these accusations and the destructive interests of their creators, whose only intention is to distract the eyes of the people from their own interests…"
Meaning what, in relation to Germany? First of all, even before the rise of the Nazi scourge, Tamaret would have been reaching out to his non-Jewish neighbors, trying to cultivate mutual understanding, establishing inter-religious communities of support that could have been appealed to in resisting the Nazi program. Could such solidarity have made a difference in the face of the Nazi onslaught? Would resistance by fellow Aryans to the Nazi program have affected events? There are cases where it did, among them the ending of the early euthanasia policy. Even more astonishing is the case of the German wives of Jewish husbands, who banded together against the Gestapo in 1943 and, by public demonstrations in front of Gestapo headquarters on Rosenstrasse, successfully saved their husbands from transfer to the death camps! (Nathan Stolzfus' Resistance of the Heart is a well-documented, probing study of this important episode.)
The cultivation and growth of inter-group sympathy, advocated by Tamaret as an important component of Jewish self-defense, was undeniably one significant factor in the rescue of the Danish Jews, and there are numerous other instances where it was a vital element in saving Jewish lives.

Tamaret's advocacy of inter-group sympathy provided the key principle for his alternative to the Zionist Yishuv. Tamaret was by no means opposed to Jewish immigration to Israel. He insisted, however, that such immigrants live at peace with their Arab neighbors, understanding that the current inhabitants would not look kindly on Jewish nationalists. It may be that the Arab and Palestinian peoples would never have accepted a large Jewish immigration, just as many Israelis now fear that the Palestinians and their Arab supporters will refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of any Jewish state in Israel-Palestine.
It is not clear, however, how true this belief is. What shall we make, for example, of the public proclamation last March, by all the Arab states, of readiness to recognize and establish relations with the state of Israel in exchange for full withdrawal from the territories occupied in the Six Day War? Regrettably, this offer was not, to my knowledge, ever explored.
"But look at the Palestinians' insistence on the right to return; doesn't this effectively deny the validity of the Jewish state?" is a frequent reply. In fact, I have heard from Palestinians who are willing to limit the annual numbers of their returnees to a percentage of Jewish immigration in that year. This surely bespeaks acquiescence to the Jewish need for self-determination, even if not concession of ultimate legitimacy. More to the point, however, is our unquestioning assumption of the self-evident justice of a Jewish state as we have come to know it. It may well be that at this point in time, it is the least unjust, least injurious solution to an increasingly intractable human impasse; a viable-two-state "solution," one Jewish, one Palestinian, does seem to me the least worst next step. But this is far from claiming inherent justice for Jewish sovereignty, power-political in nature, over a modern nation-state. Here again, Tamaret, a rov in a Polish shtetl, saw and articulated the profound ambiguity, from the very beginning, of settlement in a spirit of dominance rather than of sharing. Not for him the empty reassurance of "a land without a people for a people without a land;" such idle words did not set him at ease in Zion. Vividly he portrays what we might, perhaps, designate, from his perspective, as the original sin of the political Zionist settlement.

Travellers to Israel never entered as simple immigrants, merely desirous of a peaceful place in which to work and create a life for themselves, a place which would satisfy their romantic desire to hear echoes of the Biblical age still resounding on the mountains of Judah and which would, in due course, nourish their spirits with that revivifying air of the land of Israel.
A modest arrival of this sort would not have frightened and aroused the Arabs, and so it would have been possible gradually to establish there, in the land of our ancestors, a Hebrew settlement to the satisfaction of Jews everywhere, even though this yishuv did not dream of "statehood" and "sovereignty," nor presume to dominate Jews everywhere as "teacher of all Jews in the Diaspora." It would have been possible to establish a simple Jewish settlement in the land of Israel like Jewish settlements everywhere on this earth, that the land of our forefathers not be less than lands elsewhere. Thus Jews in the land of Israel would have joined Jews everywhere in waiting for the true coming of the Messiah, that ideal moral redemption which is anticipated in Scripture and Rabbinic Teachings….
Armed with a piece of paper, the official permit obtained from Balfour, and with that pride which comes from having seen the face of the king, the Zionist leaders began to proclaim loudly and openly that they had come to establish a "Jewish State" and to become lords of the land. They further began to urge Jews to hasten from the four corners of the earth to the land of Israel, not because Jews personally needed to emigrate, but in order to achieve a Jewish "majority" and thereby become the "dominant people," outnumbering the original Arab inhabitants of the land, who would then become a "tolerated" minority….
… the Zionists hid their eyes from the fact that the actual place was not a newly-discovered, unsettled island located at the far ends of the earth, but was a place already inhabited by a people which was sure to feel the "nationalist" and "sovereign political" aims as a needle in its living flesh.
Thus the result resembles the tale told by Rabba bar Hanna (Baba Batra 73b). A group of seafarers saw a slope which from afar resembled an island, and so they approached, left their boats, and spent several days resting on it. During this interval they wandered about, spread themselves out, and soon felt like absolute owners of the place. Finally they lit a fire with which to bake bread and roast meat, and at last discovered that, although it had appeared to their eyes as a lump of inert clay, this was not an island but rather a living whale. As soon as the fire was felt by the fish, he turned on his back, quaked, raged, and tossed them all into the sea. Had their boats not been near to rescue them, they might have drowned in the sea. The application is painfully evident.

The sharpness of his analytical knife and the heat of his cauterization are enough to induce surgical shock; extraordinary, also, is his ability to experience and express the phenomenon of Jewish settlement as the Arabs then living in the land might have felt it. Would that current returnees from "solidarity missions" with Israel could offer us some comparably empathetic report on how Palestinians have experienced life under occupation since 1967. And what healing effects might we hope for from our serious self-scrutiny of felt injuries by the original Arab population, however unintentional on our part? Perhaps such a human perspective, gleaned from personal meetings, would enable us, as a community, to respond more adequately and more constructively to what is evidently deep despair and destructive hostility among the Palestinians. Might this be somewhat analogous to the moving efforts of the Christian church to look afresh at anti-Jewish elements in Christian tradition, even in the Gospels, and to try to respond to them? The healing effects of this teshuvah, this turning towards recognition of the deeper sources of pain and conflict, dare not be disregarded by a tradition such as ours, for which it occupies such a central place both in ethics and in theology.

But what of Tamaret's rejection of the nationalist doctrine of Jewish sovereignty over the Holy Land? Does this not represent the abdication of responsibility for providing a place of refuge for Jews in need of protection? In evaluating this claim, it is vital to remember that there were committed Zionists living in Palestine who, even in 1948, were vocal in proclaiming their opposition to the United Nations partition of Palestine and the establishment of two states. They included Judah Magnes, first president of the Hebrew University, Martin Buber, Ernst Simon, and, until her death, Henrietta Szold, founder of Hadassah. They, residing in Palestine throughout those years, can hardly be dismissed for lack of knowledge of the situation there. Neither dare one accuse them of lack of concern for the rescue of Jews in need.
A case can be made, I believe, that a policy such as Tamaret's or, later, that of Berit Shalom, might have saved more Jewish lives during the Holocaust than the nationalist approach. How so? An analogy may be helpful. Compare William Penn's approach to the native inhabitants of Pennsylvania with the cowboys-versus-Indians approach all too common elsewhere. Was not the peaceable acceptance of Penn's newcomers testimony to the possibility of immigration and settlement in a spirit of mutual respect? Remember, also, stories of natives around Plymouth instructing the newcomers in helpful methods of agriculture in the new world.
Tamaret was entirely sympathetic to Jewish settlement in the holy land, but in a particular spirit.

… one who travels to the land of Israel must go for his own sake, not for the purported sake of the Jewish people. Let him there build for himself a house, plant for himself a vineyard, take for himself a wife, sire unto himself children and grandchildren. But let him not build a "national home" for the Jewish people nor a "spiritual center" for Judaism!
The Jew who immigrates to the land of Israel for self-fulfillment, and does so without any pretense of perfecting the Jewish people as a whole does, in fact, yield satisfaction to that people; for it is a delight to the spirit of the people that its children are to be found living in the holy land of its longings and desires. Such immigrants are indeed precious to all the Jews of the Diaspora.
But one who enters the land of Israel with trumpets and shouting, who proclaims that he "goes up" for our sake, the community of the Diaspora, that he goes to the "homeland" and the "national refuge"—such a one is, plainly put, a "troubler of Israel." For whoever builds a "national refuge" acts mistakenly, conceding thereby the Sodomite measure by which the dwellers of this planet are declared to be either "owners" or "intruders," with the former having the privilege of disposing of the latter as they see fit. Furthermore, such a one narrows the universal image of Judaism, demeans the image of Diaspora Jews, and casts upon them shadows of despair.

Think now of a Jewish settlement process that had followed the spirit proposed by Tamaret, and which every step of the way took pains to establish relations of mutuality with those already living in the land, at no point threatening dominance. If such a basis for amicably sharing the land had been early established between Jews and Arabs, cannot one imagine that there might have been some Arab predisposition, or at least willingness, to offer refuge to other Jewish settlers in desperate flight from the Nazis? This is, of course, mere speculation after the devastating fact of the Holocaust. But don't we permit ourselves speculation about how a sovereign Jewish state would have altered the outcome of events of those years of horror? Indeed it might have. But so might a process of settlement as advocated by Tamaret. And which might have offered the greater long-term security to Jews settling there? The question is again one which cannot be answered, but I would urge that we not unconsciously assume that the answer is obvious.

Finally, a brief word in support of the political realism, even today, of policies in the spirit of Tamaret, that is to say, policies which accord full, generous-hearted recognition to the valid human needs of "the Other." In a remarkable "Letter from Porto Allegre: At a Leftist Summit, Cheers for a Separate Mideast Peace" (Forward, Feb 7–14, 2003), Lucy Komisar reports that "20,000 participants in the stadium were crying and cheering as the peace statement was read with the sound system playing John Lennon's 'Imagine.'" Instead of an anticipated resolution condemning Israel and questioning its legitimacy, a statement emerged that, in Komisar's words, while it might cause even some "Jewish doves (to) flinch," was "a powerful pro-Israel statement from the point of view of many activists on the far left prone to rejecting the very legitimacy of the Jewish state." How did this come about? There was serious dialogue and preparation before the Forum by local Jewish and Palestinian communities in Porto Alegre; Brazilian Chief Rabbi Henry Sobel was involved; there was support from new President Lula da Silva's Workers Party; and personally present were Shulamit Aloni, Galia Golan, Ely Ben-Gal, Zyad Abu Zyad (a member of the Palestinian Parliament), Alam Jarar, and Lana Nusseibeh. The statement affirmed "peace, justice, and sovereignty for our peoples, an end to Israeli occupation of the lands occupied in 1967, the creation of an independent Palestinian state side by side with Israel along the lines of 4 June 1967 with Jerusalem as an open city, the capital of each of the two states, an agreed just and fair solution for the Palestinian refugee problem in accordance with UN Resolution 194," and an end to violence on both sides of the conflict. That such a statement could evoke cheers, tears, and tumultuous applause at an alternative global summit of nearly 100,000 people, and that it could be characterized as "the highlight of the conference," testifies, I submit, to the profound wisdom of Tamaret's insistence that conducted in the right spirit, Jewish settlement in Palestine could enjoy the support and esteem of all.
Tamaret's outcry can, I believe, open our souls to fresh, creative responses to the tragic Middle Eastern tangle which is the focus of so much attention, concern, anguish, and longing. It can also help us towards a much needed re-definition of the proper relation of Judaism, Diaspora, and Israel. For his courageous, unflinching statement I am grateful.

Rabbi Everett Gendler is the Chaplain Emeritus at the Phillips Academy, Andover and Rabbi Emeritus at Temple Emanuel, Lowell, MA.

2007-05-11T00:17:00.000-05:00

We are Pharaoh

Leviticus 25:46 You may keep them [non-Israelite slaves] as an inheritance for your children after you, for them to possess as holdings; for the ages you may make them serve you. But as for your brothers, the children of Israel, each man toward his brother, you are not to have dominion over him with crushing labor.

Dominion
The expulsion from the garden is intimately related to men taking the boundary that divides humanity from the living things over which humans have dominion and distorting the boundary so that women are placed with the dominated, to be possessed by men. Leviticus 25:46 distorts the boundary even further by putting words into God's mouth so that some men, the “non-Israelites” may also be dominated and possessed by Israelite men. This is the sin of Sodom, the sin that divides the world into native and foreigner and assigns human worth unequally across this boundary.

We are Pharaoh.
In the Torah, the term "crushing labor" occurs only in Leviticus 25 and in Exodus where it refers to the crushing labor that Pharaoh imposed on the Israelites. The word choice implies that Israelites may act like Pharaoh towards non-Israelites. The message of this verse is that we are Egypt. We are Sodom. We are Canaan. We construct boundaries that divide people into “us” and “them.” We call the people on our side of the boundary good and worthy and peaceful. We call the people on the other side of the boundary evil and unworthy and violent. . It is only by creating this boundary that one can justify using means on one side that we deplore when used by the other side. By focusing only on differences we may be able to convince ourselves that there is no moral equivalence between us and our opponents and thereby embolden ourselves to commit new levels of atrocities against our fellow human beings.

Boundary-Crossing Historical Analogies
When Amnesty International compared Guantanamo Bay to the Gulag and when President Carter compared the occupied territories to Apartheid, they exposed the man-made boundary as a lie. It is inevitable that there will be aspects of Gulag and Apartheid in any institution in which one group of people dominate another group. By comparing our situation today to those in the past on the other side of the boundary, Amnesty International and President Carter remind us that we are all capable of great evil and that if things continue on the present course we should expect the similarities with Gulag and Apartheid to grow.

2007-03-31T23:55:00.000-05:00

Portion 24 Vayikra Leviticus 1:1-5:26, Portion 25 Tzav Leviticus 6:1-8:36

Olah, the burnt offering 1:1-17, 6:1-6
For what sin does the olah (burnt offering) atone? Noah offers a burnt offering in Genesis 8:20. Rabbi Tamarat and several others say that Noah sinned by not interceding on behalf of the people to urge God to refrain from unleashing the flood. Likewise Moses did not intercede on behalf of the Egyptians when Pharaoh offered to let the Israelites go free if they left their livestock behind. Perhaps the burnt offering is a perpetual atonement for the sin of not acting on behalf of justice for our oppressors. Sometimes we care for our own animals better than we care for our human opponents. Psalm 51:16-19 expresses the idea that one can get the message of animal offerings in other ways, and that if one does so, then they are not required. Ibn Ezra considered Psalm 51:20-21, which contradicts 16-19, to be an addition.

Minchah, the grain offering 2:1-16, 6:7-16
Perhaps a mincha offering serves the purpose of a burnt offering for those without means. In 6:12-16 the priest offers a mincha offering on the occasion of his anointment. Perhaps a mincha offering by a layperson is a reminder that we are to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. The combination of incense and unleavened bread implies that we are to conduct our society in such a way that the poorest among us are to be treated with the same reverence that we treat our priests.

Zevach Sh’lamim, offering of thanksgiving 3:1-17, 7:11-38
One of the purposes of the thanksgiving offering is that the ritual makes what might otherwise have been an individual expression of gratitude into a communal expression of gratitude. The offering of a thanksgiving must also include a minchah offering. Perhaps this is a reminder to welcome the poor to the festive meal. Deuteronomy 12:15 allows the pure and impure alike to partake of a festive meal together.

Chatat, purgation offering 4:1-5:13, 6:17-23
4:3 I have been told that the Hebrew word often translated as blame, also has the connotation of shame. The people aren’t guilt for the priest’s offence, although the entire community is shamed when it’s spiritual leader sins.
4:6,17,25,30,3: Dipping our finger in our wine and sprinkling it out during the Passover Seder when the plagues are read is reminiscent of the priest dipping his finger in the blood and sprinkling it on the alter as part of the purgation offering. This part of the Seder can therefore be interpreted as an acknowledgement of our culpability in wars fought in our name.

Asham, reparation offering 5:14-26, 7:1-6
In Mishpatim, Exodus 21:1-24:18, reparation must be made for a criminal act. One of the reasons that killing a criminal is so sinful is that it deprives the guilty of their sacred obligation to make reparation.

Blood prohibition 7:26-27
In all of the offerings, blood belongs to God and is not to be consumed by people “for the life of the flesh is in the blood and I have assigned it to you for making expiation for your lives upon the altar; it is the blood, as life that effects expiation.” - Leviticus 17:11
We do not eat the blood of an animal as a perpetual reminder that we are not God and do not have the authority to extract the life from another human being. The penalty for doing so is to be cut off from the people, as Cain was for killing Abel, and Moses was for killing the Egyptian taskmaster. Perhaps the prohibition against eating the fat around the organs that are offered up is a similar prohibition against usurping God’s role.

8:1-36 Moses performs the priestly role in anointing Aaron and Aaron’s sons. In a dramatic break with the biblical pattern, the younger son gives the blessing to the sons of the oldest son.

2007-03-13T23:30:00.000-05:00

Portion 19 T’rumah Exodus 25:1-27:19
Portion 20 T’tzaveh Exodus 27:20-30:10
Portion 22 Vayak’heil Exodus 35:1-38:20
Portion 23 P’kudei Exodus 38:21-40:38

Plaut refers to Isaac Abarbanel who considered the table and bread to refer to the pagan practice of feeding the gods. The Torah subverts this idea. “Table and bread are removed from the Holy of Holies; the table vessels remain empty, and the bread is consumed by the priests themselves as part of the sacrificial rite.”

Perhaps this is a general rule. The various parts of the Tabernacle and priestly attire made reference to the practices of neighboring cultures and subverted them. But to understood how the subversion worked in many cases would probably require a deeper knowledge of these cultures than we currently have.

Using symbols of an opponent to subvert the opponent’s ideas is a common tactic in social justice movements. Last year, at the annual stock holder meeting of Peabody Energy, the Sierra Club held a press conference and distributed an “alternative annual report” of Peabody Energy. Like the company’s annual report it was filled with facts and figure about the company, and it had a similar “look and feel” to the official report. However, while the company’s report was focused on profits and stock price, the Sierra Club’s was focused on environmental degradation. If someone unfamiliar with company annual reports were to read the Sierra Club’s report, they would learn that Peabody is bad for the environment but they would miss the message contained in the “look and feel” of the report: that Sierra Club was making a point about what the real “bottom line” of a company should be. When it comes to understanding the Tabernacle we are in even worse shape because the Tabernacle is all “look and feel,” and we don’t know much (at least I don’t) about what the “official annual reports” looked like or meant.

My favorite subversion of a ritual is the Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge has all the elements of a pledge of obedience to the state, a ritual of nationalism. However it utterly but subtly subverts that notion. The flag that we pledge our allegiance to is the flag of the United States of America. But that is just its name. The flag doesn’t stand for the United States of America. Instead the flag stands for an ideal republic where there is liberty and justice for all. We pledge our allegiance to this ideal republic not to the government of the United States of America. Indeed allegiance to the ideal republic, if we take it seriously, often entails defying the government of the United States of America.

Perhaps the same can be said for many of the rituals of biblical Judaism. They incorporated elements of neighboring cultures and utterly but subtly subverted their meaning. For example, several modern commentaries presume that circumcision was commonly practiced in biblical cultures, but most commonly as a rite of puberty. Infant circumcision subverted this practice by changing the meaning from one of preparation for marriage to one of renewing the marriage of Israel with God.

2007-03-11T00:20:00.000-06:00

Portion 21 Ki Tisa Exodus 30:11-34:34

30:15 We indict our society, not Torah, when we project the head tax onto our nation’s extreme wealth inequality and declare it unjust.

30:32,37 Reminders that we are not to be like gods.

31:12-17 Sabbath instructions for the foremen, Bezalel and Oholiab. Moses is to tell it to all of the Israelites so that they will be able to hold the foremen accountable (in the same way that the instructions for priests are given to all and instructions to Judges in Mishpatim are given to all). Perhaps the intent of the passage is better expressed by “whoever assigns work to be done on the Sabbath day shall be cut off from among the people.” We indict our society, not Torah, when we project Sabbath work restrictions onto our nation, where many people are compelled to work the Sabbath out of economic necessity and fear of loosing their livelihood, and declare them unjust.

32:1-4 The idolatry is not in the desire for or construction of the calf, for this is to replace Moses not YHWH. The idolatry is in the line “for that man Moses, who brought us from the land of Egypt.”

32:5 Perhaps Aaron here is trying to move the focus away from Moses and his bullion bovine substitute and back to God.

32:7 God repeats to Moses the idolatry of the people, that they are associating Moses with God.

32:11 Moses assures God that Moses understands that it was God not Moses or any other human who led the people out of Egypt.

32:19 Moses is angry, because the calf and those who made it challenge his authority as the sole intermediary between God and people. Moses feels like the people have been unfaithful to him.

32:20 Moses forces the people to drink the calf, similar to the test, Numbers 5:11-31, that a jealous husband can force his wife to undergo when he suspects her of adultery. Nothing in the text indicates that they failed the test. But Moses remains convinced of the peoples unfaithfulness to him.

32:26-27 God renounced punishment in 32:14. Moses is idolatrously equating his own desire for vengeance with the will of God and imposes his own murderous punishment, in violation of God’s will and the results of the adultery test.

32:31-32 Moses does not recognize his own sin.

32:33 God subtly tells Moses to pay attention to his own sin.

32:35 Are those Levites who carried out Moses’ murderous orders the target of the plague? This would serve the purpose of demonstrating to the people that they are not to treat Moses like a god. God leaves it to the people to teach Moses that Moses is not to think of himself like a god.

33:16 Moses identifies himself with the people instead of with God, thereby winning God’s favor.

33:17 -23 It is only when we identify ourselves with the people without seeking to dominate others that we will see God in our midst.

34:35 Moses, having learned his lesson, veils himself when not teaching the Torah so that people will not associate the pleasure of the radiance with anything else he says or does. Moses’ unique role, requiring him to be the only human permitted to approach the boundary between heaven and earth, is fraught with danger for Moses, who is continuously tempted by godlike power, and for the people, who are continuously tempted to usurp Moses’ power.

2007-03-02T22:46:00.000-06:00

Portion 18 Mishpatim Exodus 21:1-24:18

21:1 Like the covenant with Noah, these are minimal standards. Several of the rules in this Torah portion are explicitly or implicitly repudiated by the Torah in other places. The higher standards of the Garden: nonviolence, and men and women working and worshiping in equality as the image of God, are still to be aspired to.

21:2 The word “Hebrew” is almost always used to describe the Israelites to or by a foreigner, such as Pharaoh in Egypt. Could the Torah be indicating that by taking a slave, an Israelite has alienated himself from the covenantal community?

21:2 Since a primary reason (or perhaps the only reason, no debt slavery is allowed 22:24-26) to be sold into slavery is for a thief to make restitution, this is effectively a maximum jail sentence of six years, far less punitive than U.S. law.

21:3a It appears as if the slave owner can prevent the slave from marrying outside of the slave owner’s household. Are there any counter examples of this in the biblical literature?

21:3b It also appears that if a married male becomes a slave, his wife becomes a slave too for the period of her husband’s enslavement. Any biblical examples?

21:4-6 A counter example is Jacob working off the bride price for Laban’s daughters. But, perhaps this is not a counter example since Jacob fled without telling Laban.

21:7-11 The Torah is comparing Israelite marriage to female slavery, symbolically indicated in the Garden narrative by Adam naming Eve like he named the other animals.

21:13 There appears to be enough wiggle room here to prevent most death sentences. “A Sanhedrin which kills once in seven years is considered murderous. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said: once in seventy years. Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon said: if we had been in the Sanhedrin, no one would have ever been killed.” (Mishnah Makot 1:10).

21:17 Etz Hayim says that this is about the children putting a curse on their parents. The curse of Noah and several of the other curses in the Torah apply to offspring so children cursing their parents curse themselves.

21:19 The goal of the covenantal judicial system is restitution not punishment.

21:21 The absence of restitution in this verse contradicts 21:3 which states that slave owners have the responsibility to insure that slaves under their care do not leave slavery in worse circumstances than they came into it.

21:23-25 Talmud interpretation is eye’s worth for an eye, etc. Plaut says that there is no story in the Bible where the literal meaning of the verse is carried out. Plaut believes the Talmud interpretation to be the original intent of these verses but he fails to mention if there is any story in the Bible where the Talmudic interpretation is carried out.

21:26-27 Using the Talmudic interpretation from 21:23-25, a slave can go free when the owner has caused damage to the slave equal to or greater than the value of a single tooth. Therefore the slave in 21:21 was already free when he or she died.

21:28 Do any Rabbis interpret the ox in verses 21:28-32 figuratively? The ox could represent our animal instincts, mental illness, passions, the evil inclination, etc so that this verse commands removing the source of violence within us instead of perpetuating the cycle of violence.

21:29-31 The death penalty can be replaced with a fine and redemption of life provided that the cause of death was an “ox.” Mishnah Makot 1:10, quoted above in 21:13, tells us that there is always an ox.

21:32 How much was thirty shekels of silver worth?

21:33-34 How much restitution? More or less than thirty shekels?

22:1 This verse has tunneled here from the death penalty section to give us an example of one species of ox. It is the animal instinct to strike first when you fear you will be attacked. This ox is exemplified by that voice inside us that says “If someone is coming to kill you, rise early and kill him first" (Sanhedrin 72a and parallels) The Torah does not condone killing out of fear or the presumed knowledge of someone’s intent to kill you. Such knowledge is always clouded in darkness anyway. But the Torah does forbid the imposition of the death penalty on those who have killed out of fear.

22:2a If some time has elapsed before the killing takes place then one can not presume that fear was the motivating factor. The owner is guilty of murder and of taking the law into his own hands. Verses 22:1-2a tunneled up into this place and stole the integrity of verses 21:37 and 22:2b-3, but the Torah did not kill it. It left it here so that it might teach us that by taking vengeance into our own hands we deny our enemies their right to make restitution.

22:2b This is the only verse that gives a reason why a male may be sold into slavery (and again only for six years maximum), to make restitution for a crime. Presumably females may be sold into perpetual slavery because being female is a crime worse than ox theft.

22:4-14 All of these verses emphasize restitution instead of punishment.

22:20-23 A reference to exile which the prophets attributed to social injustice, in particular injustice against strangers, widows, and orphans. The symmetry of these verses implies that one of the crimes of the leadership of Judah, when it was threatened with invasion from Babylon, was to put strangers to the sword, perhaps for fear that they were spies or terrorists.

22:24-26 Not only is interest forbidden, there is also no punitive action imposed, such as debt slavery or even the permanent forfeiture by the poor person of their collateral, when the poor person can not pay the lender back.

23:23 Any killing is to be done by God, not the people.

23:25-26 Jeffrey Tigay, in the Oxford Jewish Study Bible, claims that this hyperbole is typical of ancient treaties. I think the Torah places this here to remind us that we are the Canaanites when we treat our religious rituals as if they were magic spells that persuade or compel God to do good things for us.

23:31 These are symbolic borders to a symbolic land. Fox suggests that what is translated “Sea of Reeds” might really mean “Sea at the End of the World.” Regardless, it is the sight where God showed the Israelites that their salvation lies in them refraining from taking vengeance into their own hands. It is contrasted with the Sea of Philistia, where God steered the Israelites away so that they would not see war. The wilderness is the site of testing and of revelation. The Euphrates runs through the Garden of Eden where people lived in harmony and where people first were tempted and embraced the domination system.

2007-02-21T21:01:00.000-06:00

Old Glory – Ross Hyman
Preached at Wellington United Church of Christ
Transfiguration Sunday, February 18, 2007
Exodus 34:29-35, Psalm 130 (instead of Psalm 99)
2 Corinthians 3:12-4:2, Luke 9:28-36

Paul probably never dreamed that his letters would attain the status of scripture and would be read through as thick an interpretive veil as Paul thought that his opponents applied to the Torah. Indeed to this very day, whenever Paul is read a veil lies over our minds.

In the past several decades, Christian and Jewish theologians have explored the interpretive veil applied to Paul’s writings which produces the view that the law is a crushing burden designed only to stomp out our self-righteousness so that we will turn to Christ’s grace for forgiveness.

These theologians assert that this interpretation can only thrive when people have veiled themselves to the abundance of God’s forgiveness within Judaism, as evidenced by Psalm 130 for example. Jewish writing from the period presents views essentially identical to that of Paul, that the covenantal law is a gift, not a burden; We follow it out of faithfulness and because it is the way to express our love for God and neighbor, with no illusion that our salvation or justification exists anywhere else but in God’s redeeming grace. Paul’s opponents are presumably gentiles or Jews on the periphery of Jewry, who would have thought of Jewish laws like pagan rituals, so that they would have associated a promise of magical saving effect working through them, instead of viewing them Jewishly, as expressions of faithfulness.

But there are still disturbing things in Paul’s letters, even when looked at through the veil of the new perspective. In today’s lectionary text Paul appears to cast dispersions on Moses himself. The fading or setting aside of the Glory appears to apply to the entire Torah. It appears that Paul’s attack is aimed at mainstream Jewry, not the periphery, and is focused on its very origins. It appears that anti-Semitic Christian writers, at least in some cases, were quoting Paul without distortion. If the new perspective is correct, then Paul did not really mean these things as they sound. The perspective tells us what Paul hopefully means but it doesn’t explain how he could be so sloppy and brazen in how he tried to say it.

It might appear to an onlooker than a flag burner sees nothing redeemable in the symbolism of the American flag. The flag means domination through violence, genocide of Native Americans, enslavement of Africans, military coups in Central and South America, and endless war. It might appear to us that, to the flag burner, these aspects were inherent to the flag from the moment of its inception, born in a war between two aristocratic classes. To the flag burner, it appears that the American flag, like the confederate flag or the Nazi flag is unredeemable.

But flag desecration alienates lots of people who don’t support U.S. policies, past and present, but who see the flag as a symbol of our allegiance to the ideal republic of liberty and justice for all and our allegiance to the idea of working to make the U.S. more like this ideal. We know that the flag burner believes in liberty and justice for all as well. We know that the flag burner derives these notions from the same sources that led to the composition of the Pledge of Allegiance. And if the flag burner were young we would assume that they had just not yet learned to use these symbols in an effective way. But if a mature person was to burn the flag, we have reason to wonder about them a little.

There is no need to find an excuse for everything that Paul wrote. For one thing, nobody is obliged to think that everything that Paul wrote was very thoughtful. Paul was a person like you or me and we are not very thoughtful a lot of the time either. Rabbinic traditions says that Moses was the most humble man who ever lived, and had the presence of mind to veil himself when not teaching the Torah so that people would not associate the pleasure of the radiance with anything else he said. Paul might have been bolder than Moses but he wasn’t wiser. There are more thoughtful ways to say that gentiles do not need to partake in circumcision or dietary laws, or festivals to be considered full members of the covenant community, if that is indeed what Paul had meant here.

We are also under no obligation to find an excuse for everything that Paul wrote if we can find evidence from other Christian writings close to the time of Paul that finds Paul disturbing for the same reasons we do. Perhaps, despite all of Paul’s other good points, he was a hotheaded flag burner, who alienated Jews, even messianic Jews, because the thoughtless way he said things made them feel that when push came to shove, when the crunch really came, they weren’t sure whose side he would be on.

I believe that such disparagement of Paul exists in several places in Luke-Acts and that Luke’s most serious criticism of Paul is in Acts 22:24-29, where Paul, in Jerusalem, has just been rescued from an angry mob by the Roman tribune.

The tribune directed that Paul be brought into the barracks, and ordered him to be examined by flogging, to find out the reason for this outcry against him. But when they had tied him up with thongs, Paul said to the centurion who was standing by, ‘Is it legal for you to flog a Roman citizen who is uncondemned?’ When the centurion heard that, he went to the tribune and said to him, ‘What are you about to do? This man is a Roman citizen.’ The tribune came and asked Paul, ‘Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?’ And he said, ‘Yes.’ The tribune answered, ‘It cost me a large sum of money to get my citizenship.’ Paul said, ‘But I was born a citizen.’ Immediately those who were about to examine him drew back from him; and the tribune also was afraid, for he realized that Paul was a Roman citizen and that he had bound him.”

Paul proclaims, for his salvation, a privilege bestowed on him by the domination system that persecutes the Jews. By doing so he answers the tribune’s question about why there is an outcry against him. Perhaps the only thing that Luke could have done to bring his point home more strongly would have been to have a cock crow after the third time Paul asserted his Roman citizenship.

Luke’s criticism of Paul is also visible in Luke’s account of the transfiguration. As if to directly counter Paul’s claim that the glory of Moses is dimmed, Luke writes of Moses and Elijah that “Suddenly they appeared in glory,” a detail not found in Mark’s or Matthew’s account.

So how did it happen, that if for the most part Paul’s writings are supportive of Jewish positions, and even where they are not, there are significant other voices including pro-Jewish gentile voices in early Christianity that were critical of Paul’s hyperbole, and perhaps even questioning of his basic loyalties, how is it that the church became so anti-Jewish? How is it then that within a few hundred years the Church would have thrown off its Jewishness like burdensome chains and proclaimed that it was a Roman citizen?

This I can’t answer but I do want to point out a correlation between hostility towards Judaism, the embrace of the domination system, and hostility towards nonviolence in Christianity.

There are several parables of Jesus, in particular, those that feature a King or a Lord, in which the traditional interpretation is anti-Semitic and supportive of the domination system, while and alternative interpretation is both pro-Jewish and non-violent.

Consider Matthew’s wedding banquet story. (Matt 22 2-13)
A king gave a wedding banquet for his son. He sent his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding banquet, but they would not come. Several refuse to go. Others kill the king’s slaves. The king, enraged, sent his troops, slaughtered the murderers, and burned their city. Then he invites other guests and when the king came in to see them, he noticed a man there who was not wearing a wedding robe, and he said to him, “Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding robe?” The man was speechless. Then the king said to the attendants, “Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

In an explanation, read through the veil of the domination system, The King is Jesus. The people who reject Jesus and don’t want to go to his wonderful banquet are killed. Guess who they are? And other apostates who don’t adhere to proper Christian practice should expect to be thrown into the outer darkness as well. This explanation is more or less what I find in most commentaries even the liberal ones.

Now, reading the same parable through the veil of the suffering servant, the King is the domination system. He sends out his tax collectors but the people refuse to pay. The King sends out his thugs and some of the people violently kill them. The King’s response is collective punishment. He destroys the entire city and kills everybody living there regardless if they were part of the insurrection or not. This was well within the experience of Jesus’ Jewish audience. They knew that if you rebel violently against the Roman occupation then overwhelming violence will be the response. Jesus teaches an alternative way of resisting. If you want to resist the king and the domination system, do so defiantly, but also nonviolently, and publicly to decrease the likelihood that people who are not participating in the action will be punished. Sometimes a visual effect, in silence, is more powerful than words. You should not expect any glory from this or any success that you can discern for yourself. In fact you should only participate in such an action if you are prepared to experience the most severe punishment. But it is only through these kinds of actions that the domination system can be effectively resisted and redeemed.

The commentaries might not understand the parable this way but some of the Pharisees did. It is upon hearing this parable that they confronted Jesus about paying taxes to the Caesar.

It is my hope that one day, the same kind of mainstream theological effort that tore off the anti-Semitic veil that had obstructed the reading of Paul for centuries will be applied to Jesus’ parables so that all will be able to see that the Kings and Lords in these parables are representatives of the domination system, and that those who resist them violently are Jews, and that those who resist them nonviolently are Jews too.

2007-02-04T22:30:00.000-06:00

Portion 17 Yitro Exodus 18:1-20:23

18:4 This is consistent with 4:20 which refers to more than one son. It could be the second son’s circumcision that is referred to in 4:25. The second son’s name refers to God protecting Moses from capital punishment for murdering the Egyptian, a miraculous protection, without which, he would have been sentenced to death by Pharaoh when he returned to Egypt. Perhaps this section is placed here to remind us that Moses violated one of the Ten Commandments and to reinforce that capital punishment transgresses the boundaries between heaven and earth.

18:14 Jethro realizes that Moses’ power is harmful to the people, no matter how benevolently Moses wields it.

18:18 Jethro also realizes that Moses’ power is also harmful to Moses. Unchecked power is corrosive to the soul.

18:20 Jethro’s first proposal is his most radical. He advises Moses to instruct the people in the laws and teachings so that they can make decisions for themselves. Jethro is foreshadowing 19:6 “You shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” Under this proposal, the people could have chosen their own judges.

18:21-22 Jethro’s second proposal preserves and even enhances Moses’ power by giving him the sole authority to appoint judges.

18:24-26 Moses adopts Jethro’s second proposal but not the first.

19:3a How are we to understand this given the biblical and rabbinic understanding of the boundary between heaven and earth that we are forever tempted to transgress? “According to Rabbi Yose (2nd century C.E.): The Shechina never descended and Moses never ascended on high. “The heavens are the heavens of God, while the earth has been given to human beings” (Ps. 115:16). [That is, the biblical account is to be taken figuratively rather than literally. “Moses went up” is to be understood as “Moses was raised high,” that is, he was exalted by God above other people.]” –Plaut, from the Talmud.

19:3b The Rabbinic tradition identifies “house of Jacob” with women and “children of Israel” with men. Women are mentioned first because they have a far greater understanding of the real boundary between heaven and earth and the falseness of man-made boundaries, as in 19:15 for example.

19:6 Priests do not go to war and they are not assigned a territory of their own.

19:15 We transgress the boundary between heaven and earth by moving it so that we (and people of our gender or our nationality or what have you) are on one side while less desirable people are on the other. Moses interprets God’s words through the man-made boundary between women and men.

19:12, 19:21-25 God repeatedly warns Moses that the boundary between heaven and earth puts all of the people on one side and only God on the other. All of the people includes those calling themselves priests or anyone else tempted to assign themselves godlike status.

20:1 Plaut writes that in no other religious tradition does God speak to all of the people at once. I recently heard this claim repeated by David Saperstein of the Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism. Verifiable counterexamples will receive, while supplies last, a postcard featuring a picture of Hubert Humphrey wearing a hard hat. The Torah is ambiguous as to whether God spoke to all the people or just to Moses.

20:2 The holy nation must never forget that Egyptian blood was spilt so that we may live. This obliges us to a life of service to others. God is the warrior. We are to be peaceful. Exodus 14:14.

20:3 The holy nation must not to rely on idols such as the invisible hand or military might or future technological innovation or national borders for salvation.

20:4 The only acceptable image of God is all humanity, male and female, living and working together in harmony. Genesis 1:26-31

20:7 The holy nation must not claim divine right, or God’s will, or natural law, to justify its inequities.

20:8-11 The holy nation must provide sufficient time for rest and contemplation for its people.

20:12 The holy nation must provide abundant time, resources, and institutions for mother and fathers to care for their children. The holy nation must insure that its elders have the means to live a dignified life.

20:13 The holy nation leaves vengeance for God and remembers that Moses was guilty of murder. The holy nation honors its covenantal obligations with God and the people (see Ezekiel chapter 23 for a societal meaning of adultery.) The holy nation does not exploit the poor to benefit the rich. The holy nation does not lie to the people.

20:14 In the holy nation, inequities of wealth and opportunity are minimized.

20:16-19 Out of fear, the people respect the boundary between God and people. The hard part is not creating our own false boundaries between peoples.

20:20 Alongside the real boundary between heaven and earth we should not construct a false boundary dividing people based on wealth.

20:21 The altar is not an image of God. It is a reminder that all people are equally on the earth side of the boundary. No precious metals or other materials that people use to divide themselves from other people have any place on God’s altar.

20:22 “Why would the sword (i.e. an iron tool) profane the stones of the altar? The altar was made to lengthen human life and the sword to shorten it. Hence it would be wrong to lift up that which is designed to curtail human life against that which is designed to prolong it.”- Plaut, from the Mishna.

20:23 Awareness of our nakedness is our shrewdness, our desire to dominate, to transgress the boundary, and be like Gods. The altar is not raised to remind us that we are dust of the ground and to dust we shall return

2007-02-03T14:30:00.000-06:00

Portion 16 Be-Shallah Exodus 13:17-17:16

13:17 An E tradition. YHWH will lead the Israelites into an ambush at the sea of Reeds in 14:1-4.

13:18 How willing we are to place weapons into the hands of the Israelites. Plaut mentions Rashi’s alternative explanation that the word the NJPS translates as “armed” means “one-fifth,” four fifths having died during the plague of darkness. This is consistent with the interpretation of that plague in which some of the people voluntarily choose to identify themselves with the oppressed as Israelites and some not, regardless of biological ancestry. Plaut mentions several traditions where only 1/50 or 1/500 went out. Plaut also suggests that since the word translated as “armed” is related to the words for five and fifty that it refers to “troops of five” or “troops of fifty.” In this case the implication could be the very opposite of that given in the NJPS. The Israelites leave Egypt as a non-violent army, disciplined in marching formation, but with God as their only warrior.

14:1-4 Despite the E tradition of God avoiding war in 13:17, YHWH leads the Israelites backwards into an ambush so that they will see war. Is there a midrash that explains this change of plans? Could there be two traditions that have been combined, one as in Psalm 105 where there are plagues but no Sea of Reeds, and one as in Psalm 106 where there is the destruction of the Egyptian army at the Sea of Reeds but no plagues? The idea that God is The Warrior, the only legitimate purveyor of violence, is so difficult for us to accept that we must be taught it over and over again in different ways.

14:8 Is some of the stiffness of Pharaoh’s heart due to Israelis upraised hands (NJPS “defiantly” which Plaut suggests we should read as “with upraised fists” as in many student and black power posters of 60’s)? Would a more reconciliatory attitude have avoided the violence to come?

14:11 An understandable complaint since YHWH in 14:2 intentionally maneuvered Israel into this vulnerable position.

14:13-14 See final comment for 14:1-4 above.

14:20 God prevents both sides from fighting each other.

15:1a Given the Song of Deborah in the Haftara for this portion, I wonder if at one point the Song at the Sea was attributed to Miriam.

15:1b Horses and chariots were the weapons of mass destruction of that time.

15:3 YHWH is the [only] warrior. For a human to use violence is to transcend the boundaries between heaven and earth.

15:11 In the Babylonian creation myth the god Marduk creates humanity out of the blood of the dead god he conquered. Likewise, Israel’s creation occurred as a consequence of the death of the Egyptians. In the Babylonian myth, violence is an essential part of humanity. But in the Torah, humanity is not created to be violent and Israel is created out of violence as a result of Israel’s failure to reconcile with the Egyptians. Israel is henceforth called to redeem itself by living justly and mercifully.

15:14-16 An insertion? 15:13 and 15:17 seem to refer to Mount Sinai, while 15:14-16 transpose this to Canaan. Perhaps Philistia, Edom, Moab, and Canaan are to be interpreted as those idolatrous aspects of ourselves that find salvation only in domination and weapons of war. We must conquer these aspects of ourselves if we are to let God reign supreme in our lives as a people.

15:20-21 The women dance but the men do not. That aspect of male self-identity as “warrior” has been defeated too. Men have not yet learned that this is a victory and still deny that it has happened. Perhaps male circumcision is a reminder of this too.

15:26 First indication that the manna episode is about Egypt. God tests the Israelites not to be like Pharaoh and Joseph, who stole food from the people and sold it back to them in exchange for their freedom.

16:3 Second indication that the manna episode is to teach the Israelites to be different than Pharaoh in Egypt.

16:20 They are to take only what they need.

16:27 They are to respect the Sabbath.

17:8 Does this verse unambiguously imply that Amalek was the instigator or does it leave room for ambiguity as to who started the fight?

17:9 The preparations between Moses and Joshua could be interpreted to imply that Israel acted first. In Deuteronomy 25:17-19, Moses says, 40 years later, and to a new generation, that Amalek was the unambiguous instigator and Israel was blameless. Also, in the exodus account, Moses uses the rod of God without permission in an attempt to claim God’s support for this war. He neglects to mention this in his retelling. Likewise, my daughter’s 2nd grade history textbook has many things to say about how awful the British were without giving any accounts of non-violent alternatives available to the colonists, such as how Canada achieved independence. Perhaps the Torah is telling us to be mindful of the way history demonizes our past enemies to justify our past actions.

17:13 How could Joshua have fought with the sword if the Israelites left Egypt unarmed? Plaut says that tradition places chapter 17 later in the book when Israel was already at Sinai-Horeb (note that 16:34 mentions the Pact). Perhaps the Israelites constructed swords out of plowshares when they made the golden calf. What does tradition say is the reason for recounting the Amalek episode before Sinai?

17:14 God reminds Moses and Joshua that YHWH is the only warrior.

17:15 There are a few indications that there is an association between the stories of Shechem and Amalek. Moses constructs an alter, just as Jacob did in Genesis 35:1-7 after Simeon and Levi led Jacob’s family to kill the people of Shechem. In Chronicles 4:42-43 the Simeonites “destroyed the last surviving Amelikites, and they live there to this day.”

17:16 We are to occupy our hands with worship to God, through nonviolent acts of justice and mercy, not with the sword. After their murder of the people of Shechem, Jacob ordered his family to get rid of its foreign gods, to purify themselves, and to change their clothing. Jacob understood that relying on violence for salvation was idolatry. Whenever we use violence to conquer a foe, war and violence are gloried and strengthened as idols. This is what Israel’s war with Amalek represents and it is what YHWH is constantly at war with. God’s way of vengeance for murder is to send the perpetrator into the wilderness. This is what happened to Cain when he killed Abel and to Moses when he killed the Egyptian. Perhaps Israel’s war with Amalek is why God sends the Israelites into the wilderness for forty years.

2007-01-21T00:39:00.000-06:00

Portion 15 Bo Exodus 10:1-13:16

10:1 Rather, “I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants by placing these signs among them.”

10:2 The purpose of this story is to teach us to leave vengeance to God.

10:3 Why do Moses and Aaron continue to imply that the Israelites will return to Egypt after the pilgrimage festival. What might have happened had Moses and Aaron been honest with Pharaoh?

10:7 Pharaoh’s servants suggest that only the male Israelites go. At the time only males would be permitted to participate in the worship service. Is this a genuine move towards compromise or have they deduced Moses’s true intentions and are just trying to see how he will wiggle out of this one?

10:9 The pilgrimage is the festival.

10:10-10:11 Pharaoh knows that Moses is lying about coming back and accuses him of such. How much does Moses’ dishonestly contribute to Pharaoh’s stubbornness?

10:14 The locust plague does not distinguish between Egyptians and Israelites.

10:23 The darkness plague expands the definition of the Children of Israel to include all who choose to shine a light in the darkness.

10:24 Pharaoh offers to let the people go in exchange for their livestock. God had destroyed all of the Egyptian’s livestock. At the end of the hail plague, the Israelites could have offered to share their livestock with the Egyptian’s in exchange for their freedom. This could have been a fitting non-violent reconciliation, since Joseph had enslaved the Egyptians and taken their livestock for Pharaoh. Why did the Israelites not do this? (See 11:5 below for a conjecture that the Torah holds Israel responsible for harm to Egyptians caused by plagues that could have been prevented had the Israelites been willing to negotiate.) Or did the Israelites share their livestock with the Egyptians and that is the real meaning of the festival sacrifice?

10:28 Moses dies when he sees the promised land. Is Pharaoh’s prophesy correct? Do the Israelites spend 40 years in the wilderness to end up in a new Egypt of their own devising?

10:29 Perhaps God does not permit Moses to enter and live in the promised land to protect Moses from witnessing how the Israelites will slowly come to adopt the domination system.

11:2 Who are “the people” whose neighbors have silver and gold? In 3:22 they are wealthy enough to have lodgers who have silver and gold. Has “the people” been expanded to include all who will follow Moses and worship YHWH? Even Pharaoh’s servants? Does the stripping of Egypt refer to privileged Egyptians who had joined with Moses and stripped themselves of their Egyptian nationality to identify themselves with the Israelites slaves? Or is this from a tradition where the Israelites did not have it so bad in Egypt? Presumably the only reason for bringing precious metals along is for the tabernacle.

In 3:22 God tells Moses that the women will perform this task. In 11:2 God tells Moses to ask each man and woman to do it. Does this mean that all were asked but only the women obeyed? I wonder what the Rabbis had to say about that?

The NJPS uses the word “borrow” while Fox uses “ask for.” If the people are still putting on the pretence of coming back, it is presumably done with the knowledge of those they are “borrowing” from, just as Pharaoh’s daughter knew that Mosses’ nursemaid was his mother, but allowed the pretense to continue. This is alluded to in 11:3.

11:5 Much of the social justice requirements of Israelites to care for the stranger are motivated on the basis that “you were a slave in Egypt and YHWH your God redeemed you from there, therefore do I enjoin you to observe this commandment.” Is this Torah’s way of saying that Israel is held responsible for the injustices done to the Egyptians and must devote itself to making amends?

12:3 It is only during this final plague that the Israelites act collectively as a community in defiance against Pharaoh. The action is non-violent and highly ritualized. It is similar to a union sticker day where workers openly display their solidarity with one another. Pharaoh has refused the Israelites’ request to participate in their pilgrimage festival, so they strike and conduct the festival at their homes instead. The “mighty hand of God” is the people acting collectively and nonviolently for justice.

12:4 The meal could be shared with neighbors. The same neighbors who allowed the Israelites to “borrow” gold and silver from them?

12:13 Rabbi Aaron Samuel Tameret says that the blood on the houses is a sign for the Israelites to stay home and not be tempted to participate in the violence against the Egyptians.

12:16 The Israelites have gone on strike.

12:29 Is this from a different tradition in which the Israelites suffer this plague with the Egyptians?

12:38 Implying that more than just the biological descendents of Jacob are now part of the Children of Israel.

12:48 Israelites and Egyptians (as well as Edomites, Ammonites, Moabites, and probably many other groups) could partake of the Passover meal together for they were all circumcised. Jeremiah 9:24-25.

12:49 An explicit denunciation of preferential treatment based on ethnicity.

13:16 Israel is to annually remind itself, when it is in Canaan, to leave vengeance to God.

2007-01-15T22:42:00.000-06:00

Portion 14 Va-Era 6:2-9:95

6:3 “In Genesis, the name [El Shaddai] is most often tied to promises of human fertility (see 17:1); a possibly related Hebrew word means ‘breasts.’” – Everett Fox. God, by using the name YHWH, is emphasizing to Moses that God is liberating the Israelites not because they are descended from Jacob but because they are oppressed. Everett Fox’s translation “by my name YHWH I was not known to them [the patriarchs],” I believe captures the intention of the Torah better than the NJPS “I did not make myself known to them by my name YHWH.” In Genesis God is continuously telling and testing the patriarchs that the covenant is for spiritual and moral progeny. But after momentarily seeing this truth, the patriarchs always revert back to equating God’s covenantal promise with God’s blessing of fertility. It is hard to recognize that the demands of justice go well beyond caring for our biological kin and even harder to live it.

6:4 -6:8 God’s promise to rescue the Israelites is compared to earlier covenantal promises. Just as the prophets compare God’s promise to rescue Judah from impending Babylonian invasion (provided its leaders and people stay true to the covenant and focus on caring for the orphan, the stranger, and the widow instead of placing its faith in an idolatrous military alliance with Egypt) to the ancient story of God’s mighty arm bringing about the exodus from Egypt.

6:9 The Israelites do not believe Moses. Likewise most Jewish leaders today do not believe that God will be their warrior provided they uphold the covenantal promise to be a blessing and to leave cursing for God. Throughout the centuries, as Jews have experienced oppression and God did not act militarily, they have developed other ways of thinking about God that moved the warrior aspect of God into the distant future, but still retained, as an essential element, that the people should not take vengeance into their own hands. One example is the prophetic idea of the suffering servant, in which the suffering of the Jewish people, caused by their refusal to take vengeance into their own hands, contributes to the redemption of the world. Another is the related rabbinic idea of the female aspect of God that chooses to go into exile with the Jews to suffer alongside them.

The idea that refusing to take vengeance into our own hands is covenentaly required of us, used to be widely accepted amongst Orthodox Jews, and after WWI was gaining adherents among some “rational” Reform and Conservative Jews too, although in shallow secular form that melted into air with the coming of WWII. It was practically wiped out by the Holocaust and the creation of the State of Israel. Since 1948 a form of just war theory has been “normative” in Reform, Conservative, and Modern Orthodox Judaism. Chaim Potok’s wonderful novel “The Chosen” is a moving account of how these changes impacted the lives of two orthodox boys whose fathers take opposite sides in this religious debate. I believe that it should be possible to revive the pacifist interpretation of Judaism in a way acceptable to liberal Jews by incorporating insights of Gandhi and King into the Jewish biblical and rabbinic pacifist tradition. That is the purpose of this commentary.

6:11-6:13 God tells Moses to speak to Pharaoh. Moses objects to speaking to Pharaoh without the Israelites’ support. Perhaps “foreskinned lips” is Moses’s way of saying that his lone voice will be of no effect if not backed by the people. God agrees with Moses and instructs him and his brother Aaron, an elder of the Sons of Levi, in organizing skills to speak to both the Children of Israel and to Pharaoh.

7:3-7:4 God tells Moses that the plagues will harden Pharaoh’s heart and to expect backlash. The purpose of the plagues is to duplicate the effects of a war without the violent participation of the Israelites. Like war, the plaques inevitably cause the opponent to respond violently and deceitfully, and to resist surrender when given no opportunity to save face. The point of this story is to convince people, who just like us are devoted to war and violence, that God can fight our battles for us. The idea that there is a way to resolve conflict without war at all, is covered elsewhere in the Torah, particularly in Genesis.

7:5 The point is for the Children of Israel to learn that God is YHWH so that in the future they will rely on God for deliverance instead of taking vengeance into their own hands.

7:22 “Changing water into blood was easy for the magicians. For that is a well-known practice, to drown humankind in rivers of blood.” Itture Torah, Vol III, pp 66-67, quoted in Plaut.

8:9 Good leverage against an adversary requires the ability to turn it off when a settlement is possible.

8:19 Up until now the Israelites have suffered through the plagues with the Egyptians.

8:22 Israelites sacrifice for God by freeing themselves and others from slavery and oppression.

9:7 Why doesn’t Pharaoh confiscate the livestock of the Israelites and distribute it to the Egyptians whose livestock had died? Is it because he knows that the Egyptians realize that the only way to be free of the plagues is for Pharaoh to release the Israelites? Or are we to assume that the redistribution of livestock did occur because more are killed in the hail plague?

9:16 The purpose, as in 7:5, is reiterated.

9:20 Pharaoh’s courtiers are given the option of bringing their livestock and slaves inside to protect them from hail. Was there an attempt by Moses or Pharaoh to give other Egyptians a warning?

9:35 The portion ends with Pharaoh as stubborn as ever. The Torah tells us that Moses had emotionally prepared the Israelites for the length and hardships of the campaign and inoculated them to the certainty that Pharaoh would remain stubborn.

2007-01-11T01:27:00.000-06:00

Portion 13 Sh’mot Exodus 1:1-6:1

1:10 Pharaoh equates earthly wisdom with the need for coercive means to bring about his desired ends. This is the primal transgression from the Garden of Eden, to do evil so that perceived good may come.

1:11 A few generations after Joseph makes serfs of the Egyptians, Pharaoh makes slaves of the Israelites.

1:17 If the Israelite population is as large as Pharaoh claims, then the two midwives that Pharaoh speaks to could be the heads of two midwifery guilds. In that case, the success of their coordinated civil disobedience campaign is even more impressive. Pharaoh could also be greatly exaggerating the size of the immigrant population to shore up nativist support and to deflect blame for economic hardship away from Pharaoh.

1:19 Using a tactic that Saul Alinsky would be proud of, the midwives use Pharaoh’s racist beliefs about the Israelites to evade blame for failing to carry out Pharaoh’s genocidal commands.

1:22 Pharaoh now stirs up nativist sentiment and orders a pogrom against Israelite male children. Pharaoh does not fear women but it is his own daughter’s defiance of Pharaoh’s order that will lead to the liberation of the Israelites.

2:5 Is Pharaoh’s daughter’s presence at the Nile a premeditated plan to defy her father’s order? Tradition assumes that Pharaoh’s daughter is aware that the nursemaid is the baby’s mother and that there is an unspoken understanding between Pharaoh’s daughter and Moses’s sister and mother.

2:12 Why doesn’t Moses use his authority, as Pharaoh’s daughter’s son, to order the Egyptian to stop? Instead he uses physical violence.

2:14 I would like to propose a Midrash that the speaker is Moses’s older brother Aaron. Perhaps this speaks to a long term resentment that Aaron feels about Moses’s royal status. Perhaps Moses has taken advantage of his status in the past in his relations with his older brother Aaron. This would fit with the sibling rivalry stories in Genesis, especially the Joseph cycle, where Joseph’s older brothers are resentful that Joseph is their overseer.

2:15 Moses is guilty of the sin of Cain and suffers Cain’s punishment of exile from his community.

2:17 Why would shepherds be so disrespectful of the priests daughters?

3:13 Moses does not yet fully identify with the Israelites. He refers to the “God of your fathers” instead of “our fathers.”

3:15 Why does God not correct this in his answer to Moses?

3:18 God tells Moses to approach Pharaoh with the Elders of Israel.

3:22 Those slaves who must stay behind will support those who leave by offering what they have, even if all that they have is just the clothes off there backs.

4:18 For the first time, Moses acknowledges his kinship with the Israelites. Moses’s father-in-law urges him to use peaceful means to achieve the liberation of his people.

4:19 Apparently Moses must have been stalling so God, for the second time, commands him to go to Egypt.

4:24 Moses again stalls. Moses has a confrontation with God similar to what Jacob experienced before his reconciliation with Esau. Perhaps, in addition to his fear of confronting Pharaoh, Moses is also fearful of asking forgiveness of his brother Aaron. Perhaps Moses had used his royal status to mistreat Aaron in the past.

4:26 The Midianites are descended from Abraham through Keturah. Circumcision, in addition to any other meaning it has, would also symbolize the blood relationship between Israelites and Midianites. Zipporah is reassuring Moses that their marriage is within the bloodlines of the children of Abraham. Egyptians also practiced circumcision. Perhaps, just as Jeremiah does in 9:24-25, Zipporah is also making the point that circumcision symbolizes the brotherhood between all peoples and, like her father, she is urging Moses to be peaceful towards his Egyptian brothers and to leave vengeance to God.

4:27 Although God told Moses that he would be acting as a god to his brother Aaron, it is Aaron, who through his forgiveness and reconciliation, is God’s third call for Moses to go back to Egypt.

5:1 Moses and Aaron have their meeting with Pharaoh, but not with the elders of Israel. Why are they not part of the delegation?

5:4 Because Moses and Aaron do not have the elders with them, Pharaoh is able to portray them as a couple of trouble makers.

5:6 Pharaoh imposes much harsher labor than ever before to enlarge the division between Israelite elders and foreman on the one hand and Moses and Aaron on the other.

6:1 In the face of this defeat, only faith that God will prevail can keep Moses and Aaron on their nonviolent course and away from the temptations of submission or violence.

2007-01-09T18:26:00.000-06:00

Portion 12 Va-Y’Hi Genesis 47:28-50:26

48:7 Jacob is still of the opinion that God’s promise is about biological instead of moral and spiritual prodigy.

49:5 The Levites, who will become a privileged class, have already been associated with the rape of Shechem, are criticized for their anger, violence, and lawlessness.

49:11 Judah, the tribe of royalty appears to be associated with opulence and conspicuous consumption.

50:7 Joseph secures an elaborate state funeral for Jacob.

50:21 Joseph’s brothers are concerned that Joseph was only kind to his brothers for their father’s sake and now that their father is dead they will suffer Joseph’s wrath. Joseph’s wrath is to keep his brothers entirely beholden to him for their livelihoods.

50:25 Towards the end of Joseph’s life, he appears to loose favor with Pharaoh and is unable to protect the Israelites as he had promised. This is suggested by the phrase “when God has taken notice of you” and the fact that there is no mention of a state funeral for Joseph.

2007-01-09T18:25:00.000-06:00

Portion 11 Va-Yiggash Genesis 44:18-47:27

44:33 To save his father from grief from loss of his favorite son, Judah offers himself as a slave in Benjamin’s place. Judah is fulfilling the covenant obligation to be a suffering servant. It causes Joseph to end his deception and reveal himself to his brothers.

45:1 However Joseph is still unwilling to reveal his humanity to those outside his family. Joseph is still enslaved by the domination system to keep up appearances.

45:7 Joseph attributes his holding of a powerful position to divine right.

45:11 He justifies his exploitation of others on the grounds that he will save his family from famine and poverty.

45:18 Pharaoh likewise justifies the unjust social relations from which he benefits by the charity that he bestows on those he favors.

46:3 God will make Israel into a great nation, not by being coddled at the expense of others, but by undergoing the experience of national slavery that Joseph sets into motion, and overcoming it through faithfulness instead of vengeance.

46:34 Joseph prepares his family for its meeting with Pharaoh. Is Joseph, aware of his plan for national enslavement, scheming to keep his family outside the area where the expropriation will occur? Or, as Etz Hyim suggests, is the point of this preparation Joseph’s coaching his brothers to refer to a shepherd as a breeder of livestock (like referring to a garbage man as a sanitation engineer)? The latter is consistent with Joseph’s recurrent concern about keeping up appearances.

47:6b Pharaoh gives patronage positions to some of Joseph’s sons to further ensure their loyalty and dependence on him for their livelihood.

47:14 As the famine worsens, Joseph makes the Egyptians buy back the food that they were forced to give to Joseph during the years of prosperity. Joseph, who is chief tax collector, state grain salesman, and overseer of Pharaoh’s personal estate, deposits the proceeds in Pharaoh’s palace.

47:16 The next year Joseph expropriates the peoples’ livestock in return for the food he taxed from them .

47:20 The year after that, he expropriates all of their land in exchange for the food he had stolen from then years before. It is pointless at this point to continue the fallacy that Joseph had collected the food as a tax to distribute back to the people later. He stole it to sell it back to them at the highest of all prices to strengthen Pharaoh’s hold over the people. Rashbam considers Joseph’s actions ruthless.

47:21 Joseph embarks on a forced mass migration program, to distance people from their ancestral land and strengthen Pharaoh’s hold on it.

47:22 Joseph preserves the lands of the priests (his wife’s family!) for them just as he does for his brothers. In this way Joseph secures religious support for the national enslavement project.

47:25: There is a political cartoon showing a couple people discussing two campaign posters. One poster reads “Vote for Smith. “I’ll chop off your leg!”” The other poster reads “Vote for Jones. “I’ll only chop off your foot!”” The caption reads “I’m leaning towards Jones.” When people are forced to choose between death by starvation and slavery, they might be grateful for the option of slavery given the alternative.

47:27 Israel prospers under Joseph’s "discernment and wisdom."

2007-01-09T18:24:00.001-06:00

Portion 10 Mi-Ketz Genesis 41:1-44:17

41:4 Etz Hayim suggests that what disturbed Pharaoh so much about his dream was his suspicion that it predicted a revolution of the poor against the rich. Pharaoh’s magicians could have suspected the same thing and either interpreted the dream that way, incurring Pharaoh’s displeasure, or withheld that interpretation fearing the consequences of what they believed to be the truth. Information provided from lower to higher ranks in the domination system is often distorted or missing to conform to what the teller of lower rank believes the higher rank wants to hear.

If this interpretation is valid then how ironic that Pharaoh would turn to a jailed foreign slave for an interpretation of his dream that will greatly enhance instead of threaten his power.

41:33 Joseph could have advised Pharaoh that news of the seven years of prosperity followed by seven years of famine should be widely distributed. He could have advised a system where local communities take charge of their own granaries and work out collection and distribution on the basis of need. Instead the system he suggests is designed to enhance Pharaoh’s (and Joseph’s) power. The position that Joseph creates for himself is the epitomy of everything that the Torah has described as transcending the boundaries between heaven and earth. Where Torah tells us that the image of God is in people working together as equals, Joseph now places himself above all others, extracting their labor from them and distributing it as he sees fit.

41:40 In addition to placing Joseph in the position of overseer of the agricultural tax and distribution system, Pharaoh also places Joseph in the position of overseer of Pharaoh’s personal estate (according to the interpretation in Etz Hayim), where the proceeds from the sale of food, supposedly collected from the people for their later benefit, will find its way.

41:56b The Torah tells us that the famine extends over the whole world. Neither here, nor in the other famine accounts mentioned in the patriarchal narratives, does the Torah make any connection between extreme weather and people’s sinfulness. The only exceptions are the primordial flood, which the Torah describes as a one-time-only occurrence that God regrets, and the destruction of Sodom, which is purposefully described in a way that does not resemble any natural phenomena, and is probably an alternative flood tradition transferred into the patriarchal narrative.

42:9 Joseph recalls his dream to dominate over his brothers. He rubs his power into his brothers’ faces without letting them know who he is.

42.14 Joseph deceitfully calls his brothers’ spies, while it is he who does the interrogating. As a youth, he spied on his brothers to gain favor from his father. Perhaps Joseph never thought of himself as a spy, was hurt when his brothers accused him of being one, and is now playing this game to teach his brothers a lesson that not everyone who appears to be a spy is one.

42:20 After discerning the favored status of Benjamin, Joseph plays God by testing his brothers. Joseph’s game endangers the emotional and physical health of his father.

44:16 Judah tries to lift the punishment off Benjamin’s shoulders by placing it on all the brothers equally. Joseph refuses. This is the only Torah portion in Genesis that ends in the middle of a conversation. How Judah responds to Joseph in next week’s portion is the culmination of everything that Torah has been leading up to, and the break at this point is designed to emphasize its significance.

2007-01-09T18:21:00.000-06:00

Portion 9 Va-Yeishev Genesis 37:1-40:23

Judah and his brothers sell Joseph into slavery
Joseph squeals on his brothers and is appointed overseer by his father. The coat with long sleeves that his father gives him indicates class distinction. It would be difficult for him to perform the manual labor that his brothers do in such a getup. Joseph sticks his high position in the face of his brothers by recounting his dreams of domination to them. He even recounts such a dream to his father, which shows the same desire to transgress the boundaries between heaven and earth and dominate over his father and brothers that has been a recurrent theme since Ham’s attempt to dominate his brothers by displacing his father Noah.

Joseph’s brothers neglect their pasturing duties and head towards the city of Dotham. They are probably less motivated to work hard since, given family history and the dreams that Joseph recounted, they have good reason to presume that Joseph, perhaps with the help of their father, will conspire to steal their birthrights and blessings.

Joseph’s brothers see him spying on them and Like Cain’s murder of Abel, conspire to kill him because of his favored status. However Rueben intervenes, and planning to rescue him later, convinces his brothers to cast him in a pit instead of directly murdering him. They strip him of his overseer’s garb, symbolically stripping him of overseer status. But the fact that they are not drawing blood themselves does not make the sin any less severe. They are still guilty of the sin of Cain, of playing God and taking vengeance into their own hands. Rueben is also guilty of deception because he did not openly work for reconciliation. Could it be that several of Rueben’s brothers, perhaps a majority, were contemplating similar thoughts to rescue their brother but none dared to speak up? How much evil is done by people who rationalize their participation in immoral structures, convinced that they are waiting for the right moment or waiting for when they will have achieved enough power, to make things right? But that moment is always pushed off into the future as they continue to benefit from the privileges of their positions today. How many votes for the Iraq war were made from this kind of reasoning?

Upon seeing Ishmaelite traders, Judah comes up with the idea of profiting by selling Joseph into slavery. He even rationalizes it because it is better than leaving his brother to die of starvation. Institutions and people are often able to justify their wicked actions by comparing them favorably to actions that are even more wicked. I once heard an Israeli consulate spokesman in Chicago justify Israel’s bombing of a village on the grounds that it was a restrained response compared to the U.S fire bombing of German cities and the atomic bombing of Japan during WWII. Joseph will later make precisely the same rationalization as his brother Judah when he will rationalize his participation in the enslavement of the Egyptian population to Pharaoh because it is better than leaving the population to die of starvation.

Just as Jacob deceived his father Isaac by impersonating Isaac’s favorite son Esau by means of a goat, Joseph’s brothers now deceive their father Jacob by impersonating Jacob’s favorite son Joseph by means of a goat.

Jacob indirectly accuses his sons and himself when he says “a savage beast devoured him! Joseph was torn (from his family) by a beast.” The beast is both Joseph’s brothers’ desire to take vengeance into their own hands and their father’s impositions of inequitable social relations onto his family that engendered jealousy and resentment.

Judah and Tamar
Judah marries a Canaanite. Given the racist attitudes of the Israelites, as demonstrated by their rape of Shechem, how did Judah treat his wife, who isn’t even deserving of a name?

Although it is not stated, it is probably assumed that Tamar (an ancestor of King David) is Canaanite as well. Could it be that Er is extremely abusive to Tamar and that is why God takes his life?

The social tradition in this story is believed to predate Levirate marriage requirements in Deuteronomy. So we are somewhat free to guess what the operative rules are on the basis of context and social relations of other societies.

In certain African polygamous societies, a young man’s first wife can be the wife of a deceased older brother. In this marriage the woman is not expected to have intimate relations with the brother and is effectively the leader of the household and gets to choose her husband’s other wives. If the older brother died before leaving heirs it is possible that the younger brother would have been required to provide them, but that sexual intimacy would not have been required of the wife afterwards.

Could it be that Onan, Shelah, and Judah object to the equality with Tamar that the obligations of marriage to the widow of a deceased relative would have required of them? Is this refusal to accept a woman as equal what God was displeased with Onan about?

Perhaps, under the social rules of the time, Judah was obliged to marry his son to Tamar or to marry Tamar himself. When Judah refuses the former, Tamar uses Judah’s lustfulness and disregard for women to trick him into the latter.

While Jacob impersonated his older brother, to appropriate higher status for himself, Tamar impersonates someone of lower status to achieve equality.

Judah, after selling his brother into slavery, is now required to accept marital equality with a Canaanite woman, whom he had previously treated like a slave.

Joseph the overseer

Joseph rapidly rises in the house of Potiphar, to overseer. A midrash says that Joseph was vain and was flirtatious with his master Potifar’s wife. This is consistent with Joseph’s dreams of domination and the sin of Ham, the primary way that Genesis has expressed this desire for domination. Again Joseph is sent into the pit (the dungeon) because of his overseer’s garb.

Joseph becomes the overseer of the other prisoners. Prisons are houses of scarcity. When one prisoner gains power over others, the temptation is very great to take advantage of one’s position to meet one’s dire needs at the expense of others. Could it be that the reason that the cupbearer forgets Joseph is that Joseph had fallen victim to these temptations and had not left a favorable impression on the cupbearer aside from his ability to interpret dreams?

2006-12-26T21:44:00.000-06:00

Portion 8 Va-Yishlah Genesis 32:4-36:43

Reconciliation with Esau
Jacob has taught his family and his servants that Esau is a violent man to be feared. Jacob’s messengers clothe Esau in their preconceived notions of him and report back to Jacob that Esau is approaching with 400 men. Jacob divides his camp in fear and prays to God for deliverance.

When Jacob had the vision of the stairway at Bethel he promised God a tithe. Jacob felt justified in promising a tithe to God instead of seeking reconciliation with his brother as justice demanded. In our first signal that Jacob is changing, he now prepares a sacrificial offering to his brother Esau.

Perhaps Jacob’s wrestling with God’s messenger is symbolic of Jacob coming to terms with what God expects of him (reconciliation not ritual) or, perhaps, since the encounter is violent, Jacob is coming to terms with his own violent tendencies that he has projected onto his brother Esau.

Perhaps Jacob’s encounter with the messenger of God and his reconciliation with his brother are analogous to Abraham’s near sacrifice of Isaac. Abraham is tested by God to come to terms with the fact that the covenant is continued through spiritual and moral progeny which might not be the same as biological progeny. Only when Abraham accepts this is he allowed to keep his son. Jacob’s focus, up to this point, on birthright, blessing, and prosperity is analogous to Abraham’s focus on having a son, in that all of these things benefit Jacob’s biological progeny. Jacob is now prepared to give these things up and it is through this willingness to sacrifice that Jacob gains his family back. Two story elements that support this view are that Jacob separates himself from his family before his encounter with the divine and the wrenching of Jacob’s hip socket could be a veiled reference to injured sexual organs. Both episodes are followed by the purchasing of land in Canaan. Israel is to acquire land in Canaan as a result of spiritual growth and good deeds, not through conquest.

Jacob sees Esau with 400 men and they embrace and kiss. The story has the most kick to it if the question “Who are these with you?” is said by Jacob as the kiss dispels his illusions and he finally sees Esau for who he is. Esau’s answer, “The children with whom God has favored your servant,” is the punch line to the entire encounter. Esau is with his wives and children just as Jacob is. Jacob saw 400 men because Jacob deceived himself.

The rape of Dinah and Shechem
After Abraham acquires land from the Hittites (Canaanites), his racism prevents him from allowing his son to marry a Canaanite. There is nothing attributed to God that would prevent such a union. The racism continues into the next generation as Isaac is bitter that his son Esau married two Hittite women. Although it skips Esau, racism is present in Jacob and his sons, and it leads Simeon and Levi to commit idolatry, and transgress the boundaries between heaven and earth by taking vengeance into their own hands, which is reserved for God alone.

Since the Torah has just shown us that we tend to project our own tendencies for violence onto our enemies, we must question the accusation that Dinah was raped, as is beautifully done in the midrash “The Red Tent.” The story of the rape of Shechem by Simeon, Levi, and their brothers, could be an indictment of Israel’s slaughter of the men of Edom at the time of the united Kingdom.

Circumcision, which was introduced into Abraham’s family to symbolize brotherhood with his neighbors who practiced it (and it is in this way that the people of Shechem embrace it), has, in the space of two generations, turned into a rationale by Jacob’s sons for the hatred of others who don’t practice it.

The vengeance against Shechem is condemned by God and Jacob as resulting from Jacob’s family’s idolatry. It is for Jacob’s recognition that reliance on human violence instead of God is idolatry, that God grants him the name Israel and renews the covenant with him. The land that Jacob acquired around Shechem has been, at least temporarily, lost to Jacob’s family as a result of the family’s transgression.

God prevents others from taking vengeance against Jacob’s family just has he prevented others from taking vengeance against Cain.

Reuben and Bilhah
Reuben repeats Ham’s transgression. The Torah is again showing us that any tendencies towards violence or domination that Israel attributes to the Canaanites are equally present in Israel.

2006-12-21T22:45:00.000-06:00

Portion 7 Va-Yetse Genesis 28:10-32:3

Jacob has a dream of a ladder or stairway reaching into the heavens that messengers of God are ascending and descending. The image is similar to that desired by the people of Babel, except that it is only God who has the authority to transcend the boundary between heaven and earth.

Jacob has just succeeded in deceiving his father in order to dominate his brother and has done so by conspiring with his mother. He has committed a sin similar to that of Ham against his father Noah, and his brothers.

God tells Jacob, just as he did to Abraham, that the land on which Jacob lies is the land that he is responsible for.

Jacob awakes and misunderstands. He thinks that the particular place where he had the vision is a sacred location instead of his life being a sacred vocation. He also makes a deal with God in which he promises his allegiance only if God grants him prosperity. The site of this event is at Bethel, where there will later be an Israelite site for sacrifice. Could this be an indictment of the sacrificial system in that tithing to the temple takes the place of reconciling with one’s brother? The wealthy are able to use their tithe to blind themselves to the demands of justice.

Jacob now goes to Haran and meets Rachel at the well. This meeting is the reverse of the meeting of Abraham’s servant with Rebekah. In that earlier meeting, Laban notices Abraham’s camels. Now Jacob notices Laban’s sheep. Truly Laban and Jacob are of “one bone and flesh.”

Laban deceives Jacob into marrying Leah instead of Rachel. The deception appears to involve wine. Compare the story of Lot and his two daughters. Jacob also marries Rachel so that he now has two wives, the very thing that his mother objected to about his brother Esau.

Jacob and Laban deceive each other over wages but Jacob comes out on top. Jacob attributes his prosperity to God 31:9-13, although it was acquired by deception 30:37-43.

He even attributes his desire to steal away in the night without honestly confronting Laban as God’s will 31:13.

In the confrontation with Laban that follows, they agree to go their separate ways. It is not clear if they are able to admit their own wrong doing or can only see the error of the other’s ways.

2006-12-12T21:12:00.000-06:00

Tol’dot Genesis 25:19-28:9

Elsewhere in the Bible, Edom (Esau) is described as a country that was invaded by the United Kingdom (Jacob) whose army slaughters all of the men of Edom. Eventually Edom regains some level of autonomy or independence, and is even perhaps an ally of Judah at times. Later, when the Babylonians invade, Edom is described as taking vengeance on Judah, only to eventually be destroyed by the Babylonians as well. The prophets interpret Edom’s vengeance as the cause of its undoing. And the prophetic lesson is that vengeance should be left for God.

However, in the Torah’s telling of the conflict between Jacob and Esau, Esau never takes revenge. Perhaps this is because the story was crafted when Edom was at peace with Judah after it regained some form of autonomy or independence from Judah, but before Edom took vengeance during the Babylonian invasion (in contrast with pre-patriarch portions where I have assumed a post-exilic point of view.) The portion tells the story of a once powerful nation, that when defeated decides not to take revenge but to live in peace, at the expense of its previous prestige. If this is the case, then it is inappropriate to try to impose the post exilic view of Edom onto this story. In my interpretation I will assume that the Torah has a basically positive view of Edom, and a critical attitude towards Israel’s relations with Edom.

Rebecca is told that there are two nations in her womb. One will be mightier than the other. And the older will serve the younger. Which is mightier: to make others serve you or to have the self control to serve others?

Esau is described as a skillful hunter, reminiscent of Nimrod, who was associated with the transgression of Babel. But in Esau’s dealings with his deceitful brother Jacob (who is described as a mild man), he is ultimately forgiving and nonviolent. The message of the story is that you can not judge people by surface characteristics.

Esau and Jacob are born with Jacob holding onto his brother’s heal, an attempt to prevent Esau from being born first. In an unjust society it is always tempting for the oppressed to wish to exchange places with their oppressor instead of changing society so that there are no oppressed.

In East of Eden, John Steinbeck’s novelization of the favoritism stories of Genesis, the father projects ideal qualities onto the favored son and it is these qualities that are loved, not the real person. The one who is not loved, perceives the unfairness of the favoritism and in each rivalry story, deals with the injustice in a different way.

Esau is the favored son of his father because he is a hunter and the favored son of society because of his birth order. Jacob broods over the unfairness of this. The Torah says that he is cooking a stew, but the implication is that he is boiling and stewing over the unfairness of this situation, and is in the process of stirring up some trouble.

How would you feel if your brother withheld food from you unless you offered up your birthright? Esau values peace in his family more than his birthright and so he sells it to Jacob. Isn’t this the mighty thing to do?

Likewise, in Isaac’s dealings with Abimelech, Isaac always offers up wells when there is a dispute so as not to inflame a conflict.

Esau weds two Hittite women. The Torah says that this was a source of bitterness to Isaac and Rebekah. I believe that Isaac and Rebekah are bitter for different reasons. Isaac is bitter because Isaac has learned his fathers racism and objects to his son marrying a Hittite. Rebekah is bitter because Esau has married two women, like Lamech of the pre-flood generation.

Jacob overcomes through deception, the favoritism that his father feels towards Esau. Could there be a subtle critique of the sacrificial system here, as the haftarah portion suggests? Jacob’s deception is accomplished through the preparation of a goat. Is the sacrificial system a form of deception?

As a result of Jacob’s deception, the tables have been turned. Esau has lost the birthright and blessing and he is now the less favored. Esau’s plea to his father “Have you but one blessing father?” is a profoundly important question. Why didn’t Isaac have a blessing for his second son that he could now bestow on Esau? For the sake of family peace Esau was willing to exchange places with Jacob but he was not expecting that his father would treat the difference between first and second son so unjustly. Also, how must Esau have felt when he learns that his mother was party to the deception?

Yet, although Rebekah thinks that Esau is planning to kill his brother, there is no indication that he ever contemplates that seriously. Instead, family peace and achieving some kind of favor from his parents is always uppermost on his mind. The Torah describes Rebecah’s fears about Esau in a very curious way. In verse 41 the Torah says that Esau voices to himself his desire to kill his brother. But then in verse 42 we are told that these same words, which were not spoken to anybody, are reported to Rebekah (By whom?). Isn’t it possible, that the words that are reported to Rebekah are words that Rebekah suspects Esau must be thinking on the basis of what she might do if she was in Esau’s situation and on the basis of her low opinion of Esau, and not on the basis of anything that Esau actually said or did? Rebekah has dressed up Esau in her mind so that she can not see who he truly is.

When Rebekah fears that Esau will kill Jacob, she tells Jacob to flee to Haran because she does not want “to loose you both in one day.” Is this because she knows that if Esau were to kill Jacob, the psychological effects of killing will be the spiritual death of Esau as well? Or is it because she knows that Esau would also be put to death for taking his brother’s life? Or is it that Rebekah knows that Esau has learned of Rebekah’s hand in the deception and knows that she has sold off and spurned her motherly claim on Esau for a mess of stew of her own devising?

When Rebekah sends Jacob to Laban (ironically, to marry two wives, the very thing that Rebekah was so embittered about Esau), by playing upon Isaac’s racism, Esau does not follow Jacob and kill him on the road to Haran. Instead his only concern is to win some approval from his father by marrying kindred too (too much has occurred for him to be concerned about his mother’s approval). But he can’t go to Haran because his brother Jacob is going there and Esau wants to refrain from any additional conflict with his brother. So he goes to his Uncle Ishmael’s family and finds a third wife from there. We are not told how Isaac and Rebekah felt about this.

2006-12-02T22:51:00.000-06:00

Portion 5 Hayyei Sarah Genesis 23:1-25:18

The Canaanites adopt Abraham and Sarah but Abraham rejects the Canaanites 23:1-24.4
Het is Canaan’s second son. The people that Abraham negotiates with for a burial site are the Son’s of Het. Following the biblical pattern we might expect them to possess Cannan’s birthright and blessing. The Torah refers to them as “The people of the land” indicating their superior status over other Canaanites.

Although the Canaanites show Abraham and his family the utmost respect, effectively adopting them as kin by granting Abraham the right to purchase land for burial, not to mention the kindness shown to Abraham by King Abimelech, the Priest King Melchizedek of Salem, and Abraham’s Amorite covenant allies, Abraham denies his kinship with the Canaanites and does not allow his son to marry a Canaanite woman.

The Torah shows the Canaanites being more hospitable to Abraham and his family than Abraham and his family are to them.

An alternative reading: The price that the Canaanites extract from Abraham is exorbitant and Abraham knows it. His anger at the particular Canaanites who ripped him off turns to racial hatred against all Canaanites. In this one instance of exploitation he forgets the kindness that he has been repeatedly shown by Canaanites throughout his life.

At the end of the portion Abraham marries again. Is it to a Canaanite? Does Abraham have a change of heart before he dies?

Rebekah 24:5-67
What elements of a peoples’ history and stories are lost when oral transmission and canonization are dominated by men? Could the following twice told tale be the Torah’s critique of itself?

First telling 24:5-28
Both the servant (5) and Abraham (8) acknowledge that the choice to go with the servant is the woman’s alone, not her father or another relative.

22 The servant takes out a nose ring and bracelets. But the text does not say that he places it on Rebekah. In 30 Rebekah is wearing the jewelry, leaving open the possibility that she voluntarily accepted the jewelry and put it on herself, thereby symbolically accepting the marriage proposal, even before it is asked, and without asking permission from her father or another relative.

24 Rebekah recounts her genealogy by mentioning her grandmother before her grandfather.

25 Rebekah offers the servant a place to stay without first asking permission from her father or another relative.

28 Rebekah considers her mother to be the head of the household.

Second telling 24:34-48.
38 The servant considers the father as the head of the household.

41 The servant gives the choice to Rebekah’s family instead of Rebekah herself.

47a The servant recounts Rebekah’s genealogy by mentioning her grandfather before her grandmother.

47b The servant claims to have placed the jewelry on Rebekah instead of showing them to Rebekah and allow her to voluntarily place them on herself.

The servant neglects to mention that Rebekah offered the servant a place to stay.

Laban’s Transgression
We meet Laban (Jacob’s father-in-law) for the first time where we are shown his interest in material wealth. Laban transgresses the boundary between child and parent in order to dominate his sister, just as Ham did to dominate his brothers. In 50 Laban takes his mother’s place. In 55 he takes his father’s place. The desires to hoard material wealth and to dominate others are correlated.

Rebekah’s blessing 60
When Rebekah agrees to go immediately with Abraham’s servant to marry Isaac in Canaan, she is given a blessing that parallels the blessing that Abraham received from God immediately following the Akedah. How is Rebekah’s willingness to marry Isaac comparable to Abrahm’s willingness to sacrifice his son? In both tests, the protagonists are following directives from God that jeopardizes their hope for biological progeny. Rebekah has agreed to go forth because it is God’s will that she go forth. She knows nothing about Isaac. She must be wondering why Isaac did not come himself. Is there something wrong with him? Is he malformed or mentally disturbed? What kind of father will he be to their children? Is he capable of fathering children at all? In the normal course of events, her family would have had a chance to get acquainted with the prospective husband. But this has been prevented by Abraham’s refusal to let Isaac leave Canaan. The Torah portrays Rebekah as a new Abraham. Like Abraham, Rebekah leaves the land of her kindred to go to Canaan. Like Abraham she shows hospitality to strangers. Like Abraham, she places her complete faith in God and is willing to sacrifice biological progeny to obey God’s will. The covenant is sustained and continued through Rebekah who is Abraham’s moral and spiritual progeny.

2006-11-24T19:09:00.000-06:00

Va-Yera Genesis 18:1-22:24

Abraham’s intercession 18:23-18:33
God informs Abraham of his intention to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (and by implication, the other three towns mentioned in Genesis 14). Abraham tries to talk God out of it but fails. Abraham’s argument is doomed to failure because it is based on the false premise that people can be divided into two groups “the innocent” and “the guilty” instead of all people being innocent about some things some of the time and guilty about some things some of the time.

The sin of Sodom 19:4-11
In the flood story it is the members of the divine court who seek to mate with humans. In the story of Sodom, humans who seek to mate with the divine. Intercourse between human and divine is symbolic of the sin to transgress the boundaries between heaven and earth. The story of Babel can also be interpreted as a transgression between heaven and earth in sexual terms since the tower can be thought of as a giant phallus designed to pierce the firmament. The sociopolitical meaning of the transgression for the Babylonian exiles is given in chapter 14, where Sodom and the other cities of the plain use military force to rebel against King Chedorlaomer instead of relying on God for their deliverance.

The connection of Sodom with homosexuality is an accidental consequence of the sexism of the Torah that prevented God’s messengers from being portrayed as female. The frequent reference to judging in the story indicates that the transgression is that the people usurped God’s role and insisted on playing the judge and not leaving vengeance for God.

Lot’s intercession 19:18-22
Lot is told to flee into the hills but Lot tells God that he can’t flee that far as fast as he needs to and asks that the destruction not go as far as the tiny town of Zoar so that he can flee there. Lot’s request is granted and God saves the town of Zoar, which was intended for destruction with the other cities of the plain. Lot’s successful intercession was a request for mercy while Abraham’s failed intercession was a demand for justice.

Abraham sells Sarah into sexual slavery and Isaac’s conception 20:1-21:8
This is a repeat of the first sexual slavery story but this time we learn that Abraham has been doing this to Sarah ever since he has left his father house. Is this story placed immediately before the announcement of Sarah’s conception of Isaac for a reason? Ishmael was conceived by Hagar shortly after Sarah gave her to Abraham to be his concubine. Now Isaac is conceived by Sarah shortly after Abraham sells her to Abimelech to be his concubine.

Expulsion of Hagar and Abraham’s covenant with Abimelch 21.9-34
The first part of this story is a repeat of the first Hagar expulsion story. Sarah’s plea: “The son of a slave shall not share in the inheritance,” is masterful biblical irony.
The second part concerns Abraham’s dispute with Abimilech. We are told in the Ishmael story that “God was with the boy and he grew up.” Abimelech says to Abraham “God is with you in everything you do.” Both stories feature a well. What message is intended by the shared elements of these two stories?

The Akedah 22:1-19
Does this story exemplify the conflict within Abraham for his desire for biological progeny and his covenant with God to be the spiritual and moral progenitor of all people who respect the boundaries between heaven and earth and treat all humanity as their kin?

Rebekah 22:20-24
The Torah portions have been divided so that the focus of next week’s portion is first mentioned at the end of the previous weeks’ portion (although next week’s is an exception.) B’reishit goes from creation to Noah. Noah goes from Noah to Abram and Sarai. Lekh L’kha goes from Abram and Sarai to Abraham and Sarah. And Va-Year goes from Abraham and Sarah to Rebekah. The central character in the generation following Abraham and Sarah is Rebekah not Isaac.

2006-11-10T16:32:00.000-06:00

Lekh Lekha, Go Forth, Genesis 12:1-17:27

Be a Blessing 12:1-3
This portion opens with God telling Abram that his name will be made great if he goes forth as God directs. This is similar to what the makers of Babel sought. Why is it OK for Abram but not OK for Babel?

The people of Babel sought to transcend the boundaries between heaven and earth and usurp God’s role, to both bless and curse in God’s name. In rabbinic tradition the rulers of Babel are so intent on building the tower that they ruthlessly exploit workers to build it and they order work to continue even as workers fall to their death. In God’s call to Abram, God blesses, and tells Abram to be a blessing but the only cursing is done by God. Abram is to go forth (from the geographic area close to Babel) and found a community that respects the boundaries set by God but transcends those set by people unjustly. Abram is called to have reverence for life and leave vengeance to God.

No assignment of land is in this blessing. Abram is not told by God to go to Canaan.

I will assign this land to your offspring 12:4-9
Abram goes to Canaan to live and work. And God at this point tells Abram “I will assign this land to your offspring.”

Abram’s offspring are assigned the land where they are living and working, but they are not given it to own. God owns the land. People are stewards of it, to rule it the same way that the sun is told to rule in the creation narrative, by providing light and sustenance for living things. This is consistent with the prophetic view that Jewish control of the land was taken away by God because the Jewish ruling class was not acting differently than any other.

God assigns us to be a blessing anywhere we live and work together as a blessing. This is the origin of the classical Reform practice of calling its congregations Temples wherever they might be. There is no way to Jerusalem. Jerusalem is the way.

Who is Abram’s offspring? The Jerusalem Talmud says that Abram is the forefather of all righteous individuals. Righteous individuals are those who rely on God as their shield, who leave vengeance and cursing to God, and trust that by doing what is right, righteousness will prevail.

Lastly, the Torah could be subtly telling us that Abram is a descendent of Canaan as well as Shem through a combination of patrilineal and matrilineal descent. Abram’s father Terah is described as being native to both Ur and Haran (both lands settled by descendents of Ham, with Haran in particular settled by descendents from Canaan). Terah also names one of his sons after Haran. Although we are not given the matrilineal genealogies it is very likely that Abram is and his biological descendents are more Canaanite than S(h)emite. For all we know Sarai could be entirely Canaanite.

God’s purpose of calling Abram to go forth, could be to subvert and transform the curse of Noah. In Abram’s family and his offspring, Canaan and Shem are intermingled. The curse to be a slave of slaves is a curse that we will enslave ourselves. Ultimately we are called first to look at our own conduct and work to insure that we are not enslaving each other before we accuse the conduct of others. The Torah will tell us later that Abram’s great-grand-son, Joseph, was instrumental in introducing the institution of national slavery into Egypt.

In Egypt 12:10-20
Immediately after we learn of the calling forth of Abram and his offspring, we are shown how Abram himself falls short of expectations. Ramban comments “Know that our father Abraham inadvertently committed a great sin by placing his virtuous wife in a compromising situation because of his fear of being killed. He should have trusted in God.” Abram calling Sarai his sister links Abram to Cain. One can picture God asking Abram, after Abram has sold Sarai into sexual slavery, “Where is your sister Sarai?” and Abram answering “I do not know. Am I my sister’s keeper.”

Sarai’s sexual enslavement in Egypt foreshadows the enslavement of the Jews. The biblical linkage of the exploitation of women by men (including Jewish men) and the exploitation of Jews by non-Jews is also prevalent in Esther, where the sexual enslavement of all of the virgins in the Kingdom foreshadows the planned murder of the Jews.

At the end of the story when God rescues Sarai and they return to Cannan, Abram is far wealthier than he was before he went to Egypt. The Torah does not associate wealth with righteousness.

Back in Canaan 13:1-18
God does not call Abram from Egypt to live in Canaan. It is only after the choice is made (this time by Lot and not by Abram himself but the point is that God is not making the choice) about where Abram is to live and work that God decides that Abram needs some reminding about what he has been called to go forth to do. “All the land that you see, I give it to you, and to your offspring, for the ages.” Abram and his offspring are called forth to care for the land so as to benefit all who live there and also all who are to live there in ages to come. And again, offspring here means all who follow in the ways of righteousness.

Lot’s Rescue 14:1-24
This story of Abram at war to rescue Lot is set in a narrative where nowhere else is Abram described as a military leader. Although there is some military imagery associated with Abram in the story (Abram is said to have 318 retainers) the intention appears to be, like the crossing of the Sea of Reeds, the Story of Deborah, and the holy war tradition in Judges, that Abram is clearly not militarily capable of doing what is described and that God is responsible for “delivering the foe into Abram’s hands.” Rabbinic tradition takes this idea even further and asserts that the “318 retainers” was actually just one person, Abram’s servant Eliezer, whose name, if assigned numerical equivalents, totals 318. God is the warrior, not Abram or his “retainers.”

Is notable that in this story Abram is described as being covenant allies with an Amorite and the Priest King Melchizedeck of Salem (Jerusalem) appears to be in as close a relationship with God as Abram. Clearly the offspring of Abram refers to anybody who strives to walk in the way of righteousness.

It is ironic that Abram does not want to appear beholden to the king of Sodom for anything while he had no problem taking wealth from the Pharaoh of Egypt, even though that wealth is a constant reminder to Sarai of Abram’s betrayal.

Abram’s Dream Visions 15:1-20
Abram first dream vision is God’s promise to grant Abram’s personal desire for a biological son that will be his heir and party to the covenant.

The second dream vision is Abram’s second reminder of the covenant which applies to all biological and non-biological offspring of Abram.

In this vision we are given a hint of the essential connection between the exodus from Egypt, and the covenant. Abram’s offspring are those, who when oppressed, do not resort to violence, but leave judgment for God.

Hagar, forerunner of Moses 16:1-16
Sarai, knowing of Abram’s dissatisfaction with being just a spiritual and moral progenitor, and Abram’s insistence for a biological son, and aware that Abram could divorce her for being barren (the fact that he has sold her into sexual slavery at least once is most certainly on her mind. His wealth and reason for it is a constant reminder to her.) feels forced to provide Abram with a son through her slave Hagar. Abram gleefully accepts, and blinded by the power inequities between husband and wife, is not even aware that this was not Sarai’s free choice. The Torah has warned once before, in the story of Lamech, of the generation of the flood, of the immorality of a man having multiple wives.

Hagar becomes pregnant. There is a power struggle between Sarai and Hagar and Hagar flees into the wilderness.

Hagar story invokes Egypt, slavery, affliction, fleeing, water, wilderness, God speaking, a new name of God, God’s call to go back, and seeing God face to face. Our communities are composed of hierarchies of oppression exemplified in Abram’s family by free men over free women and free women over slaves. However the Torah subverts this hierarchy by comparing a fugitive slave woman, the lowest in the hierarchy, to Moses, the greatest leader and prophet in the Torah.

Covenant 17:1-8
God is revealed to Abram with a name of possibly Canaanite origin. God repeats the terms of the covenant again. We are in constant need to be reminded of our obligations since the temptations of the world blind and deafen us. The covenant is symbolized by God adding to and completing Abram’s and Sarai’s names (making their names great) to become Abraham and Sarah. We walk in God’s presence when we realize that we are not expected to do everything ourselves. We are expected to be a blessing and we are expected to leave vengeance to God. God grants this covenant with Abraham and his spiritual and moral offspring knowing that it will be continuously broken by those who transcend the boundaries between heaven and earth, usurp God’s role, and insist on making names for themselves. “Kings will go out from you.”

Circumcision 17:9-14
Circumcision was common practice in Canaan, but apparently was not practiced by Abraham and his family up to that point. It is now reinterpreted as part of the covenant. The social implication of God requiring Abraham to adopt a cultural practice of a people that he doesn’t like and whose kindredness he denies (we will find this out later when Abraham seeks a wife for Isaac.) is incredibly significant. The covenant enjoins us to both respect the boundaries that God has made between heaven and earth and to cut away the boundaries that people have made between themselves. Deuteronomy uses “circumcision of the heart” as a synonym for commitment to the ethical conduct required of those who are party to the covenant.

The Chosen 17:15-27
God blesses Sarah with the promise of a biological son, Isaac. When we strip away both the racism of the text and the racism we read into the text, we can see that the essential difference between Isaac’s and Ishmael’s line is the particular story of enslavement and exodus, prophesized in Abraham’s dream, written in the Torah, and explicated by the prophets. The Mosaic covenant is told within the context of a particular peoples’ history, legends, and sacred literature, but we know that all other peoples, including those who draw their line from Ishmael, have had similar experiences in their histories, legends, and sacred literature from which we can draw the same lessons of reverence, for life, and leaving vengeance for God. The covenant, although in each culture and religion phrased in different words, customs, rituals, and texts, is available to all.

2006-10-28T22:10:00.000-05:00

Noah: Genesis 6:9-11:32

The Flood 6:9-8:19
Would Jews in exile in Babylon have identified themselves with those who perished in the flood or would they have identifies themselves with Noah who survived?.

In the flood story God decides to uncreate the world and start over because the people have forgotten the expectations for them from the garden. In the prophetic accounts of exile, God allowed Babylon to conquer Jerusalem because Jerusalem’s leaders violated the covenant by not caring for the orphans and widows but instead relied on attempted military alliances to fight the Babylonians. The choice by Noah, to rely on God for salvation, no mater how preposterous and irrational it may have seemed to do so, is the path that the ruling classes exiled to Babylon did not take and so they were swallowed up by the Babylonian flood, and the Temple was destroyed.

While the prophetic account makes clear that many good people suffered and died despite their righteousness due to the greed for power of their rulers (the suffering servant of Isaiah) it is very disturbing that the Flood story does not appear to include this truth. In the flood story, we are told that the righteous survive and the wicked suffer. Since so many of the characters in Genesis act sometimes righteously and sometimes wickedly it seems clear that the Torah generally has a far more sophisticated view of human nature than that given in the beginning of the flood story. In fact, Rabbinic commentators have remarked that Noah does not act righteously in the story, given the standards of the text, since he does not negotiate with God to save the people as Abraham did to save Sodom and Gomorrah.

I believe that the flood story serves to expose as wrongheaded the view of human nature that there are good people and bad people.

The message of the story is that the flood solved nothing and If God can’t rid the world of evil by killing people, then surely it would be the greatest folly for people to presume that violence would work for them.

Aftermath and Covenant 8:20-9:17
Noah gets off the arc and the first thing he does is sacrifice animals to God despite the fact that God has not yet given authority for people to do this. God is portrayed as gaining an insight of human nature from this experience, and dispenses with the notion that some people are born good and remain so while others are born bad and remain so. God now realizes that people learn how to act from the social structures that they experience in their youth and that there is good and bad in everyone just as the air is sometimes hot and sometimes cold.

With this awareness, God blesses people to be fruitful and multiply and to fill the earth. God’s blessing is in the setting up of social structures to temper peoples’ tendencies towards perpetuating violence. Without this blessing, people would have killed each other off long before they would have the opportunity to fill the earth. Respect for life is encouraged through the restriction not to eat animals “with its life-blood in it” and human vengeance is restricted to the taking of one human life and only if that person is found guilty of murdering another (in contrast to the seven that would have been required for Cain’s murder or Lamech’s fear that seventy seven of his family will be required for whatever he had done.)

Rabbinic tradition considers these societal reforms to be the minimum necessary for the awareness to grow that people living and working together in harmony is the image of God. However people who really want to put this awareness into practice would feel compelled to order their community lives with social rules that are less violent than the minimum acceptable rules set out here. After all, God originally expected humans to be vegetarians and God did not require Cain’s life when he killed Abel. In the time of Noah before the flood, the people turned to violence because they have forgotten who they are and what is expected of them. We have the Torah to remind us (as God has the rainbow), so more is expected of us (and of God).

Curse of Cannan 9:18-28
This story has many allusions to the garden temptation story. First, Noah is described as a tiller of the soil, so we immediately envision him working in a garden like Adam and Eve. Next we are told that Noah is the inventor of wine (I wonder if this is the reason for his name. See 5:29) and drinks his fill of the fruit of the vine (presumably with his wife and possibly sons and their wives too. Perhaps Noah should be read as “the family of Noah.”). In keeping with the temptation stories, at this point we should expect someone to act in a domineering way as Adam did to Eve when he named her or when Cain killed Abel. What follows though is very sparse and many scholars believe that something was left out for reasons of modesty. Similarities with the story of Lot and his daughters, as well as Leviticus referring to having sex with a man’s wife as exposing that man’s nakedness, as well as the story of Jacob’s first wedding night, indicate that Ham (who might have been drunk) took advantage of his father’s (and mother’s) drunkenness to have intercourse with his mother, attempting thereby to assert his authority by displacing his father as the head of the family (all of humanity). Cannan was the result of the union.

And so Noah’s story is concluded with a sexual union that transgressed boundaries for the purpose of domination, just as the flood was initiated by God as a consequence of sexual unions that transgressed boundaries, showing again that the violence of the flood resulted in no positive consequences.

But why does Noah curse Cannan who, although the product of the temptation to domination, is not the responsible party? Perhaps this is another example of why it is so important for people to leave vengeance up to God, since people are notoriously bad at identifying the guilty.

Branching out of humanity 10:1-32
Humanity is described as branching out around the earth, each group with its own land and language. Nimrod, the founder of Babylon, is described as a mighty hunter, indicting domination and empire.

Babel 11:1-9
Now we are in Babylon and are told that everyone on earth speaks one language, in contrast to the previous section. It is part of the ideology of empire to think of everything under its control as the entire civilized world, with everyone outside it as savages. The story is another temptation story in which people transgress boundaries and try to be like God. Again people are expelled for their transgression. In the beginning of Isaiah, the prophet refers to the architectural excesses of the ruling class in Jerusalem as an example of its misplaced priorities. With the Babel story likely in mind, the prophets say that God allowed Babylon to invade because the rulers of Jerusalem were acting no different than Babylonians.

2006-10-15T22:35:00.000-05:00

Bere’shit/ B’reishit Genesis 1.1-6.8

First creation narrative. 1.1-2.4a
Humankind is created in God’s image. The image of God is in the harmonious relationships between all people, men and women, working together as equals. We must be careful not to read enlightenment individualism into this text where community, not individuality is stressed. The reference to dominion or rulling over animals in verse 26 is a reference to domesticating animals to help with work. Eating animals in excluded in verse 29. The ruling or dominion in this verse is a non-abusive leadership between unequals that brings sustenance, similar to the intention of verse 16, where the ruling of the sun and the moon is for shining light and for use as a calendar, necessities for agricultural work.

Garden narrative. 2.4b-3.24
God creates the animals to be Adam’s partners but Adam gives names to all of them, symbolizing his dominion over them. None are his equals. Then God creates the woman and Adam recognizes her as his equal. He does not name her. Although he does call her woman, the Hebrew word for name is not used. But the immediate consequence of expulsion from the garden, is that Adam names Eve, the Hebrew word for name is used just as it was used for the animals earlier, signifying inequality entering into human relationships.

One interpretation of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is that it signifies the ability, reserved for God alone, to use evil means for good ends. In other places in the bible the phrase “knowledge good and evil” refers to the kind of worldly wisdom of the kings, like Solomon, who form military alliances, use capital punishment, and enslave the people to accomplish their ends. This should be contrasted with divine wisdom which does not exhibit equality with God through conquest but through suffering for others.

The snake is cunning or shrewd, words used to describe someone who is able to manipulate others for their own ends. In Hebrew, the nakedness realized by the humans after they eat the fruit looks like the word for shrewd.

God places winged sphinxes with a flaming sword at the entrance to the garden. One can not enter back into the garden through the same means with which one left it, the means of domination of humans over humans. Instead we are called to model our institutions on the basis of cooperation, equality, and love, in the image of God to get back home.

Cain and Abel. 4.1-4.24
Abel violates God’s commandment and slaughters animals while Cain continues to live by the rules that were given in the garden. Yet Abel prospers while Cain does not. Why does God allow the wicked to prosper while the righteous suffer? The bible gives no answer although it frequently asks the question. Cain does in reality what his parents did symbolically. He takes justice into his own hands, usurps God’s prerogative to do evil so that good will come, and kills Abel. As Cain’s crime was patterned after that of his parents, so is his punishment, expulsion from home. But he makes a new life and raises a family in Nod, the land of wandering. The story is followed by a genealogy of Cain (where the desire for many wives and a violent temper are correlated in the person of Lamech.) A midrash holds that Cain repented of his killing.

Both the garden narrative and the Cain and Abel narrative can be read as allegories of exile. The prophets’ explanation for exile was that the rulers of Israel and Judah did not rule justly. They did not care for the widows and orphans (meaning all people who do not have means of support). If they had done this, the God would have been their warrior. Instead of doing justice they sought to form military alliances with Egypt and other nations and usurp the warrior role of God while the ruling class exploited the poor. Expulsion followed. But in exile, according to this week’s haftarah portion, Isaiah 42.5-43.11, God has not forsaken the children of Israel and God will lead the people to their home provided they leave the warrior stuff to God and instead devote themselves to being a light to the nations.

Seth’s descendents 4.25-6.8
Adam and Eve beget another son Seth, from which humanity through Noah will descend. Perhaps Cain represents Israel which was dispersed in the Assyrian invasion while the line of Seth corresponds to Judah. There is again mixing between the human and the divine realm but this time it isn’t through humans usurping God’s role but members of god’s divine court mating with human women, perhaps representing the exploitation of the poor by the ruling class of Jerusalem. God is appalled at the injustices in society. The stage is set for the flood, in next week’s Torah portion, which symbolizes the destruction of the temple and the Babylonian exile.

2005-09-04T21:32:00.000-05:00

Labor Day Sermon 2005, Wellington United Church of Christ in Chicago
Ross Hyman

Ezekiel 33:7-11

So you, mortal, I have made a sentinel for the house of Israel; whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me. If I say to the wicked, “O wicked ones, you shall surely die,” and you do not speak to warn the wicked to turn from their ways, the wicked shall die in their iniquity, but their blood I will require at your hand. But if you warn the wicked to turn from their ways, and they do not turn from their ways, the wicked shall die in their iniquity, but you will have saved your life.

Now you, mortal, say to the house of Israel, Thus you have said: “Our transgressions and our sins weigh upon us, and we waste away because of them; how then can we live?” Say to them, As I live, says the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from their ways and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways; for why will you die, O house of Israel?

---

When the Assyrian empire had conquered Israel and exiled its ruling class, the elites of Judah were able to retain some of their power by becoming puppet rulers of Judah subject to the Assyrian empire. But they were dissatisfied, resentful of the tribute they were required to pay to Assyria, and they pined after the ultimate power that they held when Judah was autonomous. When Babylonia conquered the Assyrian empire, the Judean elite saw there chance to regain their power through a military alliance with Egypt against Babylonia. This is all described in Ezekiel chapter 23 where the sins of the Judean elite are graphically described in terms of idolatry and adultery.

It was at this time that the prophetic tradition drew out of Israel’s ancient memory the core salvation message that pervades the Hebrew Bible. When Pharos’s army was at our back, God was the warrior and saved us without us resorting to the methods of our enemies. We are not saved when we fight with swords and chariots and war horses and military alliances. When we do that we are committing idolatry and adultery says Ezekiel. We are idolaters because we expect salvation from the products of our own hands, and we our adulterers because we break our covenant with God and seek our salvation elsewhere. The covenant community is only sustained and saved by God when we renounce all claims to royalty or dominion over others. It is our calling to do justice, to care for the orphans and the widows, to listen to the grieving mothers of the war dead, to build up the levies before the storm. When the elites join with the poor to form a community of faith, love, and solidarity, where Judah’s resources are used to benefit the needy and the community as a whole, instead of wasted in tax cuts for the rich and military adventures, when we do this and only when we do this, God will fight for us and we will be saved.

But the elites of Judah were not interested in sharing with the poor. They had dreams of greater power for themselves and they had war lust. Buoyed by false prophets they formed a military alliance with the Egyptians. And the Babylonians came on them like a flood. Thousands were killed and Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed. The elites were taken into exile into Babylonia, and the poor were left in the wreckage of Judah to care for the grieving and the wounded, suffering servants experiencing torment and tragedy due to the sins of others.

It was with the Judean exiled elite in Babylonia that Ezekiel, the priest, an elite himself, spoke the message from God that is the lectionary passage we heard today.

Just as the horrors of Judah’s subjugation to Babylonia were greatly magnified by the idolatry and adultery of the Judean elite, the horrors of Hurricane Katrina have been magnified by the iniquities of our rulers who continued on their doomed course despite prophetic warnings. Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News writes that New Orleans had long known it was highly vulnerable to flooding and a direct hit from a hurricane. When flooding from a massive rainstorm in May 1995 killed six people, Congress authorized the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project. Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward flood control dropped to a trickle, with at least $250 million in crucial projects remaining. The Army Corps of Engineers never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security, coming at the same time as federal tax cuts, was the reason for the funding dry-up. At least nine articles in the New Orleans Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane and flood control dollars. And in early 2004, as the cost of the conflict in Iraq soared, President Bush proposed spending less than 20 percent of what the Corps said was needed for Lake Pontchartrain.

The theft of money meant for flood control and its transfer to war and homeland security and tax cuts for the rich is only one of the ways that our iniquities magnified the horrors of Katrina. Another is the inequity in our society where an emergency evacuation plan assumes that people have cars, whereas many of the poor in New Orleans do not. Poverty exacerbates the effects of all disasters: the dust bowl, hurricanes, extreme heat in Chicago, all hurt the poor the most.

Although tourism is the major industry in New Orleans and one in six workers holds a hospitality job, New Orleans has only two unionized hotels

Union hotel workers make on average over 25% more than their non-union counterparts so it should not be surprising that hotels in New Orleans have traditionally fought very hard against worker organizing. The campaign to unionize New Orleans hotels in the 1990s was viciously fought by employers in the Greater New Orleans Hotel and Lodging Association and was defeated.

The Greater New Orleans Hotel and Lodging Association also has long opposed efforts to raise the minimum wage. In New Orleans 42% of African Americans live below the poverty line. As we all know, the poverty line is too low to measure poverty accurately so a far greater percentage than 42% live in poverty.

What would have happened had the New Orleans Hotel and Lodging Association supported the rights of workers to organize and had supported a living wage? Should we believe Ezekiel and the prophets, and expect that in those choices laid the salvation of the people of New Orleans? Certainly more of the poor would have had cars to escape the city. And who’s to say that had economic justice been present to a greater degree in the city, that workers would not have been able to organize for more funding for the levees, or with others across the US couldn’t have built a movement that would have so changed the climate of the country that the national government wouldn’t have gone to war and would have invested our resources where it was needed?

But that did not happen. We are where we are. What should we tell the Bush administration and the New Orleans Hotel and Lodging Association today, while the effects of the storm still rage? Are we called to tell them at this moment that their salvation can be found only through the liberation of those that they oppress?

At the rivers of Babylon, Ezeikiel amidst the elites of Judah, who, motivated by greed for riches and power, had denied God and God’s covenant and launched Judah on a disastrous course resulting in its destruction, the loss of their loved ones, their homes, their country, everything, weeping over their fate, Ezeikiel still called the wicked to account.

There will be those today who will claim that telling how the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina was magnified by the iniquities of those with power is exploiting the victims of the tragedy. But by speaking the truth we uphold the victims, and hope to lessen the devastation of the next tragedy. And it is only through confrontation and conflict that we can expect change.

In Babylon the elites, having reaped the whirlwind that they had soed, finally admitted their wickedness and cried out with fear that God would forsaken them. God tells Ezekiel “Say to them I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from their ways and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways; for why will you die, O house of Israel?” The lectionary passage ends here but God goes on to say “Though I say to the wicked ‘you shall surely die’ yet if they turn from their sin and do what is lawful and right – if the wicked restore the pledge, give back what they have taken by robbery, and walk in the statutes of life, committing no iniquity, they shall surely live. They shall not die. None of the sins that they have committed shall be remembered against them; they have done what is lawful and right, they shall surely live.”

It is a great message of hope and redemption, and a reminder that our enemies of today can be our friends and benefactors of tomorrow. It is the repentant elite of Judah and their descendents that are responsible for compiling and writing the extraordinary indictments of domination and violence and the great visions of justice and peace that we find in the Bible.

And may it be so that the church will join with the labor movement and the people of New Orleans to demand that the reconstruction of the community of New Orleans be done with sufficient resources for it to be safe and secure and that reconstruction be placed at higher priority than tax cuts and military adventures. And that this reconstruction be performed by workers granted the freedom to organize unions free from fear and intimidation, and that the new city that will be built will approach closer to the beloved community. But this will not come about unless people organize together for this purpose, and at least some of the people in positions of power are made to experience a change of heart. But this won’t happen unless we refrain from silence, and unless we speak the Word with every fiber of our being, in all of our actions and all our structures. Let us also pray that this all can happen without our elites needing to first experience the wrath of their own whirlwind.

Ezekiel like all of the prophets calls the community of the covenant to be a prophet to the nations, and to speak the word of God not through words, or ritual sacrifices, or festivals, but through our walking in the statutes of life.

The church and the labor movement are both at their best when motivated by the belief that we should structure our institutions in ways that model the beloved community. The church and the labor movement are both at their worst when while calling for justice in other institutions, we adopt the same methods as our enemies internally.

The United Church of Christ has done great work to support the rights of workers to organize. The UCC was a strong supporter of the Taco Bell Boycott and continues its support of the farm workers in Florida. The UCC is also strongly supporting the campaign for justice for workers at Wal-Mart. It is an endorser of the Employee Free Choice Act that would forbid many anti-union practices.

The church also does essential work to call the labor movement to structure itself in ways that more closely model the beloved community and I encourage it to do more of this since all institutions rely on friends to help themselves see the log in their own eye. One example, to address the racist legacy of our unions and our society, is the Building Bridges program of Interfaith Worker Justice which brings poor minorities into the building trades. More needs to be done to extend Affirmative Action into the seniority system. This can only happen with the church and labor movement working together.

But it is important for the church not to neglect the log in our own eye. Perhaps the most important thing that the UCC can do to fight poverty and power inequity in our society, to lessen the impact of natural and human made disasters, is for the church to live up to its ideals in its own institutions.

Clement of Alexandria said "If your neighbor sins, you who count yourself chosen have sinned as well. For if you kept yourself as the Word demands, your neighbor would be so ashamed by your example that he himself would not sin."

One way it can do this is to insure that workers in our own church affiliated institutions are provided an enforceable guarantee of truly free and fair organizing and election campaigns. By ignoring and sometimes even supporting union busting in our own church institutions, churches have contributed to the grim anti-union climate in our society where union-busting is the norm and poverty is on the rise.

Churches have the unique calling in our society to abide by principles that go beyond what the law requires. Rather than just supporting reforms like the Employee Free Choice Act, churches should require their institutions to abide by the principles in those reforms today, regardless if the reforms are ever passed by congress. This would put the lie to companies that attempt to exude some kind of Christian aura, while intimidating and firing workers who try to organize. Sometimes I think the climate is so bad that one day the only place where people will have the freedom to unionize is in church institutions that have adopted guidelines that go beyond what the law requires.

Workers at our hospital system, Advocate Health Care, have been trying to organize unions in the face of harsh opposition for a couple of years now. The power difference between management and workers is such that pro-union workers experience constant fear and intimidation in their jobs. I have spoken with workers who broke down in tears over the fear and intimidation they are experiencing at work. And yet these workers keep fighting so that they and their co-workers will be able to work in an environment where they are treated with dignity. We can learn from these Advocate workers what it means to carry a cross.

And just as the labor movement will not move as fast to address our legacy of racism without the church’s involvement, the church would not have been made fully aware of the racial disparities in its hospital system if not for the workers and the union. Let us join with Advocate workers and community groups to transform Advocate Health Care into an institution that we can be proud of in all that it is and does.

In the back of the church you will find copies of a petition called the Protocol of Agreement. This document calls on Advocate Health Care to meet with the union, with faith sponsors, and with community groups to negotiate agreements for a free and fair union organizing climate, and for a community benefits agreement for charity care and a capital investment strategy that addresses racial disparity. The agreement would allow recipients of charity care to have some input into the policies that affect them. I encourage you to read the Protocol and sign it if you agree that the church and its institutions needs to be the change that we wish to see in the world.

2005-08-24T21:10:00.000-05:00

Reflection on Chapter 4 of Politics of Jesus by John Howard Yoder
God Will Fight For Us

In the last chapter Yoder and Trochme considered this passage in Matthew "If you pardon others for their offenses, your heavenly Father will forgive you as well. But if you do not forgive others, your father will not pardon your offenses."

In my last reflection I suggested that at the time this was said, its hearers would have had the word equations in their head "forgiveness of sin"= "release from debt" = "release from bondage." Jews of that time, (and of modern times too), would have also understood salvation in a communal sense. Since we don’t naturally have these equations in our head, we have to make them explicit in translation to get these ideas across. We are also biased towards interpreting sin individually instead of socially and need to make the social aspects explicit. Doing this we wind up with a translation like "If we order our community in a way that is a forerunner to the beloved community (by enacting the Jubilee for example) then God will save us from those that oppress us. If we do not order our community in this way, but instead try to gain salvation by the same means that other nations do (military alliances, etc), we should not expect God to save us."

In Chapter 4, Yoder describes several incidents in the Hebrew Bible in which this way of understanding salvation is manifest. In these stories, the Jews in a time of crisis obey God’s will and God intervenes on the Jews’ behalf, using one aspect of fallen creation to defeat another. In the Exodus story Pharaoh’s horsemen and chariots are hurled into the sea, in the story of Deborah a storm causes the enemy’s chariots to be stuck in the mud, in other stories enemies of Israel come to blows among themselves. God’s salvation in these stories is for Israel as a community and it is portrayed as part of history. Yoder writes "We have every reason to assume that the inauguration of the jubilee was understood by Jesus’s hearers with the same concreteness as the Exodus story or the deliverance of Jehoshaphat had for them."

This is good evidence for the idea that the community around Jesus would have understood salvation to be liberation from the Roman invaders. But it does so by drawing attention to the troubling fact that there are many instances in which God offers salvation in the Bible through violence. Many Christian pacifists do a selective reading of the New Testament and the Hebrew Bible that leaves them with the impression that God of the Hebrew Bible is violent and God of the New Testament is non-violent. This allows them to disregard the violence of God as something not relevant to the new age introduced by Jesus. But Yoder cautions against this. Yoder is saying that Jesus’s nonviolence was at least partially motivated by Hebrew Bible stories that portray God using violence and that this idea of God is as strongly present in the New Testament as it is in the Hebrew Bible. If we want to read the New Testament in a way closer to Jesus’s hearers would have understood it, we should read it with a conception of God that is informed by these Hebrew Bible stories and the interpretations given to them by the prophets.

As a pacifist inspired by the idea of the coherence of means and ends, I want Judaism and Christianity to unambiguously motivate pacifism by saying: "We should love because God loves. We should forgive because God forgives. We should be non-violent because God is nonviolent." But Yoder challenges us by showing ample examples for a Biblical pacifism founded on a different conception of God. In these stories God is the only legitimate user of violence. For us to use violence to attempt to achieve salvation is idolatrous and is doomed to failure because violence cannot be used by humans in a way that brings salvation. The Jewish Publication Society translation of Exodus 15.3 is "The Lord, the Warrior" which indicates that the title of warrior is for God alone. The NRSV "The Lord is a warrior" misses this. Even in those Bible stories where God does call on Israel to use violence, it often occurs after the salvation event and it is clear that this violence is not responsible for Israel’s salvation.

The idea that the use of violence in human hands does not bring salvation but that violence in the hands of God can bring salvation is consistent with the conception of God and people expressed in many New Testament passages, such as the one I led off this reflection with. We are obliged to forgive but God doesn’t have to forgive and sometimes won’t. The rules that we should abide by as members of the covenant community are not the same rules that God operates by.

Yoder does not say that other motivations for pacifism such as "We should be nonviolent because God is nonviolent" cannot be found in the Bible. These ideas can be found in both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. As an example, Paul quotes from Proverbs when he says that only good can overcome evil. But Yoder’s goal in this chapter is to show that the holy war stories can be interpreted with a nonviolent meaning as well. These stories were told to and written for a violent people (who were just like us) to lead them away from violence. The prophets, at the time of impending military invasions, used these stories to council against Israel’s involvement in military alliances, to leave the warrior stuff to God. God would save Israel provided that Israel devoted itself fully to following God’s commandments to caring for orphans and widows and towards creating the beloved community. These stories can still serve that purpose today. But to modern liberal ears, stories that seem to conflate God with the means of the domination system can be pretty jarring. There was an interesting episode of This American Life recently in which a woman described her growing disbelief in the God portrayed in the Bible. Many of the stories that drove her towards atheism are the stories that say that God saves us by the methods of the domination system. The Bible is written by people and therefore it is marred by the domination system. Any stories that portray God in league with domination or endorsing the violence committed by Israel (not to mention sexism and slavery and a whole bunch of other really bad stuff), we can interpret as Israel justifying its violent actions by attributing them to God’s will. But just because we believe a text is marred by the domination system doesn’t mean it has nothing to teach us. What I like so much about Yoder is that his conception of the Bible prevents him from throwing any part of it away, even when he acknowledges that it is marred by domination. So Yoder has to wrestle with every text and always manages to find some wisdom in the very texts that on a first reading I would have been tempted to have thrown away as utterly wrong headed.

The idea that "God is nonviolent" and the idea that "God is the only legitimate purveyor of violence" appear to be based on incompatible conceptions of God. But the two seemingly contradictory concepts lead to precisely the same actions by us individually and communally as members of the faith community. The Bhagavad Gita also has multiple and seemingly contradictory conceptions of God in different parts of the text, some of which do not appear compatible with the idea of the coherence of means and ends. I wonder what Gandhi had to say about this. How do you deal with these different conceptions of God in the Bible?

2005-08-22T17:25:00.000-05:00

Reflection on Chapter 3 of The Politics of Jesus by John Howard Yoder
The implications of the Jubilee

Andre Trocme and Le Chambon
Yoder adapts this chapter almost word for word from the chapter with the same title in the book Jesus and the Nonviolent Revolution by Andre Trocme. It is available as a free download from The Bruderhoff. During WWII, Trocme and the people of Le Chambon in Southern France, where Trocme was the minister, gave refuge to thousands of Jews who were making their way on the Underground Railroad to Switzerland. Le Chambon became a community living as close to Jesus's principles of a nonviolent community as any community has ever done. You can get a taste of Trocme and Le Chambon and the underground railroad in the new introduction to Jesus and the Nonviolent Revolution and in Lest Innocent Blood be Shed by Philip Hallie. I have never seen it, but I understand that the documentary about Trocme and Le Chambon, Weapons of the Spirit, is excellent. I wonder if Trocme and Yoder were friends. Yoder served with the Mennonite Central Committee in France after WWII where there would have been ample opportunities for the two to meet since they traveled in the same Christian pacifist circles.

Jesus’s Prayer
The premise of this chapter is that Jesus inaugurated a community that would adopt the liberatory practices of the Jubilee as described in the Hebrew Bible. One of the jubilee prescriptions is the periodic remission of debt, and since chronic indebtedness led to enslavement, remission of debt would also mean liberation from slavery (although for real liberation from slavery one needed more than just remission from debt, since lack of assets will lead one back into indebtedness and slavery. This is why the jubilee also called for redistribution of capital). The remission of debt figured so prominently in Jesus’s theology that it is central to his prayer "remit us our debts as we have also remitted them to our debtors." The Greek word aphiemi that Yoder translates as remit can also mean liberate or release and is the word used in the Greek translation of the Hebrew bible in the jubilee passages. I think that the connection of indebtedness and bondage were so tied together in Jesus’s time that we loose the meaning of the prayer unless we also keep both in our heads when we are reading it. One gets interesting insights when one makes the replacements: forgiveness of sins = remission of debt = release from bondage in new testament texts. (I read somewhere that in Aramaic the words for sin and debt are the same. Since indebtedness led to slavery, then if all this is true then the parallel readings that I am suggesting will bring us closer to the way Jesus’s disciples would have understood his words.) The association of forgiveness of sin and release from bondage has been well understood by modern prophets as well.

I shall be released - Bob Dylan
They say everything can be replaced,
Yet every distance is not near.
So I remember every face
Of every man who put me here.
I see my light come shining
From the west unto the east.
Any day now, any day now,
I shall be released.

They say every man needs protection,
They say every man must fall.
Yet I swear I see my reflection
Some place so high above this wall.
I see my light come shining
From the west unto the east.
Any day now, any day now,
I shall be released.

Standing next to me in this lonely crowd,
Is a man who swears he's not to blame.
All day long I hear him shout so loud,
Crying out that he was framed.
I see my light come shining
From the west unto the east.
Any day now, any day now,
I shall be released.

Using the equation that forgiveness of sin = release from bondage, the statements in the gospels saying that God will not forgive our offenses unless we forgive those of others turns into statements about when we dominate others we place ourselves in a kind of bondage too. We free ourselves from this bondage when we live with others in a way that liberates others. The domination system has a way of using our own domination of others as a weapon against us. We gain a little freedom by refusing the domination system the use of this weapon.

Perhaps a translation close to the way Jesus’s listeners might have heard his prayer is "Release us from the bondage of the domination system as we practice a community life free from domination." The good news is that our liberation from the bondage of the domination system is at hand. The key to living in freedom is to be the change that we wish to see in the world and to liberate those under our domination. We can start today to live in an intentional community not driven by domination. The prayer takes as given that we have freed others from bondage and released others from debt before we ask God for anything.The prayer is a prayer for and about a faith community striving to be domination free. It uses "us" never "I" or "me." It is a prayer about social salvation not privatized salvation accounts.

Of course, the domination system will still victimize people and make them suffer, no matter how liberatory they are towards others. Sometimes we perceive no alternative to suffering that doesn’t involve coercion or violence. In this case our refusal to use the methods of the domination system compel us to accept suffering. As a suffering servant we at least have the solace that our suffering is benefiting the liberation of others in ways indiscernible by us. The final passage of Jesus’ prayer is a plea that it will not be our lot to be suffering servants. Jesus prays with the same sentiment the evening of his capture "My father, if it is possible let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want." We must be prepared to take up the cross and we need to study and pray hard to accept it if necessary but we should not be ashamed to pray that we won’t have to. Ultimately our prayers and our liberation of others are no guarantee of our community’s own absolute freedom, only the freedom from the domination that we would experience if our community was structured like any other.

The Parable of the Merciless Servant.
Yoder and Trocme use these ideas to explain the parable of the merciless servant. I feel this parable gains from the context of the question that Peter puts to Jesus in which Jesus gives this parable as an answer. In Mathew 8:15-20 Jesus describes rules for community governance in which the violence and coercion of the domination system are entirely absent. But how do you make people do good if there is no recourse to violence or coercion? This is the point of Peter's question when he asks "Lord, if a member of the faith community sins (against me [in another book Yoder point out that these two words are not in earliest versions of the text]) how often should I forgive? As many as seven times?" Jesus says to him, "Not seven times, but, I tell you, seventy-seven times." Jesus then tells the parable of the merciless servant which I believe he does as warning to show the consequences of a merciless community and merciless community leaders by giving an example of the domination system in action, where forgiveness is a scarce commodity. It is my belief that the human king in this parable should be understood to be the embodiment of the domination system, not God. When Jesus says that "the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who..." I think what is meant is "the kingdom of heaven may be contrasted against a king who..." Sometimes we can learn something about an ideal by studying its opposite. The confluence of earthly kings with God, when the intention is to associate the earthly king with the domination system and to contrast this with God is symptomatic of church that is corrupted by the dominations system. Even Yoder and Trocme make this mistake in interpreting this parable.

The parable starts with the wicked king demanding payment from a slave who can’t possible pay what is owed. The level of debt is insane, equal to 15,000 years of labor according to my annotated NRSV. The king knows that the slave can’t possible pay and orders him and his wife and children to be sold. The slave begs not to be sold and the king released him from his debt. But the slave knows that he has been saved by a whim of the king and this is only a temporary reprieve. It is an action of false charity designed to glorify the Kings power. It is not real justice. It is a false mercy. Without assets the slave will sink back into debt and he and his wife and family will almost certainly suffer the risk of being sold again. This could even happen tomorrow if the King awakens from the wrong side of bed. The King’s forgiveness is not real. It can be revoked at any time for any reason. So the slave does the only thing he can think to do and demands payment from another slave who owes him an amount of money equal to one hundred days of labor. In his anger and desperation he seizes the other slave by the throat but the second slave can’t pay either and the first slave puts the second in prison. The first slave continues to use the tools of the domination system and so his own freedom is transitory. The very thing that he was trying to prevent through the use of domination comes to pass. The king is angered by the slave’s mercilessness and hands the slave over to torturers, where he will be tortured to death and presumably his wife and children will still be sold into slavery to pay off the debt. If the king in the parable is God then the parable says be merciful to others or God won’t be merciful to you. But this does not make sense as an answer to Peter’s question in the context that he asked it. The parable is directed at Peter, a leader of the faith community who just asked Jesus how many times he should forgive community member transgressions instead of using the tools of the domination system for keeping order. Jesus isn’t telling Peter "Don’t be like that slave." He is telling Peter "Don’t be like that king." When others are not merciful you should still be merciful to them. Otherwise the community will suffer the ills of the domination system. The temptations and self righteousness that comes from judging others from a position of power will lead you to gross injustice and will cause enormous pain in the community which will make the community a reflection of the old society instead of the new. Instead be merciful and leave vengence in God's hands.

2005-08-10T21:50:00.000-05:00

Reflection on Chapter 2 Politics of Jesus by John Howard Yoder
The Kingdom Coming

Yoder opens the chapter with the yearnings of Mary, Zechariah, and John for God to save the Jews through political and social deliverance from oppression, as God has done in the past. Mary says "..he has put down the mighty from their thrones, and exalted those of low degree. He has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent away empty." Messiah means anointed and refers to the King who will rid the land of Judea from the foreign occupier and bring about a new kingdom where peace and justice will be realized on this earth. The Messianic expectation, whatever else it was, was certainly focused on social change in this world. It appears as if the Constantinian approach to Christianity would have us believe that the Jews were wrong to have this expectation of what a Messiah is for and that Jesus really came for spiritual reasons of some kind. Yoder argues that if this were the intention of Luke, he would have indicated it in the text somewhere. Instead the text is filled with examples of political oppression. Yoder argues that it is not the expectation of social change that is misplaced but the means by which this social change is to occur that Jesus clarifies. This tension between means and ends is dramatically presented in the temptation narrative.

Yoder presents the three temptations in the wilderness as canonical temptations that a would-be Messiah would face when trying to liberate his people from oppression. They are the temptations that any social change leader faces. All of the temptations involve using means that are inconsistent with the desired ends. Yoder portrays the temptation account as a forerunner to Jesus’s public ministry. Each temptation that Jesus faces in the wilderness, he is to face again. The temptation, to turn the stones to bread, refers to Jesus’s temptation to gain a following by means of satisfying the desperate economic needs of the people. It is not wrong to feed people who are hungry. But charity should not be mistaken for justice. It is a temptation because charity is safe while working for real justice inevitably puts one’s life at risk. But working for justice is an essential aspect of the beloved community. When Jesus does feed the thousands, immediately afterwards he preaches very hard sayings about the costs of discipleship, including the expectation of capital punishment for seditious acts against the state.

Bread and Roses
by James Oppenheim inspired by the 1912 walkout of textile workers in Lawrence Mass.

As we go marching, marching, in the beauty of the day,
A million darkened kitchens, a thousand mill lofts gray,
Are touched with all the radiance that a sudden sun discloses,
For the people hear us singing: Bread and Roses! Bread and Roses!

As we go marching, marching, we battle too for men,
For they are women's children, and we mother them again.
Our lives shall not be sweated from birth until life closes;
Hearts starve as well as bodies; give us bread, but give us roses.

As we go marching, marching, unnumbered women dead
Go crying through our singing their ancient call for bread.
Small art and love and beauty their drudging spirits knew.
Yes, it is bread we fight for, but we fight for roses too.

As we go marching, marching, we bring the greater days,
The rising of the women means the rising of the race.
No more the drudge and idler, ten that toil where one reposes,
But a sharing of life's glories: Bread and roses, bread and roses.

The second temptation is the one where Jesus is offered Kingship by means of the devil, the spirit of the domination system. The temptation is to take power as most revolutionary leaders do, through violence, and to hold power through the normal means of violence, coercion, hierarchy, and inequitable distribution of power. Yoder thinks that this was Jesus’s most powerful temptation. Many of his followers believed that the Romans needed to be fought with violence. There had been short-lived victories in the past. The bible can be read in a way that suggests that God intends to liberate Judea through a violent revolt. Plus the ability to do good once in power seems well worth the cost to get there. Nowadays this temptation to go to war for peace, justice, and democracy is called Just War theory. But it doesn’t work. Satan cannot be cast out by means of Satan. The universe is so constructed that only good can overcome evil. Only love can overcome hatred. Only truth can overcome falseness. Jesus refuses to use violent means to bring about a peaceful future and he refuses to use social structures based on domination and coercion to bring about a beloved community. Yoder thinks that Jesus is faced with the temptation to use violence and domination most compellingly when he has overturned the tables at the temple and the people are with him. They could storm the Roman fortress across the street but do not. I think that Jesus and his followers are faced with this temptation as Jesus leads the huge procession from Jericho to Jerusalem and his thinking is described in Luke 19.11 in which kingship leads to a social order where people retain positions of power by exploiting others and murdering dissidents. Jesus leads the people to the temple instead of the Roman fortress because one must overcome oppression not by using violence against it and using unjust structures, but by creating a community of peace and justice. The purpose of Israel is to be a light to the nations. This means ridding the temple of its collusion with the domination system. Jesus goes to the temple instead of the Roman fortress for the same reason that Epiphany UCC has been focused on workers rights at Advocate Hospital. We have to attend to the log in our own eye first. I have no song for this temptation. Just the famous quote by Gandhi that there is coherence of means and ends and the equivalent statement made famous by A.J. Muste "There is no way to Peace. Peace is the way." What song would you suggest?

The first temptation is for the community to focus its efforts towards charity alone instead of justice as well. The second temptation is to work towards justice through unjust means and to not focus primarily on the unjust social relations that we personally benefit from in our own communities. The third temptation is to expect that a way can be found that does not entail a great deal of unjust suffering for us. Yoder sees this temptation of Jesus when he is captured and refuses to unleash the legion of angels to come to his defense. Another possible interpretation (not addressed by Yoder) focuses on the leap from the temple instead of the miraculous protection from harm. It is the temptation to reject the existing community as unredeemably corrupt, to leave tradition behind, and start a new community that does not respect the traditions of our elders. These two are related because one cannot withstand unjust suffering without the support of a community suffering along side you. Jesus clearly skirted the boundaries of tradition on many occasions but always defended his beliefs within the tradition and not in opposition to it, and for the purpose of making the community more true to its mission to see the messianic community and the suffering servant community as one and to model Israel's social structures after it.

In all three gospels where the parable of the sower is given, Jesus calls it the parable without which no other parable can be understood. I think it is the key to understanding the temptation account as well. I believe there is a one-to-one correspondence between them. The birds eat the first set of seeds. Jesus compares the birds to the devil, the spirit of the domination system. This is consistent with the idea that birds were a symbol of Rome. The correspondence is with the devil’s temptation in the wilderness for Jesus to become king through force of violence and to adopt unjust means for just ends. The second set of seeds fell on rock and withered due to lack of moisture. Jesus says that these seeds can not take root and in time of testing will fall away. These are the seeds that try to make due without the support of a community. But the unjust suffering that is part of working for the beloved community is intolerable without the support of a community living for the same purpose. I think it corresponds to the temptation for Jesus to leap from the temple. Since it has the imagery of putting oneself above others, it could also represent self righteousness. It could also imply racism, sexism, or any caste distinctions that create divisions in society that place some above others. But the temptations for a community to adopt the social stratifications of the surrounding society are also covered by the temptation to use unjust means for just ends. The last group of seeds are choked out by thorns. Jesus says these are the riches and pleasures of life. This corresponds to the temptation of bread without roses, to satisfy our desires while others suffer but to feel justified through the charity we bestow on those less fortunate. It is also a temptation to confuse our personal financial security with the beloved community and to hide ourselves from the fact the world is incredibly unjust and fallen. These are all temptations that communities face. All communities are tempted to act in coercive ways. All communities are tempted to be self-righteous. All communities are tempted to distribute power inequitably. All communities are tempted to avoid suffering. All communities are tempted to hold on tight to their purse strings and to justify their wealth by the charity they offer through their abundance. All communities are tempted to live by the illusion that the domination system is not that bad and all things will work out for the best without extraordinary efforts on our parts. A community that is aware of these ever-present temptations can structure itself to make these temptations less strong.

How should a church community, through its worship, education, missions, and other means, structure itself to counter these temptations?

2005-08-01T21:40:00.000-05:00

I will start this blog with some chapter-by-chapter reflections on The Politics of Jesus by John Howard Yoder. I had previously written reflections on Chapters 1 through 4 and will post those right away. I hope to write reflections on other chapters in the weeks ahead.

Reflection on Chapter 1 of John Howard Yoder’s The Politics of Jesus
The Possibility of a Messianic Ethic

Yoder begins his book, which was first published in 1972, with the observation that students are becoming aware that Jesus is a model of radical political action. Those of you who read the beginning of Moltmann's book, The Crucified God, should find this familiar. Moltmann starts his book in the same way. There is nothing unique to the 60's about this. Here is a 1940 song by Woody Guthrie:

Jesus Christ (to the tune of Jesse James)

Jesus Christ was a man who traveled through the land
A hard-working man and brave
He said to the rich, "Give your goods to the poor,"
But they laid Jesus Christ in His grave

Jesus was a man, a carpenter by hand
His followers true and brave
but all the legislators called them dirty agitators
And they laid Jesus Christ in His Grave

He went to the preacher, He went to the sheriff
He told them all the same
"Sell all of your jewelry and give it to the poor,"
And they laid Jesus Christ in His grave.

When Jesus come to town, all the working folks around
Believed what he did say
But the bankers and the preachers, they nailed Him on the cross,
And they laid Jesus Christ in his grave.

And the people held their breath when they heard about his death
Everybody wondered why
It was the big landlord and the soldiers that they hired
To nail Jesus Christ in the sky

This song was written in New York City
Of rich man, preacher, and slave
If Jesus was to preach here what He preached in Galilee,
They would lay Jesus Christ in his grave.

Non-christian activists like Woody Guthrie generally find it easy to see Jesus as predominantly concerned with social ethics. A famous example is Gandhi’s lament that the only people who don’t believe that Jesus taught non-violence are Christians.

Yoder’s critique of some non-Christian radicals’ use of Jesus is that they take from Jesus that which conforms to their beliefs and leave it at that. So Woody’s Jesus is concerned about Woody’s main concern, distributive justice, but is silent on non-violence. However, the Christian who entirely denies that Jesus had a social ethic (or finds only an individual ethic) is distorting Jesus just as much or more than the non-Christian radical. Yoder contends that Christians avoid the social ethics of the gospel by interpreting the bible entirely spiritually. This separation between social ethics and spirituality is akin to the “theological world view” described by Walter Wink in which there is a sharp difference between the material and the spiritual, so much so that they exist in different realms. Yoder talks about throwing a cable between the chasm that separates these realms. I believe that he is implicitly stating that the division between social ethics and spirituality is imposed on the text by modern readers and the biblical writers had no such division in mind, so by drawing these realms together we are coming closer to the way that early readers would have read the text. (Paul does talk about flesh and spirit but it is reasonable to believe that for Paul these are in the same realm just as the letter and spirit of a law are both of the same law.)

Yoder lists many ways that people have found to reason that Jesus should not inform our social ethics. In the epilogue to the second edition he lists several more. I just want to focus on one in the epilogue: the tradition that the function of the law is less to tell us what we can do than to bring us to our knees because we cannot do it. Jesus’s social ethic is strenuous, but this doesn’t mean we are supposed to admit our inadequacy and look for a social ethic elsewhere. It is possible for a social ethic to be both strenuous and relevant. For example, Tolstoy says that Jesus’s ethic tells us which way is up. It is our efforts to climb up and our rate of accent that matter not where we are on the ladder (the only occurrence of differential calculus in theology that I am aware of.) Yoder suggests that when Jesus is not the source of social ethics for Christians, they take their social ethics from other sources, such as the secular laws of the state which are derived from “common sense” and “the nature of things.” Yoder goes in to this more deeply, including a strong critique of the brothers Niebuhr in chapter 6. So I won't comment on this now (although this doesn't mean that you shouldn't!), except to say that this is where the "just war" doctrine comes from.

Yoder also indicates how the denial of Jesus’s social ethics, leads to distorted interpretations of the New Testament. The arrest of Jesus by the Roman authorities only makes sense if Jesus is understood to have taught and acted upon a social ethic that was threatening to the state. It does not make sense if he merely taught that we should love one another. Martin Luther King and Mr. Rogers both taught that we should love one another. Martin Luther King was a threat to the state. Mr. Rogers was not.