Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

Any Sci-fi buff will tell you Enoch, Elijah, Jesus and others were probably abducted by extraterrestrial aliens from another galaxy. Bible scholars, however, cannot accept such interesting conjectures. in this brief little section, we shall examine some of the early rabbinical and Christian debates on a very perplexing passage that has inspired much of the intertestamental literature of the early centuries.

5:24 וַיִּתְהַלֵּךְ חֲנוֹךְ אֶת־הָאֱלֹהִים וְאֵינֶנּוּ כִּי־לָקַח אֹתוֹ אֱלֹהִים – Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him – The Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan paraphrases the verse as follows: “And Enoch served in truth before God, and behold, he was not with the sojourners of earth, for he was withdrawn and he ascended to heaven by the word of God.” The apocryphal Wisdom of Ben Sira also makes mention of this legend: “Few have ever been created on earth like Enoch, for he was taken up from the earth” (Sira 49:14).

Louis Ginzberg writes that nowhere in the entire corpus of Tannaitic literature, nor in either the Babylonian or Jerusalem Talmud, is there any mention made of Enoch and his ascension to the heavens. This assessment is only partially correct.  It seems to me that this may have been due more to polemical considerations, for Christians believed that Jesus experienced an ascension after his resurrection, which they likened to the ascension of Elijah and Enoch. For Christians, Enoch in a sense prefigures the “raptured elect” who are alive on the Last Day.[1] The rabbis demythologized Enoch’s death, and thus with one bold stroke, the rabbis also denied the Christian belief that Jesus, too, experienced an ascension. Enoch, like everyone else, was mortal; he died like all other people. Thus we find in the Midrash:

• On one occasion, some Christians asked R. Abbahu: “We do not find that Enoch died!”^[2] R. Abbahu inquired: “How so?” The Christians replied: “Because the Torah states, ‘then he was no more, because God took him,’ as it was similarly written in connection with Elijah.”

From these words, the Christians wished to find an antecedent to the idea of Jesus’s ascension in the Tanakh. Elijah “ascended” to Heaven, and the discussion continued:

• “As they continued walking and talking, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them, and Elijah ascended in a whirlwind into heaven. Elisha kept watching, crying out, “Father, father! The chariots of Israel and its horsemen! But when he could no longer see him, he grasped his own clothes and tore them in two pieces” (2 Kgs 2:11-12). But R. Abbahu challenged their argument: “If you wish to stress the importance of ‘taking,’ he answered, then examine how ‘taking’ is used in the Book of Ezekiel, where it says: ‘Mortal, with one blow I am about to take away from you the delight of your eyes’ (Ezek. 24:16).” R. Tanhuma observed: “He answered them well.” A matron asked R. Jose: “But we do not find death stated of Enoch?” He answered her: “If it said, ‘Enoch walked with God and is no more,’ I would agree with you. Since, however, it says, ‘and then he was no more,’ it means that he was no more in the world, i.e., having died, because God took him” (Gen. Rabbah 25:1).

Some of the medieval commentaries on the Talmud and on the Torah, as well as the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, argued that the verb לָקַח (läqah = “take”) implies ascension, both in Genesis 5:24 and Elijah’s ascension into the heavenly realm in 2 Kings 2:3, 10–11. This of course, flies in the face of R. Abbahu’s interpretation. We may surmise that R. Abbahu was familiar with the many legends concerning Enoch and Elijah, but he purposely chose to demythologize the text by stressing that “taking” is often used in the Tanakh as a metaphor for death. But did he really answer their question? Only partially, while a good case for Enoch’s death can be made, no such interpretation can be derived Elijah’s ascension, which the Early Church Fathers likened to Jesus’s ascension. As with many exegetical interpretations, one’s interpretation is, more often than not, seen through the interpretive lens of a faith tradition. Continue Reading

The Letter of James is arguably one of the most Jewish sounding works of the NT.

Martin Luther’s disdain for James is especially significant. Luther writes in his Preface to the NT that James is an “epistle of straw”[1] because the author rejected the Pauline doctrine of “justification by faith”  that is at the heart of Pauline Christianity.[2] By referring to James’ value as “straw,” Luther wished to convey the idea that the Letter of James has no value to a Christian. Luther even argued for its removal from the NT canon because of its “Judaic” overtones.

Traditional Judaism has long stressed that actions speak louder than platitudes about faith. In fact, a person’s faith even says much about that person’s true beliefs and values. That being said, in deference to Luther, Christian scholars have been historically debating about the inclusion of James into the NT canon for nearly 1700 years!

Except for the opening line of James–an obvious interpolation–the rest of James focuses good old fashion Jewish ethics. To the chagrin of Luther, there is no mention about Pauline Christianity anywhere in the book. I suspect this book may have been a favorite among the ancient Jewish-Christian sect known as the Ebionites (the “poor ones”) who regarded Paul the Apostle as a heretic.

The book of James reads much the famous rabbinical work, Pirke Avoth (the “Ethics of the Fathers” which is a short tractate of wisdom aphorisms derived from rabbinical tradition).

Here are some of my favorite passages in James:

• Anyone who listens to the Word, but takes no action is like someone who looks at his own features in a mirror—once he has seen what he looks like, he promptly forgets what he looked like. But the one who peers into the perfect law of freedom and perseveres, and is not a hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, such a one shall be blessed by what he does (NT James 1: 23-25).

James writes in the second chapter:

• So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. Indeed someone might say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.  You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the Devil believes that and trembles. Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?

^{Commentary: Who do you think is the “ignoramus” James is referring to? Obviously he is speaking about anyone who would be foolish enough to follow Paul’s “justification by faith” doctrine that subsequent Christianity accepted, hook, line and sinker. James appears to have held a position similar to the Ebionites, who categorically rejected Paul’s doctrine of the Virgin Birth,  as well as his metaphysical belief in the “divinity” of Jesus. The Ebionites regarded the  Hebrew Gospel of Matthew as the only true record of Jesus’ teachings, and they also followed all the traditions and laws of traditional Judaism. Most important, the Ebionites rejected the supersessionist claim that Christianity “replaced Judaism,” thereby completely eliminating the Torah’s distinction between Gentile and Jew.}

Here’s another great passage:

• Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.  Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called “the friend of God.” See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route?For just as a body without a spirit is dead; so too, is faith without works also dead” (NT James 2:17-26).

^{Commentary: I would argue Abraham shows more faith by not sacrificing his son! Moreover, this position is more consistent with ethos of James.}

The relationship between Paul and James is very interesting. The NT bears witness to several meetings that took place between these two men. Paul meets James for the first time in Jerusalem (Gal. 1:18-24). What exactly took place, we only know from Paul’s perspective, but it is clear that James and Paul had some serious differences between the two. One suspects that James found many of Paul’s new ideas about Jesus strange and perhaps even outlandish.

They meet again according to Gal. 2:11-14, and it appears that James did not feel like interfering with Paul’s outreach to the Gentile community. Like a good Jew, James was concerned with the survival of Judaism. Interestingly, Paul acknowledges that James had a vision of Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:3), but intimates that his revelation was qualitatively superior to that of James and the other original Apostles.

People who read the Bible–whether it be the Tanakh or the NT–tend to eliminate the idea that dialectical and emotional tension plays a significant part of the drama. We tend to read the texts with reverential silence; as readers we fail to sense or add tonality to the words we are reading. This point is especially true when reading either the Talmud or the autobiographical story of Paul. If you read in between the lines, and adopt a “hermeneutic of suspicion,” one may gather from the not-so-humble disclosure of Paul, that there was definitely some bad blood between him and James. I suspect James felt glad that Paul decided to go after the Gentiles and leave the Jewish community alone! Anyone reading Paul’s writings can easily see that James’s role in early Christianity has been downplayed in the tradition(s), and Paul’s version of Christianity–due to his immensely superior marketing skills–won the day.

For those Christian readers who truly admire Paul, I must apologize, but James strikes this reader as the more likeable of the two. When you read James, it is clear he is attacking Paul and the “new” metaphysical Christ that he has invented. James must have felt that his brother Jesus would have been horrified at the way Paul was distorting his ethical message. In the words of James, we discover a man who felt he had a responsibility to clarify what his brother Jesus really taught. It is amazing the designers of the Christian canon decided to keep this subversive little book, because James undermines the message of Paul.

Thoughts on Martin Luther and James . . .

How are we to understand Martin Luther’s negative attitude about James?  Despite Luther’s disdain for James, in some ways, Luther would have made James quite proud of him—at least in the beginning of his career. Think back . . . Wasn’t it Luther who opposed the medieval practice of purchasing credit (the first “Buy now, sin later . . .” campaign in Christian history) with God through indulgences and opposed it with his cry of “faith alone”?

Yep, he sure did! Why did he so radically change? Maybe because the book of James reminded him too much of Judaism. Friends, that is one very important reason why Jews ought to study James!

Like Mohammed before him who befriended the Jews only to turn his back against the Jews, Luther also turned his back against the Jews after failing to convert them to his new faith. Just take a took at Mohammed’s ruthless  jihad on the Jews of Mecca and Medina.

Although Luther wasn’t as violent as Mohammed, he nevertheless knew how to fan the fire of religious bigotry just like Mohammed.  Anti-Semites always seem to follow the same playbook; some are more benign, while others are just plain malignant.

Luther made some Nazi-esque comments about the Jews that goes completely against the ethics that is spelled out in James. In 1543, Luther’s animus probably reached its zenith in a scathing pamphlet, Concerning the Jews and Their Lies, in which he urged the authorities to act against Jews with the utmost severity.

For example:

• Set fire to their synagogues or schools,” Martin Luther recommended in On the Jews and Their Lies. Jewish houses should “be razed and destroyed,” and Jewish “prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, should be taken from them.” In addition, “their rabbis should be forbidden to teach on pain of loss of life and limb.” Still, this wasn’t enough.

Luther also urged that “safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews,” and that “all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them.” What Jews could do was to have “a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade” put into their hands so “young, strong Jews and Jewesses” could “earn their bread in the sweat of their brow.”

Is it any wonder why Luther has often been called, “one of the Church Fathers of anti-Semitism”? On November 9–10, 1938, the Nazis decided to actualize Luther’s hatred of the Jew by honoring his memory with Kristallnacht.

You know, the Christian world could have created a much better world by following James’ practical ethics that triumphs good deeds over faith. Jewish tradition would invert Luther’s remarks about James: any faith that is without good deeds, ethics, and nobility of action is about as valuable as an “epistle of straw.”

In Jewish tradition, we find a similar attitude that parallels James’ theology of action.

• R. Ḥanina b. Dosa said, “Every one whose fear of sin precedes his wisdom, his wisdom endures; and every one whose wisdom precedes his fear of sin, his wisdom does not endure.”  He also said, “Every one whose deeds are more than his wisdom, his wisdom endures. And every one whose wisdom is more than his deeds, his wisdom does not endure.”[3]

Simply put: Actions will always speak louder than the platitudes of faith.

And now you know, the rest of the story. Continue Reading

Remember the Coneheads?

They were one of Saturday Night Live’s most beloved characters. For the young folks reading this blog, the Coneheads were television’s very first extraterrestrial family from the planet Remulak, who accidentally got stuck on Earth. Their most distinguished feature is their cone-shaped heads; they speak in a monotone, gorge food, smoke entire packages of cigarettes, and gulp down a six pack of beer in one sitting. Whenever people ask them, “Where are you folks from?” They would answer, “France.”

Unfortunately, Rod Serling died in 1975, two years before the Coneheads made their first appearance. Although they were not from the Twilight Zone, they just as well might have been!

Well, most of you might be surprised to know that the Coneheads are back! But this time, they are no longer living in the United States or France, but actually in Israel. A group of Ultra-Orthodox women dubbed by observers as the “Jewish Taliban Women,” have come up with a new stringency not even Moses and the ancient rabbis could have imagined.

Until now, the “Taliban women” wore a veil covering their entire face except for their eyes. Their long cloaks were meant to hide the contour of their bodies. They looked indistinguishable from the actual Taliban Muslim women. But evidently, these Jewish “Taliban Women” decided that the veil was no longer good enough. Their new head coverings consist of wearing a pipe in the form of a cone, which they wear on their heads under the veil.

The most ultra-Orthodox group—the Eda Haredit (one of my teachers was a part of this court) have surprisingly come out against this group, but to no avail. The rabbis warned these women to stay away from the customs and ways of the “Taliban women”, who “are doomed.” On the other hand, the pious Haredim of Beth Shemesh see nothing wrong with such displays of religious modesty. In fact, they seem to view it as something desirable, judging by the recent television interviews.

Feats of piety, not to mention contests of piety are nothing new in the history of religion. In the days of Late Antiquity, both Judaism and Christianity had sects that engaged in such activities. Rabbinical literature contains valuable records about their antics and desire to live a holy life. Here is one story in particular that really stands out:

• After the Second Temple was destroyed, many people became ascetics and abstained from eating meat or drinking wine. Rabbi Joshua engaged them in discussion. He asked them, “My Children, why do you choose not to eat meat nor drink wine? They replied, “Shall we eat the flesh which used to be brought as a continual offering on the altar, and now it is no more?  He said to them, “Then why will you not drink wine?” They replied, “Because wine was poured on the altar as a drink offering, and now it is no more.” He said to them, “Fine and well, let us not drink it. However, by the same token we should not eat bread either, for from it they brought the two loaves of the Showbread! While we are at it, we should probably abstain from drinking water too, for they used to pour a water-offering for the holiday of Succoth. We should neither eat fruit either because there is no longer an offering of the first fruits on the holiday of Aseret.”[1] They became silent. . . [2]

Two thousand years ago, the Jewish community had an entire class of people who delighted in such feats of piety. Among the inhabitants of the Qumran community, they refrained from having sexual relations in the city of Jerusalem, which they regarded as an extension of the Temple vicinity.

The Jerusalem Talmud writes, “Who is a man of piety that is a fool? “He, for example, who, if a woman is drowning, says, ‘It is unseemly for me to look at her, and therefore, I cannot rescue her. . . . Who is the pious fool? He who sees a child struggling in the water, and says, ‘When I have taken off my phylacteries, I will go and save him.’ By the time he arrives to rescue him, the child has already expired. Who is the crafty scoundrel? R. Huna says, ‘He is the man who behaves leniently toward himself, while teaching others only the strictest rules.’”[3]

“Our Rabbis have taught: There are seven types of Pharisees, of which five are criticized: the ostentatious Pharisee[4]the Pharisee who knocks his feet together and walks with exaggerated humility[5], the Pharisee is one who knocks his face against the wall rather than gaze at a woman.[6] The Pharisee who feigns religious piety while constantly exclaiming, ‘What is my duty that I may perform it?’”[7]  Only two of these,  the “God-fearing” Pharisee, who lives in holy awe and the fear of God, the Pharisee who is one for the love of God, are worthy of praise (JT Berachoth, 9.7).

(A parenthetical note: To the best of my knowledge, I am unaware of any Talmudic text that speaks about spitting at little girls who are “immodestly dressed.” By today’s standards, the Pharisees of today make the seven listed in the Mishnah look pale in comparison.)

The Mishnah in Sotah 20a, mentions that the “female Pharisee,” is “among those who bring destruction to the world.” The “Taliban Women” of Jerusalem could certainly qualify as modern-day examples of the “Pharisee woman,” who in all likelihood became the forerunner of the Christian convent for women that was so popular in the medieval period.

Actually, these rabbinic passages support Jesus’ criticism of the Pharisees for their ostentatious show of religious piety (cf.  Mat. 6:1-4). Of course, not all the Pharisees behaved in such a weird and strange way, but a number of them did! In every generation there are people who are genuinely pious; and then we have the imitators . . . like we see today.

Historically, the super-pious Pharisees of antiquity also inspired their Christian cousins too. Will Durant explains in his Story of Civilization, in his volume on “The Age of Faith” writes about the ascetics of the 4^th century, who did their best to escape temptation; they used to punish their bodies and live a hermetic life. The extremes to which they went in their attempts to deny gratification of “physical lusts” are by modern standards, quite incredible.

For example, St. Ascepsimas wore so many chains that he had to crawl around on hands and knees. A monk named “Besarion,” would not even give in to his body’s desire for restful sleep—for forty years he would not lie down while sleeping. Macarius the Younger sat naked in a swamp for six months until mosquito bites made him look like a victim of leprosy. St. Marion spent eleven years living in a hollowed-out tree trunk. Others lived in caves, dens of beasts, dry wells—even tombs.

Is cleanliness the closest thing to godliness? Well, this attitude was not always historically the case. Durant points out that the early Christian saints suffered the discomfort of filth, stench, worms, and maggots, which were considered to be spiritually beneficial and a sign of victory over the body . . .

Some of the most celebrated saints of this era were Simeon the Stylite of Syria and Daniel the Stylite of Constantinople. Simeon spent 37 years on different pillars, each one loftier and narrower than the last. The last pillar was 66 feet high. He died in 460, aged 72.[8]

Frankly, I am amazed he managed to live such a long life and did not get struck by lightning. Not to be outdone, Daniel lived 33 years on a pillar, and was not infrequently nearly blown off by the storms from Thrace. He died in 494. I am unsure how long he lived; he might not have been as luck as his colleague, Simeon. Alfred Tennyson wrote a poem on Simeon Stylites, “Simeon of the Pillar” by surname–Stylites among men—”was the watcher of the column till the end.”

Rabbinic wisdom challenged many of these early conceptions of piety that existed in both the Jewish and early Christian communities. Rather than retreating from the pleasures of this world, the rabbis taught that the greater challenge is to spiritualize the mundane activities of our lives. Thus, Samuel (180-257 C.E.) exclaimed, “If this man (i.e., the Nazirite) who denied himself wine only is termed, ‘a sinner,’ how much more is the person who denies himself the enjoyment of ever so many things.”[9] R. Dimi, another 4^th century Babylonian scholar (290 – 350 CE) criticized these groups in unflinching terms, “Are there not enough prohibitions in the Torah? Why would you want to take upon yourself even more prohibitions?[10]

The problem with the “Taliban women” of Jerusalem or Beth Shemesh, Israel is that these groups of women feel that God wants them to live a holy life that demands a withdrawal from the sinfulness and forbidden temptations of the world. In reality, this attitude would not exist were it not for the excessive piety many rabbis in Jerusalem have championed over the years. When women’s faces become perceived as something pornographic, burkas are the next logical step in the Haredi evolution toward the creation of “Taliban Judaism.”

It’s a lot easier to be fussy about the length of a woman’s skirt, or examine how many bugs can be found on a leaf of lettuce  than it is to actively fight the problems of corruption, defrauding the government, pedophilia, spousal abuse, intolerance, sexism, bigotry, which seem to emanate continuously from within the rank and file members of the  religious community. If we are ever going to become a “light unto the nations” (Isa. 60:3), shouldn’t we  try to be a light unto ourselves first?

True piety requires a willingness to live within the confines of the world. Obviously, that requires a lot more inner strength. Holiness comes from being a part of a community of individuals who vary in their spiritual abilities. Some people will be further along the track than others.

One 10^th century work cautions would-be-ascetics, “Someday a person will have to give an accounting for all the pleasures of this world that he abstained from enjoying, for such an ingrate shows no appreciation for King’s bounties and grace.”[11] The Taliban women along with their rabbis would be wise to take these practical words to heart. The real righteous (I prefer “just” over the term “righteous”) person is someone who sincerely lives the honest life, walks his talk, and treats his neighbor with kindness, compassion and integrity—even in the face of dishonesty and social corruption.
========= Continue Reading

One of the strange customs observed by many Orthodox on Erev Yom Kippur, involves the ritual of taking a rooster on the Eve of Yom Kippur. Here are the instructions: Men must take a rooster, while women must take a hen. Take a rooster in the right hand and afterwards say:  “This is my exchange, this is my salvation, and this is my atonement. This rooster shall go to its death, while I will enter and proceed to a good long life, and to peace.”

Then revolve the chicken around your head swinging it over your head. Some authorities argue that this should be done three times others say once is sufficient. If you are an expecting mother, it is customary to use two chickens for atonement, one for the mother and one for the unborn child.

The custom of Kapparot has some peculiar similarities to the ancient pagan and black magic rituals. The 16^th century scholar R. Joseph Karo, author of the Shulchan Aruch, condemned it as a pagan superstition. Today, several leading Haredi rabbis have complained for the first time about the problems with animal cruelty, and have now banned it. Some scholars thought it was better to give food gifts or money to the poorer.

Yet, despite rabbinic reservations, folk religion often follows customs because of tradition. I would imagine that being able to transfer our collective and individual sins unto the poor chicken, must be a real exhilarating experience.

I mention this odd piece of Jewish folk religion because in some ways it highlights man’s eternal desire to seek some symbolic way of banishing our sins. Despite the fact we no longer have a Temple to perform these ancient rites, we nevertheless yearn for rituals of personal purification.

The origin of the scapegoat derives from the Yom Kippur rituals where the sins of the community were transferred unto a goat which was sent to die in the wilderness. As primitive as this rite is, bear in mind that the Torah improved on the concept of the scapegoat. Note that it is only the goat that is singled out for destruction–and not human beings. (One possible exception: Job, but Job is truly the one person who refused to be his society’s scapegoat; however, this is discussion for another time . . . )

THE SCAPEGOAT IN ANTIQUITY

Sir James Frazer illustrates in his famous work, the Golden Bough, shows how the ancient Greeks and Romans utilized the scapegoat. On every March 14^th in the calendar year, the  ancient Romans used to send a man clad in skins through the streets of Rome, beating him with long white rods until they drove him out of the city.  The ancient Greek historian and philosopher Plutarch records how the ancient Greeks utilized the scapegoat in their society. Bear in mind Plutarch was considered pious and quite friendly—well, to most people!

Whenever the Greek colony of Marseilles, one was ravaged by a plague, a man of the poorer classes used to offer himself as a scapegoat. For a whole year he was maintained at the public expense, being fed on choice and pure food. At the end of the year he was dressed in sacred garments, decked with holy branches, and led through the whole city, while prayers were uttered that all the evils of the people might fall on his head. He was then cast out of the city or stoned to death by the people outside of the walls.  (I believe this type of story probably inspired several Stephen King horror novels.)

Frazer also describes how primitive societies throughout the world have relied on scapegoats and other ritual purification ceremonies, usually performed annually and seasonally, to purge their communities of evil and epidemics, demons and natural disasters. “To effect,” Frazer writes, “a total clearance of all the ills that have been infesting a people.”

THE SCAPEGOAT IN MODERN TERMS

Yes, our forbearers were not terribly sophisticated; their world was steeped in magic and superstition. The scapegoat reflected their need to purify themselves as a society—but often it came at the expense of an innocent victim—quite often the poorest and most vulnerable elements of society.

Modern society is much more subtle about its use of scapegoats. Psychologists Alice Miller and Robert Coles explain  that  scapegoats are targets that “absorb our pain, our feelings of hopelessness.” I would add: we crave scapegoats to absorb our hypocrisy and moral duplicity. The scapegoat is also often applied to individuals and groups who are accused of causing misfortune; they are identified with evil, blamed and then cast out of the family or community so that the remaining members are left with a feeling of guiltlessness.

The political arena tends to promote class warfare, pitting the rich vs. the poor, when the real problem is the lack of accountability when it comes to how government monies are being spent. Rather than exposing the crooked and dishonest politicians, we often see our political leaders create scapegoats, so that nobody will notice the real source of our problems—namely, our own leaders’ moral corruption.

People who see themselves as life’s victims tend to see somebody else to blame. The phenomena of frivolous lawsuits are empirical evidence of how ordinary people sue large companies no matter how silly the claim might be. Personal responsibility is seldom ever taught as a virtue worth cultivating in schools.

A thought from Ayn Rand really gets to the heart of our reticence to accept personal responsibility: “We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality . . .” If we act in ways that are so totally and obviously self-destructive, we have nobody else to blame but ourselves for failing to think and act responsibly–which I might add, is the hallmark of  spiritual adulthood. It is also the key to unlocking our human potential and actualizing our life purpose in this temporal world.

Freud understood this human problem and observed, “Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility.” Is it any wonder why people seek to blame others for life’s injustices?

THE JEW AS SCAPEGOAT

Since the days of Late Antiquity, the Jews have become the perennial scapegoat for Western Civilization (“What a concept!”—Gandhi)  we have long been the scapegoat for everything that is wrong. The resurgence of anti-Semitism is not just in Muslim countries, it has spiked up even in the Western countries. The world is always looking to blame Israel—her crime: she exists!

Yet despite all the tragedies that have befallen the Palestinians, their greatest blunder in a history was failing to realize the opportunities that came their way.  As Abba Eben once said, The Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Paradoxically, Arab leaders needs Israel, for without Israel, who else would they blame for their societal problems. With the development of the “Arab Spring” this past year, for the first time Arab population centers are beginning to recognize that Israel is not to blame, but their own leaders are corrupt!

IN SUMMARY . . .

As primitive as the scapegoat ritual is, its inclusion in the Yom Kippur liturgy is a painful reminder of what is wrong in our lives and society.  Rather than looking for somebody else to bear the stigma of our pain, Yom Kippur teaches us that we need to take responsibility for our own behavior.

An interesting human behavior is pointing out everyone else’s faults and sins rather than looking at your own. It can be summed up in the following conversation between Linus and Lucy.

Linus asks Lucy, “Why are you always so anxious to criticize me?”

Lucy responds, “I just think I have a knack for seeing other people’s faults.”

“What about your own faults?”

“I have a knack for overlooking them.” Continue Reading

Well, the truth can be suppressed but it cannot be denied.  The world should think twice before creating a truly racist state, one that is seeking to emulate the path of Hitler’s concept of a Jew free Europe, better known as Judenrein. Hitler”s dream of a Jew-free world lives on. If you have any doubts, just ask the Hamas leadership.

The PLO Ambassador to the United Nations said rather explicitly that Says Jews are NOT Allowed in Palestinian State. “After the experience of the last 44 years of military occupation and all the conflict and friction, I think it would be in the best interest of the two people to be separated,” Maen Areikat, the PLO ambassador, said during a meeting with reporters sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor. He was responding to a question about the rights of minorities in a Palestine of the future.

Gee, I wonder: What do all the Protestant and Catholic leaders think of this comment? How come we haven’t heard any condemnation? Could it be that with the exception of our good evangelical friends and people like Glenn Beck, most of our Christian friends haven’t learned any lessons from WWII? Anti-Semitism is a virus pulsating in their veins. We can thank Martin Luther and the Church Fathers for that.

I am reminded of an old joke; in Nazi Germany, there was a restaurant that said, “We don’t serve Jews.” A Jewish man with a yarmulke comes in and orders a meal. The owner of the restaurant goes to him, shows him the sign that says, “We don’t serve Jews.” The Jew replied, “That’s ok, I don’t eat Jews anyway!” I could see the same thing happening in the new proposed State of Palestine.

Little did the foolish but honest ambassador realize that the last country to officially prohibit Jews was Hitler’s Germany—a country that took considerable pride (much like the Palestinians), in not having any Jews live in their country.

To my liberal Jewish friends, think for a minute . . . How would you feel if Israel had that kind of attitude toward its non-Jewish citizens? Wouldn’t you be outraged? Now, I wish to introduce some cognitive dissonance: Shouldn’t civilized people everywhere be concerned about such a policy being enacted?

But again, what could you possibly expect from a society that builds museums littered with body parts of children from an Israeli pizzeria? What are they, “progressive”? Maybe once the PLO is in, the United Nations might even put them on the Human Rights Commission. Wouldn’t that be swell? Hey, with the newest human rights conference in Durbin, maybe the PLO could lead a workshop on the evils of racism.

But again, what would you expect from a government that praises its mass murderers whenever they rain terror from the skies, like the denizens of Hamas do every day? Civilized? By whose standards? Of course, by European and Arab/Iranian/Turkish standards!   Continue Reading

There is nothing in the Torah, or in the Talmud and Midrash, or Kabbala that would suggest that there is a supremely evil being that is determined to wage war against God. The noun “Satan” in the Tanakh simply means “adversary” or, “to oppose.” The Hebrew term appears in Numbers 22:22,32; 1 Samuel 29:4; 2 Samuel 19:22; 1 Kings 5:4; 11:14,23,25; Psalm 109:6, normally translated in English as adversary or accuser. In Job 1-2; Zechariah 3:2; and 1 Chronicles 21:1 the same term is translated as a proper name and designates the angel that acts as the “Public Prosecutor.”

The passage in 1 Chronicles 21:1 is based upon the parallel story in 2 Samuel 24:1, but it is God who entices David to count his people and not Satan! The Satanic angel who serves as Public Prosecutor is not an apostate nor is it some fallen being, an idea that is nowhere suggested in the Hebrew Bible. However, it is in the apocryphal books of the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls we find that Satan who is more commonly referred to as “Bliyal” (“the baseless one”), is portrayed as the “Adversary of God.”

Apocryphal literature later influenced the early Christian Bible. In the Book of John (16:11) for instance, Satan appears with a capital “S.” Matthew, Mark, and Luke clearly accept and teach a doctrine of a personal Satan and called the Satanic agents, “fallen angels” or “demons” (Mark 3:22). Sometimes referred to as Lucifer, Christian legends teach that Satan vaingloriously sought to overturn the regime in heaven and waged war against God’s loyalists. Defeated by the Archangel Michael, the angel who would be God was cast into his inferno, to brood in the darkness, “hatching vain empires.” Satan did not go unescorted, along with him went about a third of the heavenly host, a horde of fallen angels.

According to Christian doctrine, angels were created separately and were given free will, just as humans were. Their “fallenness” had to do with a denial and distortion of angelic life just as human fallenness has to do with the denial and distortion of goodness and truth. In contrast, normative Judaic faith teaches that only humanity was endowed with freedom of choices; angels are often described as “omdim” (beings who occupy a stationary position cf. Isaiah 6:2, Eze. 1:21-25, 10:3-6) while human beings are described as “mehalchim” (movers) for only human beings are capable of transcending their baser natures. Angels are often compared to animals (cf. Eze.1:5) because the character of angels is instinctive much like an animals’ instinct. Angels cannot help but be what God intended for them to be. Their being and personality are defined by their nature.

This may also explain why they are sometimes referred to as seraphim (“fiery ones”) as in Isaiah 6:2, because it is the nature of fire to ascend and so it is the angelic nature to also “ascend” to God much in the same manner. Other times angels are called, “hayoth” (= “animals”) as in Eze 1:5, 13, 32.

For poets like Milton, Satan is the archetypal antihero, the rebel who wages eternal guerrilla warfare against his Creator. One famous passage, contains the psychological animus that motivates Satan’s behavior: “ Better to reign is worth ambition though in hell: Better to reign in hell than serve in heav’n . . .”

Maimonides and rabbinic tradition took a much more sober view of Satan. Frequently Maimonides in his “Guide to the Perplexed” argues that Satan is only a metaphor for the evil inclination (Yetzser Hara) and is not a supernatural being. This has some basis in the Talmud (Cf. Bava Batra 16a) but many of the Talmudic rabbis did regard Satan as a supernatural being who serves God by testing humanity’s moral character. Rabbinic tradition even says that Satan’s intent is to serve Heaven, not itself!  R. Levi said, “Both Satan and Peninah both acted with pious intent.”[1] Continue Reading

Bind them as a sign on your hand . . .(Deut. 6:8)

Was Moses speaking  metaphorically? Or was he being quite literal? Rashbam chose the former possibility: The Torah exhorts that your devotion to God should be so ever constant, it should be as though your love were literally inscribed upon your hand:“Set me as a seal on your heart, as a seal on your arm” (Song 8:6) [1]  One 19th century exegete observed:

“Is not this an allusion to an ancient and general custom observed in almost every part of the world? When a person wishes to remember a thing of importance, and is afraid to trust to the common operations of memory, he ties a knot on some part of his clothes, or a cord on his hand or finger, or places something out of its usual order, and in view, that his memory may be whetted to recollection, and his eye affect his heart. God, who knows how slow of heart we are to understand, graciously orders us to make use of every help, and through the means of things sensible, to rise to things spiritual.”

Commenting on Exodus 13:9, Ibn Ezra takes umbrage with the a view found among the Karaite expositors (as well as Rashbam) who also interpreted that “Bind them as a sign on your hand” is meant metaphorically and is similar to “Bind them upon your heart always; tie them around your neck.” (Prov. 6:21). By the same token, “fix them as an emblem on your forehead,“ is similar to “Let faithful love and constancy never leave you: tie them round your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart” (Prov. 3:3).  Strangely, Ibn Ezra seemed to think that metaphor plays a primary role in the Book of Proverbs, but plays virtually no role in this particular passage! History records how Ibn Ezra actually met Rashbam, and, evidently, they did not get along. Rashbam loved metaphor interpretations more than he did literal ones.

Like Ibn Ezra, most rabbinic commentaries view this verse quite literally, and argue that it refers to the tradition better known as tephillin (“phylacteries”). Tephillin consists of two little squared leather boxes that are tied to the forearms and forehead which are faithfully warn by traditional Jews every day barring the Sabbath and the biblical holidays.

There are  four Scriptural passages that  signify three basic themes: (1) the importance of accepting God as the only Deity—to the exclusion of all other deities (Deut. 6:5-9) (2) remembering the Exodus (Exod. 13:1-10; 13:11-16); (3) the acceptance of yoke of God’s commandments (Deut. 11:13-21). Among the Jews of Qumran, their tephillin included the Ten Commandments. Continue Reading

Paul the Apostle was a complex man, not to mention a brilliant salesman. Had he met Eskimos, he probably would have sold them some ice for their igloos. Paul’s concept of grafting the Gentile world to the Abrahamic blessing and the Jewish people was a stroke of marketing genius.

In the last article, we contrasted the views of Paul vs. James, the  brother of Jesus and the purported author of this important NT work. It stands to reason if the NT is to be believed, James, arguably follows his brother Jesus on the subject of works vs. faith. Who would have known Jesus better? James or Paul?—I have to confess, I think James wins handily.

Let me share with you an old but still memorable anecdote.

In the controversial 1988 film, “The Last Temptation of Jesus Christ,” producer Martin Scorsese (a Catholic), took quite a bit of heat from the Christian world when he portrayed Jesus as a sensuous man, who marries Mary Magdalene, raises a huge family and lives a full life. When the film first came out, I had little interest in it until I started working on my doctorate at the San Francisco Seminary a few years later. Our class, which was made up of scholars from all over the world, watched this film and we had some marvelous debates about its literary message. Where was the heresy in the film? Most of my friends thought that the sensuous Jesus certainly really “crossed” the line (pardon my pun).

True to my contrarian nature, I argued that the real heresy is when Jesus in a vision (produced by Satan himself), hears Paul the Apostle preaching about the miracle of Jesus’ resurrection., and how he was the son of the Virgin Marry, the literal “son of God.” Jesus confronts Paul, and asks him, “Did you ever see this ‘Jesus of Nazareth?’  Paul sheepishly admits, all he saw was the blinding white light on his way to Damascus. Jesus then reveals his identity to Paul. Bluntly, Jesus asks, “Why are you promoting this nonsense about me ‘rising from the dead’ ?  . . . I live a normal and happy life for the first time . . .” and he threatened to expose Paul for the fraud he was.  Paul basically admits that he made up the story because people need someone to believe in and that he was willing to make up just about anything so that people would believe in something that would give purpose to their lives.  Striking is Paul’s comment, “I will crucify you and resurrect you if I have to. . .  The Jesus Christ I believe in is greater than you . . .”

The most shocking implication of the film seems to suggest that “Christianity” is really a misnomer; it really ought to be called “Paulanity” since Paul transformed the human Jesus into a mythical creature of infinite proportion. Yet for all of Paul’s flaws (which he himself admitted were many), God works through weak people to achieve His purpose.

Despite its heretical content,  the film still finds a way to magically transform Jesus back into the familiar figure Christians all love. Judas–of all Jesus’ associates–brings the elderly Jesus to the realization that if he dies like an ordinary man, then Jesus’ story comes to an abrupt end. Satan then reappears not as the guardian angel that saved Jesus on the Cross, but as the demonic being he truly is–cajoling Jesus to accept his fate as an “ordinary man.” After coming to his senses, Jesus begs God to let his fate unfold the way God intended it to be. By the way, Judas definitely seems more likable than Paul in the film.

Personally, I must distinguish between the historical Jesus from the mythical Jesus advanced by Paul and the Early Church. Distinguishing between myth and a historical reality is always a daunting task. As Jews, we grapple with similar questions with respect to the historicity of the Exodus. Yet, even myth often has some basis in historical fact.

Although Jesus did not prove to be the Messiah, his existence personified the messianic yearnings that have existed throughout much of our history. As a man of messianic passion, the archetype of the messiah exists inside each of us–and it behooves us to redeem our world, one good deed at a time. If you read the famous “Parable about the Last Judgement” in Matthew 25:31-46, you will see that Jesus subscribed to an idea that later came to be known in Jewish mystical tradition as “Tikkun Olam” (“Bettering the world”).

“. . . for when I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’ And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did so to me.”

Far from being the great exception, the historical Jesus’ humanity makes him a wonderful model for people to emulate themselves after.

He lived as a pious Jew, he died as pious Jew and he will be remembered for his acts of kindness and wisdom–much like the other great teachers of 1st century Judaism, e.g., Hillel and Rabbi Yochann ben Zaccai. Continue Reading

The Letter of James is arguably one of the most Jewish sounding works of the NT.

Martin Luther’s disdain for James is especially significant. Luther writes in his Preface to the NT that James is an “epistle of straw”[1] because the author rejected the Pauline doctrine of “justification by faith”  that is at the heart of Pauline Christianity.[2] By referring to James’ value as “straw,” Luther wished to convey the idea that the Letter of James has no value to a Christian. Luther even argued for its removal from the NT canon because of its “Judaic” overtones.

Traditional Judaism has long stressed that actions speak louder than platitudes about faith. In fact, a person’s faith even says much about that person’s true beliefs and values. That being said, in deference to Luther, Christian scholars have been historically debating about the inclusion of James into the NT canon for nearly 1700 years!

Except for the opening line of James–an obvious interpolation–the rest of James focuses good old fashion Jewish ethics. To the chagrin of Luther, there is no mention about Pauline Christianity anywhere in the book. I suspect this book may have been a favorite among the ancient Jewish-Christian sect known as the Ebionites (the “poor ones”) who regarded Paul the Apostle as a heretic.

If I did not know better, the book of James almost sounds like a prototype for the Pirke Avoth (the “Ethics of the Fathers” is a short tractate dealing with the famous wisdom aphorisms of rabbinical tradition).

Here are some of my favorite passages in James:

“Anyone who listens to the Word, but takes no action is like someone who looks at his own features in a mirror—once he has seen what he looks like, he promptly forgets what he looked like. But the one who peers into the perfect law of freedom and perseveres, and is not a hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, such a one shall be blessed by what he does” (NT James 1: 23-25).

James writes in the second chapter, “So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. Indeed someone might say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.  You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the Devil believes that and trembles. Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?”

^{Commentary: Who do you think is the “ignoramus” James is referring to? Obviously he is speaking about anyone who would be foolish enough to follow Paul’s “justification by faith” doctrine that subsequent Christianity accepted, hook, line and sinker.}

“Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? ^ You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.  Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called “the friend of God.” See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route? For just as a body without a spirit is dead; so too, is faith without works also dead” (NT James 2:17-26).

^{Commentary: I would argue Abraham shows more faith by not sacrificing his son! Moreover, this position is more consistent with ethos of James.}

But wait a minute, there’s more to Martin Luther’s personality than meets the naked eye.

Despite Luther’s disdain for James, in some ways, Luther would have made James quite proud of him—at least in the beginning of his career. Think back . . . Wasn’t it Luther who opposed the medieval practice of purchasing credit (the first “Buy now, sin later . . .” campaign in Christian history) with God through indulgences and opposed it with his cry of “faith alone”?

Yep, he sure did! Why did he so radically change? Maybe because the book of James reminded him too much of Judaism. Friends, that is one very important reason why Jews ought to study James!

Like Mohammed before him who befriended the Jews only to turn his back against the Jews, Luther also turned his back against the Jews after failing to convert them to his new faith. Just take a took at Mohammed’s ruthless  jihad on the Jews of Mecca and Medina.  Although Luther wasn’t as violent as Mohammed, he nevertheless knew how to fan the fire of religious bigotry just like Mohammed.  Anti-Semites always seem to follow the same playbook; some are more benign, while others are just plain malignant.

Luther made some Nazi-esque comments about the Jews that goes completely against the ethics that is spelled out in James. In 1543, Luther’s animus probably reached its zenith in a scathing pamphlet, Concerning the Jews and Their Lies, in which he urged the authorities to act against Jews with the utmost severity. Continue Reading

When reading about the tales of sexism that is so prevalent in much of the religious worlds of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, we tend to think of this development as a modern phenomenon. Actually, it is not.

Two thousand years ago, the Jewish community had an entire class of people who delighted in such feats of piety.

The Jerusalem Talmud writes, “Who is a man of piety that is a fool? “He, for example, who, if a woman is drowning, says, ‘It is unseemly for me to look at her, and therefore, I cannot rescue her. . . . Who is the pious fool? He who sees a child struggling in the water, and says, ‘When I have taken off my phylacteries, I will go and save him.’ By the time he arrives to rescue him, the child has already expired. Who is the crafty scoundrel? R. Huna says, ‘He is the man who behaves leniently toward himself, while teaching others only the strictest rules.’”[1]

“Our Rabbis have taught: There are seven types of Pharisees: the ostentatious Pharisee[2], the Pharisee who knocks his feet together and walks with exaggerated humility[3], the Pharisee is one who knocks his face against the wall rather than gaze at a woman[4] The Pharisee who feigns religious piety while constantly exclaiming, ‘What is my duty that I may perform it?’”[5]

Actually, these rabbinic passages support Jesus’ criticism of the Pharisees for their ostentatious show of religious piety (cf.  Mat. 6:1-4). Of course, not all the Pharisees behaved in such a weird and strange way, but a number of them did! In every generation there are people who are genuinely pious; and then we have the imitators . . . like we see today.

The foolish Pharisees inspired their Christian cousins too. Will Durant explains in his Story of Civilization, in his volume on “The Age of Faith” writes about the ascetics of the 4^th century, who did their best to escape temptation; they used to punish their bodies and live a hermetic life. The extremes to which they went in their attempts to deny gratification of “physical lusts” are by modern standards, quite incredible.

For example, St. Ascepsimas wore so many chains that he had to crawl around on hands and knees. A monk named “Besarion,” would not even give in to his body’s desire for restful sleep—for forty years he would not lie down while sleeping.

Macarius the Younger sat naked in a swamp for six months until mosquito bites made him look like a victim of leprosy.

St. Marion spent eleven years living in a hollowed-out tree trunk. Others lived in caves, dens of beasts, dry wells—even tombs.

Is cleanliness the closet thing to godliness? Well, this attitude was not always historically the case. Durant points out that the early Christian saints suffered the discomfort of filth, stench, worms, and maggots were considered to be spiritually beneficial and a sign of victory over the body . . .

Some of the most celebrated saints of this era were Simeon the Stylite of Syria and Daniel the Stylite of Constantinople. Simeon spent 37 years on different pillars, each one loftier and narrower than the last. The last pillar was 66 feet high. He died in 460, aged 72.[6] Frankly, I am amazed he managed to live such a long life and not get struck by lightning.

Not to be outdone, Daniel lived 33 years on a pillar, and was not infrequently nearly blown off by the storms from Thrace. He died in 494. I am unsure how long he lived; he might not have been as luck as his colleague, Simeon.

Alfred Tennyson wrote a poem on Simeon Stylites, “Simeon of the Pillar” by surname–Stylites among men—”was the watcher of the column till the end.”

Closed religious societies often create greater social barriers to keep their followers from discovering the outside world.

Despite Weird Al Yankovic’s musical parody, “Amish Paradise,” the Amish actually have a much more enlightened approach for dealing with the threats posed by the outside world. They allow their young people to go out and explore the outside world; more often than not, after seeing the outside world of modernity, they usually return and resume their roles as Amish believers. The Square Hasidim would never adopt a policy like that because the degree of social dysfunction is so malignant, they know full and well that their followers would never return.  It takes a brave soul to leave the Hassidic cults of New York and Israel.

With the Internet and telecommunications, it is inevitable that these communities will do anything within their power to micro-manage the lives of their followers. Many years ago, at the Lubavitcher Yeshiva in Israel, I recall how issues of Time Magazine were confiscated because it had pictures of  women in bathing suits. In the Haredi and Hassidic communities, all pictures of women are expunged or defaced. Recently, a scandal occurred when the Hasidim erased Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s face from appearing in the newspaper.

If you think that Ultra-Orthodoxy suffers from OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder), you would most certainly be correct. I am certain that if Maimonides and the Vilna Gaon were living today, they would declare the Square Rebbe and his foolish Hasidim as certifiably “meshuga” (nuts!).

And now you know the rest of the story . . .

Notes

[1] JT Sotah 3:4, f. 19a, line 13.

[2] He behaves like Shechem, who circumcised himself for an unworthy purpose (Gen. 34) The J. Talmud explains: anyone who carries his religious duties upon his shoulder (shekem), i.e., ostentatiously (BT Ber. 14b).

[3] He walks with exaggerated humility. According to the Jerusalem Talmud: He says: Spare me a moment that I may perform a commandment.

[4] The Jerusalem Talmud explains: a calculating Pharisee, i.e., he performs a good deed and then a bad deed, setting one off against the other.

[5] He behaves as if he has fulfilled every religious obligation.

[6] Will Durant, “The age of faith: a history of Medieval Civilization -Christian, Islamic, and Judaic – from Constantine to Dante: A.D. 325-1300″ (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1950), 204.