A reader colloquies:
Some time ago, you had an analogy of the Biblical Joseph and centralization of resources. I found it very interesting to see that Joseph was actually a bad guy, since every Christian considers him a hero...
***Joseph managed to alienate his brothers whose responses ranged from murder to selling Joseph down the river. After difficulties, Joseph ascends to the heights of power in Egypt, and advises Pharaoh of policies that lead to the ruin of the Egyptian economy, and beyond, causing his family in a foreign land great distress (harmed by Joseph’s policies as laid out in Gen 41).
This leads to a reuniting of the family, but in Egypt. Joseph has assimilated and Jacob (Israel) sees his legacy as Israel, not Egypt. Nonetheless, the Israelis flourish in Egypt, for a very short while, and before Jacob dies, he sets his house in order, creating the twelve tribes of Egypt of his sons, but not Joseph. There is no tribe of Joseph. Jacob employs Joseph’s two sons to make up tribes (the tribe of Levi is set aside to attend the temple.) Although Joseph was in the beginning Jacob’s favorite, in the end he is not so favored. So it often goes with patriarchs.
Now, this is not my reading, I can never make much sense of the Bible myself. Here I follow Leon Kass, who can make sense of it. His book, The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis covers this very well around page 640.
At any rate, after a brief period of Egyptian assimilation, the next Pharaoh “knew not Joseph” and the Jews are enslaved in Egypt for some 400 years.
Only Christians could turn this into a happy story.***
. Another example you gave was with Samuel, who wanted people to live in a free society. Would you happen to have more Biblical examples like this?
***Samuel was a prophet, and it was God Almighty who wanted his people to live in freedom, Samuel was merely communicating God’s will. The Jews were merely the first to directly reject God’s will. Today, Christians in the USA are merely the latest. To my mind, “render unto Caesar ...” and other passages modern Christians willfully mis-interpret to mean “reject God’s plan.” Just as Joseph sought to assimilate in Egypt, most Christians try to assimilate in USA. It never works, and usually something has to give, and in shipping the more maneuverable has to make way for the less maneuverable. As usual, it is God who is more maneuverable.
For more biblical commentary on this the protestant scholar Gary North is fecund. www.garynorth.com.... nose around and find his free books on biblical commentary.***
Also, in a free society, wouldn't you have things such as "an eye for an eye"? Didn't Israelites have this when they were living in an anarchy-like state?
***Yes, and it is the basis of Sharia الشريعة law today, and is vastly superior to our system. If you believe in God, you would believe the system He recommends, or would at least give His system the benefit of the doubt.
Recently in Sharia-governed Iran, a woman who was blinded in an acid attack by a jealous suitor, was about to pour acid in his eyes (in the eye for an eye, there has to be two witnesses, and the victims must deliver the punishment). At that point she withheld punishment and forgave him. End of case.
(Except of course the man now goes through life rather disdained by his fellow Moslems, who will have anything to do with such a creep?)
Eye for an eye is permitted, not required. Eye for an eye rarely leads to loss of eyes as punishment. What it immediately does is put perpetrator and victim on the same plane. It is often the powerful who harm the weak. In eye for an eye, the eyes of the powerful are forfeit if they blind the weak. In practice, the powerful are very open to a settlement. This woman may have “forgiven” her attacker because he paid for a crew of servants for the rest of her life. And in Sharia and Mosaic Law the courts do not interfere with settlements.
Think of the Bhopal Chemical disaster when Union Carbide ran a shaky operation that exploded and killed 3000 people immediately and 20,000 eventually, with countless people blinded. Although courts found the president of that division criminally liable, he escaped to the Hamptons where he enjoys fresh air and inspiring views. The victims have received practically nothing.
Now imagine with what alacrity the responsible parties would have addressed the victims if their eyes were forfeit.
In our system, since the state rules by divine-right, in criminal matters the victim has no power. One particularly powerful possibility under Sharia is forgiveness, which allows one to commune with God, something not permitted, nor even contemplated, in our system.
The western legal system is designed to protect the powerful against its victims. Specifically Immanuel Kant pointed out, as the USA was forming, the internal contradiction of the USA political system: we have separation of powers, but we allow officers of one branch to simultaneously serve in another. That is, it is foolish to let lawyers serve in the legislative or the executive branch, or either. This is prima facie conflict of interest. His observation almost 250 years ago was spot on. The USA system cannot be reformed, and violent revolution never works. So that leaves personal transformation. And under Sharia, if your dealings with others are so inconsiderate as to cause them harm, you will find yourself answering for your action with equal harm. Talk about motivation to personal transformation!
And incidentally, this is the common understanding of the term jihad الجهاد, that is the struggle for personal transformation. In that sense, we are all called to jihad.
0 comments:
Post a Comment