Should Creationism Be Taught In Schools? What About Intelligent Design?

Back on Tuesday, Bill Nye the Science Guy duked it out with creationist Ken Ham over the debate of "Evolution vs. Creationism." I provided the footage of the debate down below.

Since my academic background is primarily in public policy, I'm going to stay away from the scientific jargon as much as possible. What I would like to do is discern the issue from a public policy standpoint and determine whether theories such as creationism and Intelligent Design (ID) should be taught in schools.

Before answering the question, I should first specify the sort of schooling towards which this questioning is targeted. This is not geared towards homeschooling because in spite of accreditation requirements, parents who homeschool their children have more latitude in what they teach their children (As a side note, I am interested by the fact that even with the disproportionate amount of home-schooled children being Evangelical Christians, there is a growth of secular, home-schooled children). Similar arguments can be made for private schools, and to a lesser extent, charter schools. This primarily leaves us with the question of whether these theories should be taught in public schools.

This leads us to the next question of "what is scientific theory?" When used in the world of natural sciences, the word "theory" does not mean "a set of ideas that are presented to explain something, but may or may not be true." When we say "scientific theory," we mean to say "a well-substantiated explanation of natural phenomenon that can be confirmed through observation and experimentation via the scientific method." I remember when I was in college, I took a course of the physics of light, and there was a lot of debate as to whether light was a wave, particle, or a combination of both. Even with the debate, there were still a set of high standards that was applied to the scientific inquiry.

Now that we have a better grasp of "scientific theory," let's move over to the differences between Creationism and Intelligent Design. Just for the record, these are not synonyms. According to Webster's dictionary, Creationism is "the belief that G-d created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible, and therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect." Creationism is a sectarian ideology based on biblical literalism, a literalism that I find to be irksome. Creationism is not taught with secular intent. Creationism should be left for Sunday schools, not for public schools. Doing otherwise would be a violation of the First Amendment.

Intelligent design, on the other hand, simply states that an intelligent, powerful being created the universe in a directed process. Note that the theory of intelligent design does not postulate who the designer is. It could be G-d, الله, or one of the deities from polytheistic religions. Heck, it can even be the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and it would still be a form of intelligent design! The notion that the universe was created by design, rather than random mutations, is not an argument that inherently religious in nature. What's more is that there actually is a cogent case to be made for "design in nature," whether it comes in the form of the fine-tuned universe argument, cosmological argument, or the specified complexity argument. To secularly argue that there is intelligent design has a lot more validity than arguing that the world was literally created in six days and that the world is literally about six millennia old.

Before I go into the policy analysis, just a few words on how I personally feel on the matter. Unlike most of America, I do not find a dichotomy between science and religion. Science explains the "how," and religion explains the "why." Let's say that natural selection and random mutations are undeniably the mode through which we came into being, which based on discerning what I can from the scientific evidence, it's the most probable scientific explanation. I don't care because it does not violate my understanding of Torah in the slightest, and it does not shake my belief in monotheism because evolutionary theory and Judaism are not mutually exclusive. There's no contradiction in me being a theistic evolutionist.

In an ideal education system, I would like for school to be an institution in which students can openly discuss and debate varying points of view in a respectful, civil manner. This is why I am certainly not going to advocate for removing evolution from the classroom, but I'm also not going to say that evolutionary theory is as "open and shut" as one would like to think because it's not. With regards to this particular topic, the debate is framed in terms of "science versus religion," which is problematic. Creationists like to view their opponents as g-dless, condescending heathens, and evolutionists like to view their opponents as Bible-thumping troglodytes. Until people frame the debate in terms of "Was nature created by design or randomly," we're going to be stuck in this uncouth stalemate that perpetuates the idea that there is nothing in between atheistic evolutionist and creationist that would actually create a spectrum of viewpoints on the issue.

One of the simpler solutions, which evidently has a libertarian twist, is to get the government less and less involved in the education sector. A competitive market in education might not have answered the question of "Was nature created by design or randomly," but it would have mitigated the political tension by now. At the very least, we can think about policies (e.g., tax credits, school vouchers) that could allow for lower-income families to have better access to the education marketplace. Although there is some potential for allowing additional privatization of education, it would be relatively more prudent to figure out what to do with the public school's current K-12 curriculum.

Even if I am a proponent for more privatized education, we should still aim for a higher standard of intellectual discourse in our public schools as long as the public school system still exists. What could be done is seeking out some schools willing to pilot a science curriculum that can teach biology, as well as present cases both for evolutionary theory and intelligent design in a relatively fair, unbiased manner with supporting evidence for each side. If it's a success, then other public schools should take a cue from its success and implement it themselves. With that, we can theoretically preserve the First Amendment without having to quash intellectual debate (more on that below). It would be great to see ID taught in a secular fashion, as well as a reasonably objective one. However, I think this would be asking for too much with a country that is so divided on the issue. Not only that, an issue I find with the theory of intelligent design is that it does not meet the standard of falsifiability, which could arguably put ID out of the realm of the scientific method because even if there were unquestionably a designer, who is the designer responsible for the universe's creation? The interplay between evolution and how it relates to religious beliefs can be debated in a social studies or politics classroom. This alternative would allow for the discussion to be had, but to "leave science in the  science classroom," which would a compromise from my view, but something tells me this would not be an acceptable policy alternative for creationists.

I am thinking that in an American context, tweaking the curriculum without altering it greatly would work best because my main concern is that ID would be used as a gateway to advance the agenda of creationism (see Epperson v. Arkansas). With that in mind, if only evolutionary theory is to be taught in the science classroom, it should at least be taught with a presentation of its strengths and weaknesses, as opposed to being unquestionable dogma, so that students can understand evolutionary theory from all angles and allow for enough intellectual wiggle room in the event that evolutionary theory is incorrect. Although part of an education is teaching facts, the other part of an education is to enable students to think analytically and be able to problem-solve, which this latter policy alternative would permit. This curriculum stipulation would allow for students to think openly and critically while not having religion shoved down their throats or freedom of inquiry stifled. Given the political climate, this would be the best policy alternative to the status quo.

Phil Robertson's Anti-Gay Remarks: Yes, He Got What He Deserved

I had to take a break from commenting on the Federal Reserve and monetary policy to weigh in on this issue. Last week, Gentlemen Quarterly published an interview with Phil Robertson, who is a TV personality on the A&E TV show Duck Dynasty. Robertson made incendiary comments, including how African-Americans were happy "pre-entitlement" and how a "lack of Jesus" brought about such things as Nazi Germany and the attack on Pearl Harbor. As offensive as those were, the comments for which Robertson received the most flack was his comments on homosexuality and gay people. These comments have resulted in A&E suspending Robertson from the show, although that suspension might be short-lived.

Conservatives would have you believe that Robertson is being punished for exercising his free speech and talking about Christian values. Ian Bayne insultingly analogized Robertson as the "Rosa Parks of our generation." If Robertson simply opined that "homosexual behavior is unambiguously prohibited in the Bible" (an opinion with which I vehemently disagree) and left it at that, he would have been fine. However, his comments about homosexuality went well beyond his interpretation of the Bible. Exhibit A. When asked the question "What in your mind is sinful," Robertson's response was the following:

Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers, they won't inherit the kingdom of G-d. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right.

The first thing that comes to Robertson's mind about what constitutes as sin is not avarice or injustice. It's the sexual acts committed by consenting, homosexual adults. And how in the world does homosexual behavior lead to bestiality?! The man's ignorance about homosexuality shows that he does not have the faintest idea of how sexuality functions. Furthermore, his statement of "they won't inherit the kingdom of G-d" also contradicts his later statement of "We never, ever judge someone on who's going to heaven, hell." But wait a second. You just said that you shouldn't judge people, but you managed to judge a whole group of people in a previous statement in the same interview. Whatever happened to "do not judge lest ye be judged (Matthew 7:1)?"

Exhibit B of just how disparaging Robertson's remarks were:

It seems like, to me, a vagina, as a man, would be more desirable than a man's anus. That's just me. I'm just thinking: There's more there! She's got more to offer. I mean, come on, dude, you know what I'm saying? But hey, sin: It's not logical, my man. It's just not logical.

Here's another example of "whatever happened to not judging people?" And how is such vulgar language about vaginas and anuses "Christian-like?" I thought the Christian Bible said such things as "let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth (Ephesians 4:29)," "if anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man's religion is worthless (James 1:26)," and "every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment (Matthew 12:36)." Would this sort of language be acceptable in church? I doubt it. Also, regardless of whether you agree with Robertson's remarks, his remarks were hurtful towards other people, especially when it comes to ignorantly reducing homosexuality to a single sex act. Jesus taught that after "love G-d," the most important commandment is "love your neighbor as you love yourself (Mark 12:28-31)." Robertson should have had this in mind before he began the interview. No one is perfect, but if you're going to become an advocate for Christian values, you can't be chiding someone for sinning while sinning in the same breath. Such behavior is hypocritical, but should I be so surprised that conservative Christians in this country are defending his behavior rather than condemning it?

Robertson clearly made ignorant and insulting remarks. The fact that Robertson is more obsessed with the "sin of homosexuality" is reflective of how out of whack the prioritization of "Christian values" are in this country. However, was it so bad that Robertson should have been suspended in the first place?

Sarah Palin jumped in and said that Robertson's free speech was being violated. What conservatives conveniently forget is that the First and Fourteenth amendments apply to the government's infringement of free speech. As already illustrated, Robertson's comments went well beyond the opinion of "the Bible says homosexuality is a sin." Since Robertson is being suspended for specific comments that had nothing to do with religious belief, he can't even claim that A&E is violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

More to the point, A&E, which is a private entity, made the decision to suspend Robertson after his interview violated the morals clause in his contract, a contract which he voluntarily signed. Robertson was not expressing his private views with his closest buddies at the bar. He was doing an interview promoting his show. The comments he made reflected poorly on A&E, and A&E thus had the right, nay, the obligation to enforce the contract.

Briefly, a word about being persecuted for his religious beliefs. Robertson is only being suspended. Anyone who is thoughtless or brainless enough to even think that "this is a sign that Christians are persecuted in this country" or there is a "war on Christianity" needs to pick up a book on the history of the Jewish people. Christians aren't being barred from celebrating Christmas or Easter. The government is not shutting down churches or forcing Christians to live in ghettos or to work in certain professions. There are no pogroms or inquisitions against Christians in this country. This is not a sign of Christian persecution. There is no inalienable right to be on A&E. This is a sign that people are becoming more accepting of homosexuals. Get over it, Religious Right!

Also, I love how conservatives clamor about how dissenting opinions are being punished in this country. However, do you think this is the first time someone has gotten punished for saying something offensive or idiotic? Alec Baldwin was just fired for homophobic slurs. What about Paula Dean, Helen Thomas, Michael Richards, Ozzie Guillen, the Dixie Chicks, and Don Imus? We now live in a society that is more accepting of the LGBT community. Saying such comments is comparable to any other racial slur. Actions have consequences. Speech is a form of action, and Robertson was most definitely exercising his freedom of speech when making his remarks. When you say something offensive, you pay for the consequences. Isn't personal responsibility a key feature of conservatism, or does that not apply to homophobic statements?

When the Chick-fil-a incident happened last year, the standard conservative response to naysayers was "this is the free market at work, deal with it." The shoe is now on the other foot. A private company is now making a decision that conservatives do not like. If conservatives are unhappy with the decision, they can either boycott A&E or petition to have Duck Dynasty aired on another channel that tolerates homophobic sentiments. Otherwise, conservatives are only showing that anti-gay bigotry is more important of a value of conservatism than free markets or personal responsibility. Much to the Religious Right's dismay, Robertson's suspension was well within the realm of free markets. Employers need to be given some freedom to run their business they way they see fit if there is to be a society built on freedom (see my take on anti-discrimination laws).

In spite of the progress that has been made with LGBT equality, Robertson's remarks are a reflection of how this country still has a long way to go in terms of shaping people's views of LGBT individuals. I hope that A&E doesn't cave into pressure and sends a message about how anti-gay statements do not belong in civil society.

Parsha Bereshit: The Joys of Dealing with Temptation

The creation of the universe, potent trees that give knowledge and life, a talking snake, and having a fourth of the world's population wiped out with a single murder. Yes, it is that time of year where we recommence the Torah cycle and start off with the Torah portion of Bereshit. One of the less commonly analyzed sections of Bereshit is the end of the Torah portion, where G-d is so disappointed with humanity that He intended to wipe out nearly all of mankind. A couple verses beforehand (Genesis 6:5), G-d saw just how low mankind had fallen. It was so bad that any thought that man had produced [in his heart] was non-stop, pure evil (וכל יצר מחשבת לבו רק רע כל היום). What are we supposed to take from this verse? Is is saying that man is really that immoral and irredeemable?

Viewing it from a Christian paradigm, the answer is an unequivocal "yes." In Christian theology, man is really that irredeemable. Unsurprisingly, I disagree with such an interpretation. First of all, G-d is delivering a judgment of mankind within a specific temporal context. This verse was not meant to be an eternal condemnation of mankind, but rather illustrating that free will's double-edged nature can either result in good or evil (and in this case, humanity opted for evil). Second, G-d doesn't judge for future sins; He only judges us for the culmination of past events and how that has made us who we are (JPS commentary on Genesis 6:5). Third, these individuals made a decision to choose evil. Even if there is a powerful inclination to commit evil, one of the joys of being human is we are beings created in His image, which means that we have the potential to choose good. As G-d states earlier in this week's Torah portion, "Sin crouches at the door, but you can overcome it (Genesis 4:7)."

One of the many things I appreciate about Judaism is its ability to adapt to reality. As my previous comments imply, Judaism does not have a rosy picture of human nature. As Genesis 6:5 points out, mankind has the potential to be horrid. Picking up a history book or newspaper and reading it confirms that reality. Even so, man's proclivity towards doing bad, or what Judaism calls the יצר הרע (the evil inclination; yetzer hara), is only part of the equation. As can also be observed, man can choose to be good by committing good deeds.

But wait....how is any of this ideal? Weren't we supposed to enjoy the idyllic peace in the Garden of Eden? In my humble opinion, no. If we had everything handed to us, life would be boring and numb. Additionally, although there was a disobedience element to Adam and Eve's eviction out of the Garden of Eden, it was ultimately their inability to take personal responsibility and perform acts of teshuvah. We weren't created to be angels. Not to be tautological, but we were created as humans. Being created in His image means we have a divine spark, and that a part of us is divine, which is great. Nevertheless, we still have that animalistic part of our selves. There is a famous parable in which the yetzer hara is captured for a few days. What the rabbis noticed is that no one built a home, engaged in business, or got married. There wasn't even a single laid-egg because even the animals lost their drive! The moral of the story here (Talmud, Yoma 69b) is that if we eliminiated this "evil inclination," all of human and animal life would cease to exist. Our yetzer hara literally is a necessary evil, and as R. Joseph Telushkin points out (A Code of Jewish Ethics, Vol. 1, p. 36), we are here to channel our "evil" inclination for the betterment of ourselves, mankind, and to serve G-d.

Additionally, the Talmud (Kedushin 30b) takes a look at Genesis 6:5. In Rashi's commentary on Kedushin 30b, he points out that כל היום that the evil inclination is constantly making its move in terms of tempting us to do wrong. Both the evil inclination and the good inclination are in play, which means if the spiritual bar is set so high where we ask ourselves "What would G-d do," then we're bound to screw up because not to be tautological, we're only human. We will err. We are here to do our best. That is why G-d had such foresight that He created teshuvah before He created the universe (Talumd, Pesachim 54a).

So how do we deal with the yetzer hara? There has been much ink spilled to answer this question, but I will nevertheless provide a brief answer. In hopes of not sounding too cliché, we deal with it one day at a time. Throughout our entire lives, we will have situations that test us. Sometimes, the choice will be easy to make, and other times, doing the right thing will border on being unbearably difficult. There are people who think that sounds painful. Being responsible and having to make decisions is not easy. It is simpler to have someone make decisions for you. But that is not what being free is about. Our ability to choose between right and wrong is the very thing that makes us human. Rather than shy away from it, we should take the gift that Adam and Eve gave us and live our lives to the fullest, which is the way G-d intended.

What War on Christmas?

For years, you have heard Bill O'Reilly clamor about it.  The Christian Right in this country fears it.  Even Rick Perry brought it up in his recent gaffe of an advertisement.  Yes, it is that most wonderful time of year: to bring up the War on Christmas.

Recent cases that are supposed to prove that there is a "war on Christmas" are attempts to ban the construction of a Nativity scene on public school property or re-naming the Christmas tree a "holiday tree."

If this war honestly existed, let me tell you what it would look like.  There would be public burnings of Christmas trees.  Those dressed up like Santa Claus would be assaulted.  Churches would be vandalized.  Giving a Christmas mass or praying to Jesus in public would have you detained by the police.  If you want to see what religious persecution actually looks like, take a look at Jewish history.      

If you're still not convinced, take a look at polling.  Rasmussen shows that 70% of Americans prefer the greeting "Merry Christmas" to "Happy Holidays."  Gallup polls are even better.  Not only do 51% of Americans consider Christmas to be 'strongly religious' for them, but more than 90% in this country celebrate Christmas.  Something tells me that Christmas will continue to be a part of American society and culture.

Why is it that those who are delusional about this "war" prioritize better?  What about worrying why Christmas has become a celebration of rampant materialism?  Or better yet, why not worry about real problems such as unemployment, increasing health care costs, or insolvent government spending?  Rather than appease the Religious Right in some fictitious war, maybe O'Reilly and his ilk should be thankful that Christians throughout America can worship their religion freely.

Why Biblical Literalism Is Folly

Biblical literalism is the claim that presents Scripture as the explicit, literal, inerrant word of G-d.  It is the hermeneutics most commonly associated with Evangelical and fundamentalist Christians.  Such a reading of Scripture has brought about phenomena in American society such as the Moral Majority and the Creationist Movement, amongst others.  It seems straightforward and to the point.  What can possibly be wrong with it?


1) Translation issues.  The Hebrew Scriptures were written in Biblical Hebrew.  The Christian "New Testament" was written in ancient Greek.  When Christians read the Hebrew Scriptures, they are reading the translation of the Sepuginant, which is a Greek translation of the Hebrew.  That means that the Christian rendering of the Hebrew Scriptures is a translation of a translation.  As any linguist will tell you, translations are inadequate at best and shoddy at worst.  Why?  It's much more than worrying about any biases the translator might have.  It's because there are certain words that do not translate well [or at all] into the English language.  Chabad points out three such examples: צדקה ("charity"), תשובה ("repentance"), and תפלה ("prayer").  It goes without saying that there is hardly any Christian [in this country] that has some sort of working knowledge, let alone an awareness, of these linguistic intricacies.  That being the case, how can any Christian assert that they have the "literal, inerrant word of G-d?"  To close this point off with an anecdote.  I brought this point up with a Christian once.  His response was that "if English was good enough for Jesus, it was good enough for me."  I brought up that Jesus spoke Aramaic, not to mention the fact that English did not exist as a language during Jesus' time.  This did not shake the Christian's assertion.  Enough said!


2) Inevitability of interpretation.  What Biblical literalists do not understand is that even if you have a divine text, once humans get their hands on it, it is going to be subject to interpretation.  At the very minimum, you have to ask whether a verse is to be read broadly or narrowly.  What do I mean by that?  Does the verse apply to a specific context?  Does the verse apply to all peoples for all times?  Are we able to extrapolate a lesson, moral, or value out of a verse, whether it is in context or not?  


Furthermore, what do you do when two values are in direct conflict with one another?  Just to give an example, this is what one would try to figure out what "Honor thy mother and father" means if one's father is smoking two packs of cigarettes a day.  Do you respect your father's wishes, even though he is being self-destructive, or do you stop him from partaking in such behavior?   


Also, there are many verses that are ambiguous in the Bible.  A verse can offer multiple interpretations, and there can very well be some interpretations upon which we have yet to stumble.  In Jewish thought, we call this "eilu v'eilu."  In Jewish exegesis, there is an acronymic concept called pardes, which encompasses multiple forms of interpretation, including the surface reading of the text, the homiletic, the allegorical, the philosophical, and the mystical.  Being able to interpret a given verse with context allows for such diversity of opinion to exist.  For Christian fundamentalists to say that "this is the meaning of the verse" is as limiting as it is inaccurate.  


3) Scientific Issues.  The most prominent issue from a scientific standpoint would be the Creation story.  Literalists claim that G-d created the world in six 24-hour periods, even though science begs to differ.  This causes Christians to do anything from denying the scientific findings to opining that G-d planted dinosaur bones in the ground during Creation to "test our faith."  This literalism has caused a dialectical relationship between science and religion in this country, which creates the illusion that one or the other is correct.  As scientist Gerald Schroeder illustrates, the Torah does not have to conflict with scientific findings.  Maimonides even went as far to say that if a scientific claim is demonstrably true, then we are not to read it with its plain meaning (i.e., we read it allegorically).  This would mean that science becomes a significant measure for how we interpret the Torah.  Science does not have to negate religion, and vice versa.  It is all a matter of how we interpret the text.    


4) Textual inconsistencies. There are differences between the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures that cause multiple contradistinctions between the two religions.  Just to name a few: One, Christianity believes that sin rules over man, whereas Judaism believes that man can rule over sin (Genesis 4:7). Jews believe that Satan is an "adversary" that can be overcome. Christianity believes that Jesus died for our sins, whereas Judaism believes that the individual has the ability to atone for his sins through his actions, prayer, and sincere devotion to make sure that the sin doesn’t repeat itself. Christianity believes in a triune deity (Matthew 28:19), whereas Judaism believes that G-d is One (Deuteronomy 6:4). Christians believe that man is G-d (John 10:30), whereas Jews believe that G-d is not a mortal (Numbers 23:19), as it would diminish His divinity and eternality. For Christians, Jesus is an intermediary. For Jews, G-d is accessible 24/7 (Psalms 145:18).  For a Christian looking at this honestly, the quandary is whether to either deny the claims of Hebrew Scriptures or those of the Christian New Testament.


In addition, you can find inconsistencies within the Christian New Testament itself, most notably in the story of the Resurrection.  This is telling because Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection is the cornerstone of Christian theology.  No resurrection, no Christianity!  Literalism is a problem with the Resurrection story because there are literally four different versions of the story.  The discrepancies of these versions do not have to do with emotions or any other facet of personal perspective.  They have to do with dates, times, and places.  Literalism is problematic here because no less than three of the Gospels are lying.  If the text is lying in this aspect, how are we able to trust Christian Scriptures as inerrant or "the literal word of G-d?"        


5) Moral Issues.  Reading certain verses literally is morally problematic from a Christian perspective. Jesus said that he was brought here to not bring peace [to earth], but to bring the sword (Matthew 10:34).  At least one of Jesus' followers took him literally and took up the sword (Luke 22:49-50).  Jesus also says that you have to hate your family in order to become a disciple of his (Luke 14:26).  The story of the fig tree is no less flattering of a depiction of Jesus.  If we were to take the story literally, Jesus comes off as an impudent child throwing a tantrum rather than a deity.  Another intriguing passage comes along in Mark 1 (verses 4, 9) where Jesus is baptized.  If the purpose of baptism is to wash away sin (Acts 22:12-16), then what sin did Jesus commit?  Does that not mean that Jesus himself, being a man, was imperfect?  


Postscript: Christians who subscribe to biblical literalism adhere to some non-existent disclaimer that the Bible has to be read their way.  They are incapable of explaining any of the aforementioned issues away without an inordinate amount of theological acrobatics, all of which are inexplicable to the rational mind.  And believe me when I say that many more examples can be cited to point out issues with biblical literalism.  So why would a Christian succumb to such a mode of interpretation?  Because it's simplistic and easy to do.  It does not involve much thought or work since all that the individual is doing is accepting the verse "at face value," whatever that may mean.  Interpretation actually takes time and effort, not to mention grappling with all sorts of realities that come from questioning and inquiring.  And since the premise behind being a good Christian is unquestionable faith in Jesus and his sacrifice, questioning and inquiring are anything but strong suits of Christianity.  


Biblical literalism is a product of the black-and-white thinking of fundamentalist thought.  One of the alluring facets of any fundamentalism is that it simplifies everything and gives the false notion of "having all the answers."  Biblical literalism is an attempt to insulate oneself from reality because with biblical literalism comes certitude.  Certitude is such a nice feeling to have in an uncertain world.  Escapism is easier than dealing with reality.  The desire for this level of spiritual comfort robs us not only of our senses, but of our rational faculties.  Biblical literalists, along with any other fundamentalists, will cling to their belief system, no matter what facts are presented, much like those presented here today.  Deluding reality is ultimately the folly of biblical literalism.       

Revisiting Isaiah 53

About a year ago, I had done an analysis on the Suffering Servant passage of Isaiah 53 since this passage that Christians use to "prove" that Jesus was the Messiah.  It should go without saying that their claim is without merit.  It's nothing more than an example of Christians using eisegesis, i.e., they read their preconceived notions into the verse to misinterpret the verse and read what they want to read. 

Although my analysis was more than adequate, I had found another one recently published by Aish HaTorah, written by Marshall Roth, that was even more thorough than mine.  Let me say that this analysis is spot on!  Roth first goes through the context of the verse, including how the Jewish people have been referred to as a single entity on more than one occasion.  He then takes each verse and shows how the Suffering Servant refers to the Jewish people and not Jesus.  Roth then concludes with how early Christian figures read the verse with the same interpretation that Judaism uses. 

Understanding this verse properly is of importance.  This passage was not meant to guilt trip people into believing in Jesus.  It is meant to outline that upon the coming of the Messiah, the other nations will realize how they have erred in persecuting the Jewish people.  May we see the coming of the Messiah sooner rather than later!

When a Scapegoat Doesn't Cut It

This week's Torah portion (Leviticus 16:8-10) has a peculiar practice that is referred to as the "scapegoat ritual" (עזאזל).  Essentially, the sacrificial ritual of two goats is supposed to cleanse one of all sins, thereby bearing off all their iniquities (16:22).  My Christian friends see this and attempt to extrapolate this practice to the cruxificion of Jesus since that, too, allegedly did away with all iniquities. 

I never liked this ritual.  Sacrificing two goats is too simplistic of a solution towards repentance.  Much like with kapparot, it doesn't create a sincere sense of repentance.  The fact that the ritual had to be done on an annual basis is all the more evidence that the ritual was not as effective as one would have hoped.  As this D'var Torah points out, there's another issue with the ritual.  In verses 29-30, we're still told to celebrate Yom Kippur.  If the scapegoat ritual was supposed to cleanse the people of Israel of all their sins, why would there be any need for Yom Kippur? Michael Carasik provides an answer:

In the ritual metaphysics of sin and its removal, perhaps they have been. Figuratively removing sin from the locale continues to be part of Jewish observance; on Rosh Hashanah, New Year's Day, Jews throw bread into the water in the ceremony known as tashlikh.....Like the scapegoat ritual, this serves (if only symbolically) to carry sin away from the sinner and into the void. The solemn ritual of animal sacrifice—meant, as some of the traditional commentators explain, to shift the punishment the sinner himself deserves to an animal—must have worked similarly. But neither ritual is enough to complete the job.

A scapegoat, as we use the word today, is someone who takes the fall for the person who is really responsible for the crime. But when what you want is not to shift the blame but genuinely to cleanse yourself of your misdeed, neither a scapegoat nor any other kind of vicarious punishment, even in the form of animal sacrifice, is sufficient. You must afflict yourself—not because G-d desires such affliction, but because you might not feel truly cleansed unless you, too, feel some of G-d's distress at the existence of sin.

A point I like to bring up time and again is that ritual is the means, not the ends.  The ritual may or may not have the intended impact of sobering the individual to not sin in the future.  However, by making Yom Kippur necessary even though their is a scapegoat ritual teaches us something more.  True repentance comes through realizing what you have done, making up for it, and vowing never to do it again.  That has been and will always be the prevailing message of Yom Kippur.  Although it's not the High Holidays, it's still always a good time to realize what we have done wrong, compensate for it, do our best to make sure we don't do it again, and thereby grow in the process.  G-d didn't create us to have a goat wipe away our sins.  He created us so we can grow as individuals, and that's what repentance is all about.

Jesus Was Not the Messiah! Can We Lay This One to Rest?

This was an argument I recently got into with a fellow alumnus from Lawrence University, who happened to be Christian: Was Jesus the Messiah?  I was trying to figure out why this became such a contentious debate.  It had something to do with the thesis that Christianity presents, which is Jesus fulfilled the Messianic prophecies according to Hebrew Scriptures (תַּנַ"ךְ).  I cannot emphasize the "according to Hebrew Scriptures" part enough.  Just about any other theological claim they make, such as Jesus dying for my sins, Immaculate Conception, the Resurrection, etc., are primarily based in the Christian New Testament.  This claim has a different nature to it because the Christian will lecture me on how I should read my own religious text.  This claim comes with a lot of chutzpah because when I am analyzing the text, I am actually reading it in the original Hebrew.  The Christian, on the other hand, is reading an English translation of the Sepuginant.  For those of you who don't know, the Sepuginant is the Greek translation of the תַּנַ"ךְ‎.  Just so we have that one cleared up, virtually every Christian is reading a translation of a translation.  I can think of no other major religion that discourages, whether intentionally or otherwise, to read what they consider their most sacred of scriptures in its original language.  Just from being multi-lingual myself, I know that meanings get lost in one translation.  Imagine what happens in two!  I never understood how a Christian could not only put so much faith in a translation of a translation, but then have the audacity to tell me that they have a better understanding of the text when I do.

The other reason why this dispute is so confrontational is because the Christian affirmation that Jesus was the Messiah is a negation of Judaism, whereas Judaism's assertion that the Messiah has not arrived is a negation of Christianity. 

With that in consideration, let's get back to the actual fulfillment of the prophecies.  I want to make the argument simpler, and thus make the question simpler: "Were the Messianic prophecies fulfilled?"  I don't want to get into who allegedly fulfilled the prophecies, simply if they were fulfilled. I will, however, add comments specific to Jesus since they have bearing on the conversation.  Therefore, if the claim is that the prophecies in תַּנַ"ךְ‎ were fulfilled, that means the criteria have to be in the תַּנַ"ךְ‎.  That means that you cannot add any new criteria to the list or make up any. Otherwise, you would negate your own thesis.  After listing the criteria, you need to acquire the answer to fulfillment by consulting history.  Let us take a look at the authentic Messianic prophecies:

1) Genealogical. The Messiah must be descended from the House of David (Jeremiah 33:17-20, 1 Chronicles 17:11-12).  Under Jewish law, lineage is traced through the biological father (Numbers 1:18-44, 34:14, Leviticus 24:10). According to the Christian New Testament, Jesus was born of Immaculate Conception (Matthew 1:18), which means Jesus had no biological father.  Having no biological father means that you cannot be considered as a candidate for the Messiah. You can’t use Joseph as Jesus’ father because he was adopted, and the genealogy thus cannot be passed through adoption. But for argument’s sake, let's give Christians yet another benefit of a doubt and use Joseph for a moment. The Christian New Testament has two genealogies for Jesus, one from Matthew (chapter 1) and one from Luke (chapter 3). Not only can these two not agree on who Jesus’ [adopted] grandfather was, but more glaringly, there are an additional fifteen generations in Luke’s version that are not in Matthew’s!  Plus, these two genealogies conflict with the account of David's actual genealogy given in Chronicles 1:3.  If the Christian New Testament were a divine text, I would question its veracity based on this discrepancy. This is particularly ironic since Paul says that we should avoid foolish genealogies (Titus 3:3, 1 Timothy 1:4).  Furthermore, this is very problematic for Christendom because this is the only authentic messianic criterion that Christianity claims that Jesus actually fulfilled.

2) Bringing the people Israel out of exile and back to the land of Israel (Isaiah 11:12, 27:12-13, Jeremiah 33:7). Jesus could not have possibly have fulfilled this prophecy since the people Israel were still living in Israel during his life. What’s more is that the people of Israel were expelled from the land shortly after Jesus’ death.  It is difficult for an alleged Messianic candidate to have brought people back from exile when they were not even in exile in the first place.  Even today, approximately 60% of Jews are still in exile, so to say that this prophecy has ever been fulfilled is inaccurate.

3) Building of the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28, Micah 4:1, Isaiah 2:2-3). During Jesus’ lifetime, the Second Temple was still standing, and shortly after Jesus’ death, the Second Temple was destroyed. To this very day, there still is no Third Temple, and we are thus awaiting its construction.

4) Universal peace (Isaiah 2:4, Micah 4:3, Ezekiel 37:26). Jesus himself did not embody this prophecy when he said that “he didn’t come to send peace but the sword (Matthew 10:34).” Even if you were to contend that the verse is taken out of context, it doesn’t matter because all you have to do is open a history textbook and a newspaper to know that universal peace has not come to mankind during any point since the prophecy has been made.

5) Universal knowledge and recognition of G-d (Isaiah 11:9, 40:5, Zephaniah 3:9, Jeremiah 31:33).  Christians will claim that over two billion people are Christians.  This ignores the fact that the other five billion people in the world are not Christian.  They also have forgotten that they are claiming that they are fulfilling תַּנַ"ךְ‎, which means that the divinity in reference is Infinite Oneness, not some triune deity (please see Zechariah 14:9).  Since not everybody in the world is a pure monotheist, this is yet another prophecy has yet to be fulfilled.

Christian apologetics will contend that the "peace" is in our hearts and that Israel is not an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly kingdom.  We have to remember that if Christians are claiming to have fulfilled a certain text, the criteria have to come from that particular text, or they are actually fulfilling something else.  Much to a Christian's dismay, both the universal peace and the prophecies referring to Israel are very much in reference to this world, not some otherworldly realm.

A similar argument can be made for Jesus supposedly fulfilling these during a Second Coming, which comes with its own problems.  For one, there is no mentioning of a Second Coming in the תַּנַ"ךְ‎.  Second, this notion is strictly a Christian one, one that seems to be derived from, as Rabbi David Wolpe puts it, a Christian disappointment in Jesus' death and a theological compensation for Jesus' failure to redeem the world [as Messiah].  Third, we are technically dealing with Jesus' third coming.  The first coming covers the period prior to Jesus' death and the second coming spans the period from his alleged resurrection to his alleged ascension.  Fourth, this would subsequently discredit Jesus' first coming.  Anybody can round up religious disciples, and upon death, claim that they are going to be resurrected in the Second Coming.  In all sincerity, either you or I could make that claim!  Finally, the Christian New Testament reports that Jesus' return would be imminent (Matthew 16:28, 24:34, Luke 21:31-32, Mark 13:30), i.e. within the lifetime of Jesus' contemporaries.  The passing of nearly two millennia without Jesus' return further enfeebles the Christian argument that Jesus was the Messiah. 

Postscript: Christians claim the Jesus has fulfilled the Messianic prophecies according to תַּנַ"ךְ‎, which means that they are de facto claiming that they have fulfilled Judaism.  In order to do that, they need to prove that these prophecies have been fulfilled according to תַּנַ"ךְ, and subsequently according to Judaism.  As illustrated, we have yet arrived at the point in time in which we can say that the Messianic prophecies have been fulfilled.  Any Christian attempt to explain this glaring reality away has to concoct responses that are separate from the authentic Messianic prophecies, meaning that they are fulfilling something else rather than תַּנַ"ךְ‎.  By using such responses as the Second Coming or that "Israel is in reference to an otherworldly realm," Christians are not responding with evidence.  As Rabbi Mordechai Becher puts it, "They are answers because the evidence go against the thesis [that Jesus was the Messiah]. You can't bring me 'proof' from an answer you are making up (i.e., it is not one of the criterion laid out in the Hebrew Scriptures) in order to deal with contrary evidence."  In summation, Christians have underminded the very thesis they hold dear and have come up with these theological acrobatics to attempt to justify their belief in a failed messiah.  The fact of the matter is that an ample look at Scriptures proves indubitably that we are still waiting for the day that these prophecies are actually fulfilled, and let's hope that they are fulfilled sooner rather than later.

For further information on the topic, please consult the following sources:

• Faith Strengthened, a website that copiously refutes Christian claims
• Jews for Judaism, an anti-missionary organization with superb sources
• 26 Reasons Jews Don't Believe in Jesus, a great book where the title speaks for itself
• The Real Messiah by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan
• Why Jews Don't Accept Jesus, an article written by Conservative Rabbi Daniel Wolpe
• Why Jews Don't Believe in Jesus, an article written by Orthodox Rabbi Shraga Simmons
• Outreach Judaism, an anti-missionary organization started by Rabbi Tovia Singer
• The Hebrew Scriptures, in the original Hebrew

Do I Like Christmas? Nope!

One of the reasons why I love this country so much is because of its religious plurality. Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Atheists can work side by side and, for the most part, get along quite well, even in spite of their differences. A lot of that amicability is due to the high levels of religious freedom that this nation offers. I can practice my religion without government interference, and my non-Jewish neighbors can do the same.

Just becuase I have great respect for the religious freedoms afforded by the First Amendment doesn't mean that I think that Christmas is “the most wonderful time of the year.” I actually find it to be one of the most fastidious times of the year. Some would probably think that it’s because I’m a miserly Scrooge who doesn’t want to “get into the holiday cheer.”

It’s not that I’m miserly or that I’m a fictional character. It’s because I truly don’t want to get into the holiday cheer. I am a practicing Jew! I cannot emphasize that point enough. I grew up as a Catholic and had the holiday cheer. Since my conversion to Judaism, those days have long since past.

If you take Judaism or being Jewish seriously, there is no way you can celebrate Christmas. As my Christian friends remind me, there is a reason why they call it Christmas, and why we need to “put the ‘Christ’ back in Christmas.” Although the holiday has become secularized in this country, a point upon which I will elaborate momentarily, the primary reason for Christmas is to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. The notion of rejoicing in the alleged Immaculate Conception is highly problematic for a practicing Jew such as myself because the very notion of G-d being born is pagan in nature. The Jesus story is based on a combination of other myths from surrounding pagan cultures.  For instance, Attis was a Roman g-d born of the virgin Cybele on December 25th.  Both Osiris and Dionysus were born from mortal virgins and both were claimed to be the son of G-d.  Even Krishna, the Hindu deity, was part of a trinity, was adopted by a human carpenter, and was considered to be a g-d-man. There are too many pre-Chrisian mythologies that have elements of the story of Jesus.  The amount of "coincidences" here just add up to the point where one can hardly consider it a coincidence.  Why is this problematic?  One of the cornerstones of Judaism is a belief in pure monotheism. To accept the Jesus story is 100% idolatry, which is a grave offense in Jewish law.

In spite of the holiday’s pagan origins, many Americans view the holiday as a secular celebration, as this poll from Lifeway, a Christian organization, suggests. Even if one could separate the religious aspects from it, which would be a difficult task unto itself, that doesn’t make Christmas any less annoying. The most popular secular part of Christmas is gift-giving. It also happens to be something I find exceptionally nauseating because it epitomizes the rampant materialism that is so prevalent in this country. Material wealth doesn’t buy happiness. More material goods do not translate into happiness. That is why short of those exceptionally poor people who cannot provide themselves with the most basic needs, there is no noticeable difference in happiness between the rich, middle-class, and the poor. And because of that, the euphoria of the one-day gift-giving frenzy peters off very quickly, most Americans return to their Prozac-popping, rat-racing, pedantic, mundane lives. If the “greatest joy of the year” is predicated on accruing material goods, then it’s no wonder that so many Americans are spiritually stymied and are incapable of understanding religion.

Also, can someone explain the concept of Secret Santa to me? It’s nothing more than a pathetic attempt at acquiring a feeling of altruism. If the gifts in Secret Santa are approximately the same amount for each person, then it’s really no different than buying the gift yourself. After all, the same amount of money came from your wallet. Secret Santa is merely a loophole in the appropriation of goods that makes somebody feel like they have a giving nature. If you truly have a giving nature, that would show in your actions year-round.

And who can forget the Christmas meal? All it illustrates is that Christmas is just another day for Americans to eat a ton of unhealthy food, watch a lot of TV (e.g., It’s a Wonderful Life and Miracle on 34th Street), and to continue with the sedentary lifestyle that perpetuates the ever-rising costs in our healthcare system.

Christmas does, however, have one nice element. Many celebrate Christmas as time with family. Going back to the previously mentioned poll, that is what 81% of celebrators emphasize: family. And if your family lives on the other side of the country, that’s great. It gives a family a reason to meet up at least once a year. But it becomes very sad when that’s not the case. Many families either live within the same household or within driving distance. When this is the only time of year a family spends together, which does happen more often than a “head-in-the-clouds optimist” would ever like to admit, Christmas points out the decay of one of society’s most important institutions.

My final reason for why I cannot stand this time of year is when people think that Chanukah is the “Jewish Christmas.” It is nothing like Christmas. The fact that the 25th of Kislev, which is the first night of Chanukah, falls in proximity of December 25th does not make them identical. It is a minor holiday on the Jewish calendar. It’s one of the few holidays during which a Jew can work. And the gift-giving aspect really kicked into gear so that secular Jews didn’t feel so left out during the holiday season.

What is Chanukah? Chanukah is primarily the celebration of a military victory a little over two millennia ago. One of the main lessons we derive from what led up to the militaristic upheaval is the fact that the traditionalist Jews beat out the Hellenistic Jews [that were trying to assimilate]. Because the Hellenistic Jews were hell-bent on making Judaism more like the surrounding culture, the Maccabees were set on making sure that Jewish tradition was not lost for good. The fact that Jews are taught to maintain their Jewish identity, rather than give into cultural assimilation, makes the analogy between the two holidays all the more based on ignorance.

Do I miss Christmas? Goodness, no! I don’t miss the heyday of having to go to packed stores to buy people presents. I don’t miss singing carols by the Christmas tree. I don’t even really miss getting presents.  And I definitely don't miss putting ornaments on the Christmas tree.  Do I need Christmas? Most certainly not! I have much more than Chanukah. I have Rosh Hashanah, Sukkot, Simchat Torah, Tu B’Shevat, Purim, Peasch, Shavuot, the list goes on. Not only do I have all of those holidays, I also get a holiday every week: Shabbat. For whatever joy I gave up for Christmas, which is nothing more than a blur of nostalgia at this stage in life, I have not only gained more holidays quantitatively, but the quality of the holidays is much more profound than anything I ever found celebrating Christmas.

G-d Is One, Not Three

I've been reading The Limits of Orthodox Theology by Rabbi Marc Shapiro, which has given me the opportunity to re-evaluate Maimonides' Thirteen Principles.  My main reason for skipping the First Principle, which is that G-d exists, is because I already tackled that topic a few months ago. 

Maimonides' Second Principle is the following:

We believe that this Primal Cause [G-d] is One. [His is] not like the oneness of a pair, nor like the oneness of a species, nor like man, whose complex oneness may be divided into many units, nor like the oneness of a simple body, which is one in number but may be divided and separated without end. Rather, He is One with a Oneness that knows no parallel in any manner. This is the Second Principle, as affirmed by the verse (Deut. 6:4): "Hear O Israel, G-d is our Lord, G-d is One."


Just so we have the Hebrew text for Deuteronomy 6:4 so there are no doubts:

שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָד

Although I have had some Christians explain that the word אחד means "unique" because it describes Jesus' unique trait of being triune, that is simply not true because Hebrew has another word for "unique": יחיד.  Since that doesn't work too well, Christians then will cite two examples of אחד accompanying a compound unity:

וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לָאוֹר יוֹם, וְלַחֹשֶׁךְ קָרָא לָיְלָה; וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר, יוֹם אֶחָד.

And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. -Genesis 1:5

וַיִּכְרְתוּ מִשָּׁם זְמוֹרָה וְאֶשְׁכּוֹל עֲנָבִים אֶחָד....

"....and cut down from thence a branch with one cluster of grapes." -Numbers 13:23

If you took these two examples alone, you would think that the word אחד always refers to a compound unity.  Upon closer examination, there's another story to tell.  Let's first keep in mind that out of the other 960 usages of the word אחד in Hebrew Scriptures, which constitute as over 99% of the word's usage, אחד is unambiguously used as a numeric adjective referring to the number "one."

We should take a look at these two "anomalies" and see if we can get past the confusion.  Let's take an example in English, simply because the concept carries over in Hebrew.  When you're talking about a dozen eggs, are you referring to the twelve eggs or the specific grouping thereof?  Although the word "dozen" implies that there are twelve eggs, you are still referring to the single entity: a dozen.  It is the same principle within these verses.  אחד is modifying the word אשכול (cluster), not ענבים (grapes).  Even in these two instances, you are referring to the grouped entity, not the components within the entity.  No matter how you look at it, one is still one.

So let's take another look at the phrase יהוה אחד in Deuteronomy 6:4, which means "G-d is one."  In the present tense in Hebrew, there is no conjugation for the verb "to be."  The meaning of "to be" in the present tense is always implied by context: the absence of a verb.  Since we know that this verse is in the present tense, the word אחד is a de facto stative verb, meaning that אחד in this passage unambiguously translates to "is one."  Although you had the word ענבים in Numbers 13:23 in order to attempt to create some doubt, there is nothing in this declaration to suggest a compound entity. Finally, anytime the word יְהוָה, the personal name to denote G-d, is used approximately 6,800 in Hebrew Scriptures, there is never, ever a plural verb or adjective used to describe G-d; it is always in the singular.

G-d is not a triune deity.  As the grammatical rules of Hebrew dictate, יהוה אחד unquestionably means "G-d is one."  Any Christian who purports otherwise does not believe in monotheistic notion of G-d that is clearly laid out in Hebrew Scriptures.

Parsha Bereshit: The Entitlement Mentality and the Meaning of "Being Created in His Image"

People whose religious leanings are more inclined to the Left, whether they be Jewish or Christian, love to invoke the phrase "man is created in His image" about as often as they do "love your neighbor as your love yourself."  For the religiously liberal individual, being created "in His image" is a nice, feel-good way of telling a certain individual that he is innately good.

Allow me to express my skepticism that being "created in His image" simply means "being a Homo Sapien."  For starters, what do we do with all of the Hannibal Lecters, Hitlers, and the myriad of morally indefensible individuals that have existed throughout time?  I hope to touch upon this thought in a moment. 

But let us take a look at the two major religions that use this verse: Christianity and Judaism.  Christianity does not believe that man is innately good.  Au contraire!  Christians believe that Original Sin renders an individual innately evil, and that the only salvation for man is through Jesus Christ.  To best summarize Jewish thought on this topic, Judaism is skeptical about man's nature, but nevertheless that man possesses the potential to do good.

If neither Judaism nor Christianity advocates the innate goodness of man, then where is its origin?  Although many philosophers and theologians have debated the nature of man, the individual responsible for shaping this modern view is secular philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau.  Rousseau believed that man's nature was innately good, and that it was society that corrupted the individual.  This philosophical belief has been so piquant that it became a foundation of the modern-day Left.  And voilà, another example of how secular liberalism has become the religion for many on the Left.

But if "being created in His image" is not the equivalent of a spiritual welfare check, then what does it mean?  I am truly happy that I read Rabbi Marc Angel's D'var Torah this morning because it helped provide me an important insight to this weighty question.  As Rabbi Angel succinctly puts it:

Perhaps the Torah is teaching us an ideal concept about human potential. G-d created the first human beings, Adam and Eve, in "His image", as a lesson to subsequent human beings that they, too, can find this "image" within themselves. If they fully develop their human capacities, they will discover the "image of G-d" within themselves. But this "image" is not an automatic birthright: it has to be earned. It exists in potential, and it is our task to realize that potential (own emphasis added). Human beings who do not nourish the "image of G-d" within themselves thereby dehumanize themselves, and deprive themselves of their spiritual potential.

This adds a level of spiritual meaning to what I had already perceived of what it meant to be "created in His image."  To summarize my thoughts back in May on the topic, I had found that "being created in His image" either meant the endowment of free will in moral issues or the divinely given intellectual capacities that humans possess.  Rabbi Angel's commentary links these two Jewish interpretations together: both involve the potential that the human has.

The idea of potential addresses the more nefarious individual.  As Rabbi Angels states, "murderers and terrorists and hate-mongers are examples of people who have, in a profound sense, forfeited their 'image of G-d.' When the Torah teaches that humans were created in G-d's 'image,' this should be seen as a challenge and opportunity, not as an automatic gift that requires no further action on our part."  What Angel is saying is that there are certain individuals that are so spiritually off the deep end that they have stinted any potential for truly "being in His image."

I will conclude with these thoughts.  If I can't stand when a certain individual receives a handout from the government, do you honestly think I would advocate such a view in the spiritual realm?  Being good is not derived from passivity.  It is the culmination of actively pursuing good deeds.  G-d created us with faults, but He also created us with the ability to improve upon ourselves.  That is the purpose of life: to climb the ladder of spirituality to raise ourselves closer and closer to G-dliness.  It is a lifetime goal that needs constant pursuit.  By working on our own "image of G-d," we can refine ourselves intellectually, morally, and spiritually, which will ultimately translate into the prevailing refinement of society.

Isaiah 53: May the Real Servant Please Stand Up?

When reading Isaiah 53 upon first glance, you could attribute this passage to the suffering of Jesus, presuming that you read the Christian New Testament first and then read this passage retrospectively. I can understand that from a Christian perspective, this passage is the slam dunk for Christian apologetics. Not only that, but reading the verse in such a manner has a lot at stake. It is the only verse in Tanach that remotely sounds Christian, which sticks a craw in a Jew’s theological backside. For Christendom, this chapter unquestionably talks about Jesus. For Jewry, however, we have to step back, pause, and analyze the text simply because the Christian interpretation of this passage is out of place within the greater context of the Tanach.

This begs the question: who is the suffering servant? Is the servant Jesus, as the Christians purport, or is it somebody else? Do we have any textual or contextual analysis that can be done in order to shed some light on who this servant is? If there is not, then a Christian interpretation is just as good as the Jewish one—both unsubstantiated. Fortunately, we don’t have to take that path since we have ample evidence to give us the answer to this question.

Before going into greater textual analysis, we need to know where in Isaiah we are. At this point, we are in the midst of the “Messages of Consolation," which tells how the people Israel will be restored to its previous status of prominence and will ultimately be vindicated as G-d’s people. The fourth [of four] Suffering Servant passages, i.e. the one in question, actually starts at Isaiah 52:13, not at the beginning of Isaiah 53 because the Tanach initially did not have the modern-day chapter divisions.

Now that we know where in the story we are, we can begin. At 52:13, Isaiah says, “Behold, My servant shall prosper.” Who is the servant? Good question. Are we able to use the text to figure out who the servant is? Fortunately, yes. This is the part that lacks ambiguity. In previous Suffering Servant songs, the servant is already identified as the people Israel (Isaiah 41:8-9, 44:1-2, 44:21, 45:4, 48:20, 49:3). Just to reiterate this very, very important point: Tanach does not refer to the suffering servant as Jesus, much less the Messiah.  The Suffering Servant is unquestionably the people Israel personified!

In case, for whatever strange reason, the explicit and unambiguous statement that the Suffering Servant as the people Israel is insufficient, let’s dive a bit further into the text:

• The narrator of this Suffering Servant passage is the gentile nations and their kings, who are speaking through Isaiah’s prophecies. We can confirm this with Isaiah 53:1 that states “who would have believed what we have heard?”
• Isaiah 53:3 states that the servant would be “despised and isolated from men.” Hatred of the Jew and living in ghettos are predominant motifs of Jewish history. The same cannot be said of Jesus, since he was supposedly a “man loved by all (Luke 4:14-15),” and followed by the multitudes (Matthew 4:25).
• If there were ever an axe for a Christians to grind in this passage, it would be Isaiah 53:5, where Christendom translates it is “but he was wounded for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities.” With that translation, it sounds a lot like Jesus. But let’s look at what the actual Hebrew says:

וְהוּא מְחלָל מִפְּשָׁעֵנוּ, מְדֻכָּא מֵעֲו‍נתֵינוּ

Prepositions are tiny words, especially in Hebrew when they are denoted by a single letter, but they are nevertheless important in deriving meaning of the text. The Hebrew preposition “for” is indicated by ל, whereas “from” is indicated with מ.  The words "transgressions" and "iniquities" both have מ proceeding them in this verse, thereby making the translation "from," not "for." Now that we have looked at the actual meaning of the prepositions, we can get an accurate reading of the verse: “But he was wounded from our transgressions, he was crushed from our iniquities.” The nations are now realizing that the suffering of the Jewish people was brought upon by them. This theme is further elaborated upon by Jeremiah (10:25, 50:7).

• Isaiah 53:9 states “and with the rich in his deaths.” Jesus only had one death. The people Israel, on the other hand, have had many. The fact that the word for “deaths,” מתיו, is in the plural reinforces the fact that we are dealing with a collective entity.
• Isaiah 53:10 says that “he [the servant] shall see his seed.” The Hebrew word for “seed,” which is זֶרַע, always refers to physical descendants. Seeing how Jesus never had children, this verse cannot be referring to Jesus.
• Isaiah 53:10 also says that “he shall prolong his days.” These words cannot be applied to a divine, infinite being who is the “uncaused cause” whose existence, by definition of being infinite, is eternal. This is yet another facet of the text that cannot be attributed to Jesus.

Postscript: We have explicit statements throughout Isaiah stating that the Suffering Servant is the people Israel personified. We have proof texts showing how these verses could not be applied to Jesus, as well as prooftext reinforcing what Isaiah has told us all along: the people of Israel, as a unit, will suffer, but will ultimately be redeemed when the other nations realize the err of their anti-Semitic ways.  May we see the actualization of this passage sooner rather than later so we can truly know what it means when Isaiah said "nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."

Jesus Fulfilled What Exactly?

"Jesus fulfilled 'The Law.'"  This phrase that I hear from Christians is equally as amusing as "Jesus died for your sins."  The question that remains in my mind is what does it mean when they say "Jesus fulfilled the Law?"  The origin of this notion comes from the Christian "New" Testament in Matthew 5:17:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

If we look at the verse and see that Torah was not meant to be abolished, that means from a contextual standpoint, Jesus must have done something to satisfy its requirements, which Christians would erroneously argue was Jesus' death.  Please refer to my previous blog entry as to why the notion of Jesus dying for anybody's sins is, at the very least, not based on the Hebrew Scriptures that Christians claim that Jesus supposedly fulfilled. 

My foremost comment on this topic is that the origin of having the Torah fulfilled is entirely Christian.  There is not a single mention of the law having to be fulfilled in the entirety of Tanach (Hebrew Scriptures).  As a matter of fact, Tanach talks about the eternality of following Torah (Deut. 11:1, 28:46, 29:28, Psalm 111:7-9, 2 Kings 17:37, Ezekiel 37:24-25), as well as the eternality of G-d's covenant with the people Israel (Genesis 17:9-10).  Anything which contradicts the eternality of Judaism or the Jewish people, such as Jesus fulfilling the law and superseding Judaism, is in direct contradiction with Tanach.  What this ultimately means is that the discrepancies caused by their "Old" and New" Testaments, by definition, makes the Christian Bible a self-contradicting text. 

Now, even if Jesus were this alleged fulfillment of "the Law," he would have to be considered a lousy candidate.  Under Jewish law, marriage and procreation are both mitzvahs, neither of which Jesus did because Jesus remained celibate for all of his days.  Also, as I mentioned in a previous blog entry, Jesus violated the Jewish law of b'al tashchit when he caused the fig tree to die.  Although I can find a myriad of reasons, these two alone exempt Jesus from being considered to be a "perfected embodiment of Jewish law."

My final point regarding this discussion is that even if we give this notion an iota of validity, the main question itself, "Did Jesus fulfill the law," is a conundrum unto itself, which I have illustrated in this handy flowchart: 

Genesis 1:27-"Created in His Image" and What It Means to Develop a Relationship with G-d

וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ, בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ

And G-d created man in His own image, in the image of G-d created He him. -Genesis 1:27

Created in His image. I had always perceived that to be awkward phraseology. What exactly does it mean to be created in His image? Off hand, I can tell you what it doesn’t mean. It certainly doesn’t refer to the Christian concept that G-d is man (or vice versa, sometimes you just can’t tell which one it is). But you might say to me, “what else can image possibly mean? It’s what the Bible says.”

First, let me just say that is not what the Bible says. The best translation for the word is not image, but form. As Maimonides brings up in Guide for the Perplexed (1:2), there are two words in the biblical Hebrew that signify form. The first word, תאר, refers to a physical form. תאר is used in such verses as Genesis 39:6, 1 Samuel 28:14, and Judges 8:18, are all references to a form in a physical sense.

On the other hand, the word צלם means form in a more abstract sense. The word צלם denotes non-physical similarity. Let's look back at the top of the blog entry and look at the word which is used in the text, which, by the way is צלם.  If G-d wanted to state that He had a physical form and that we were "molded" in that fashion, He would have used the word תאר.  But since He used the word צלם, it cleary references something else.

So, if “in His image” does not refer to a physical similarity, to what does it refer? In Jewish tradition, most enounced in the Kabbalistic world, humans have two souls: an animal soul and a G-dly (or divine) soul. Whether you see it as two distinct entities or the soul merely as one entity with two facets is irrelevant. The point that Jewish tradition accurately points out is that we are part animal and part divine. Since we know that this cannot be referring to a physical image, this begs the question of what separates us from the animals, i.e., what does it mean to be G-dly or G-d-like.

Rabbi Obadiah Sforno comments that being “in His image” means that we are endowed with free will. Animals are creatures that solely act on impulse and instinct. Animals lack the self-restraint that humans have. We are able to make choices. Of course, this is not the choice between chocolate and vanilla ice cream. True free will is the ability to choose between right and wrong. Each action we take is of utmost importance because it either brings us closer or distances us from G-d. That is why Judaism strongly believes that what we do "in the here and now" matters greatly.

As stated above, Maimonides certainly didn’t believe in the corporeality of G-d. For him, “created in His image” meant something else. Unlike animals, we humans are creatures capable of rationality, logic, profound thought, and common sense. From a Maimonidean perspective, “His image” refers to humans not only having divine-like intelligence, but also the duty to use it. With this ultra-rationalism in mind, it is no accident that Maimonides believed that what most people in religious circles call “divine providence” is the usage of the intelligence that G-d gave humans.

Concluding thoughts: Do R. Sforno’s thoughts contradict Maimonides’ thoughts? Absolutely not! What we see are two different, but nevertheless equally Jewish manifestations of what it means to “be created in His image.” Since Judaism strongly stresses the incorporeality, and thus the infinitude, of G-d, there is no way to directly connect to G-d. Stating that one can directly connect with G-d is nothing short of heresy.

[Just as a side note, some of you might find my usage of the term heresy as harsh. The definition of heresy is the rejection of an already accepted belief. Although Judaism is more action oriented than other religions, it nevertheless holds certain beliefs, the two most notable ones being G-d’s existence and G-d’s infinitude. Historically, there is much debate and discussion amongst other Jewish beliefs, such as the belief in resurrection, but these two concepts are decidedly Jewish, and any deviation from them are, by definition, heresy.]

This, however, does not mean we cannot have a meaningful relationship with G-d. It just means that any connection made with G-d has to be done indirectly.

R. Sforno and Maimonides actually provide us with the two methods of indirectly developing a strong relationship with G-d. R. Sforno shows us that the way to develop G-d is via imitatio Dei. By partaking in the mitzvot, not only do we elevate our mundane actions to a divine level, but we grasp a sense of divinity by “walking in His ways.” Let us add a Maimonidean twist to this concept. Maimonides did not view the mitzvot as either G-d-oriented or man-oriented. To say that G-d needs us to perform a mitzvah, or anything for that matter, is tantamount to saying G-d is lacking something, which, of course, is heretical. That is why Maimonides divides the mitzvot into two categories: that which refines the individual, and that which refines society as a whole. The former is what most Jews would call “divinely oriented commandments.” Maimonides obtained this idea through the Midrash that the purpose of Torah is to refine man, which I agree with. This idea aggravated, and to a large extent, still aggravates many. Aside from the fact that so many people want to have an unfeasibly direct connection to G-d, this also breaks the Jewish concept of a chuk, i.e., a Jewish law that was “created without reason.”

Aside from knowing G-d through His commandments, we can also develop an indirect relationship with G-d another way. Maimonides would call that “knowing G-d” through His works via divine intellect. Rather than science being an impediment to religiosity, I have always found it to be an enhancement to understanding the divine. Just looking at the complexity of a cell or that of an eyeball alone can show us the wonder and splendor of the divine. Understanding cosmology, physics, and other sciences help us understand His creations. We do have to keep in mind that Maimonides was a scientist, and thought the study of science was the way to study Torah. For him, if there seems to be a conflict between the two, you either don’t understand science or don’t understand the Torah. Although I agree with Maimonides when he says that understanding science is a way of understanding Torah, I also opine that the use of divine intellect goes beyond natural sciences. It has to permeate in every study, whether that would be history, politics, economics, or the usage of common sense and wisdom in our daily lives because even in those areas, one can see divinity.

By imitating G-d and by using the divine intellect that G-d gave us, we can indirectly develop a relationship with G-d by truly understanding what it means to be created in His image.