gnosis92

harvard lawyer allan dershowitz and many jews and christians speak of israel as a light unto the nations. the idea is that israel, both biblically and by example, would set a moral example so outstanding, that other nations would seek to emulate israel, and there will be world peace and goodness everywhere. everyone would know the one true god, the god of israel, and his moral laws, and everything will be good. evidently the world that did not know the god of israel worshipped false gods and idols, which leads to every kind of immorality.

there's a little known atheist whom i stumbled upon when i was googling the bible and genocide named john hartung. i did email him and he did give me permission to reprint this portion for your reading enjoyment. he gives his account of light unto the nations.

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/toexist/ltn11.html

The picture became so bleak for so long that a most desperate hope grew among the faithful. Israel's god would send a messiah. That man would restore the Kingdom, and Israel would reign over all the nations on earth. Perhaps the best disguised theme in the Bible, the most spun by both Christian and Jewish exegetical spin-doctors, is the Light Unto the Nations. The light was to be Israel, and nations outside of the genocide zone were to be caused to see the light in consequence of being conquered by Israel. Those nations would then realize that the god of Israel is stronger than their gods, and, most important, they would then worship Israel's god through Israel -- that is, once again, by paying tribute to Israel.

This ultimate in-group fantasy is explicated throughout the Bible, but is put most pointedly in Psalms and Isaiah (RSV):
Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron, and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel [Psalms 2:8-9]. And the [diaspora Jewish] peoples will take them and bring them to their place, and the house of Israel will possess them in the LORD's land as male and female slaves ...[Isaiah 14:2]. Thus says the LORD: "The wealth of Egypt and the merchandise of Ethiopia, and the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over to you and be yours, they shall follow you; they shall come over in chains and bow down to you. They will make supplication to you, saying: 'God is with you only, and there is no other, no god besides him [Isaiah 45:14]. I will give you as a light unto the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth [Isaiah 49:6]. And nations shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising ...Foreigners shall build up your walls, and their kings shall minister to you . . . your gates shall be open continually; day and night they shall not be shut; that men may bring to you the wealth of the nations, with their kings led in procession. For the nation and kingdom that will not serve you shall perish; those nations shall be utterly laid waste (Isaiah 60:1-12).(8)

And when was this to happen? As soon as Israel could stop internecine fighting -- as soon as it could get its in-group morality back on course. Then the Messiah would come and bring The Kingdom of God to earth. The objective was not to leave earth for heaven, it was to have heaven on earth -- to restore the kingdom of David.

Gamera

Most Christians don't confuse biblical Israel with modern Israel or the promise. Abraham's children never did become various numerous if you calculate them in terms of those who follow Judiasm. Paul "solves" the problem by spiritualizing the promise to mean it applies to Christians, who are the spiritual decedents, and arguably fit the bill.

Galatians 3:7 - So you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham.

jeffevnz

Yeah, there are some psychos who really believe in this, among both Orthodox Jews and Evangelical Christians.

But to be fair, we should note that Jews, like Christians, have a spectrum of views regarding how their scripture should be interpreted. The ones who believe this stuff literally probably account for Israel's aggressive posture toward her Arab neighbors, and America's streadfast obedience to her. But they are opposed by liberals who interpret away the more absurd parts of their religion and by secular-minded Jews who recognize this for the ancient mythological crap that it is.

gnosis92

actually i've not heard of hartung's interpretation of light unto the natiosn before.

i think most jews/xtians believe the term refers to a standard of righteousness and morality israel should manifest, by worshipping the one true god and keeping his torah (for jews) and worshipping his son jesus (for xtians)

premjan

Bunch of solipsist crap.

Anat

gnosis, with a long history and a culture that encourages debate, you can imagine there would be many interpretations to any idea among Jews. For example some among the socialist Zionist camp interpreted it as creating a just socialist society that would serve to advance socialist ideals by imitation. (Well, at least some of the prophets dedicated some of their bandwidth to denigrating their society for social injustice.)

Reform Jews took that to mean God dispersed his people among the nations so they could spread a humanitarian monotheism around the world.

The traditional Orthodox view was that in the Messianic Age (which will be brought by God whenever he felt was the right time) there would be a Jewish theocracy in the Land of Israel, and the rest of the world would live peacefully, believing God and following the 7 Noachide commandments. Rabbis Kalischer and Alkalai in the 19th century introduced the idea that by settling the Holy Land Jews can hasten the coming of the Messiah, because the Messiah would come only after the Jews were already settled in the land (as opposed to the traditional view, whereby Messiah would gather the exiles). This idea was not very popular among religious Jews initially, but it was promoted vigorously by Rav Kook (chief Ashkenazic rabbi in Mandatory Palestine) and became the basis for the ideology of the political religious Zionist camp. Hence the land worship of this camp.

gnosis92

well as i said in my initial post, most fundie xtians and jews probably have a positive spin doctoring on the idea of light unto the nations, but it seems to me what the text is actually saying is how hartung interprets it. (xtian parallels judaism in that the light is christ's message of love)

hartung's interpretation seems both true and unique, not unlike doherty on the jesus myth

Wisdumb

Only light unto the nations is the sun. Chosen people have to earn the right to be chosen, whether jew or Gentile.

Anat

Being chosen isn't necessarily a boon. Most of the time it means extra punishment. Amos 3:2 "You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will visit upon you all your iniquities." That's the justification given to lack of proselitising by Jews.

gnosis92

I'm not going to comment on how Jews understand the old testament, as i have never formally participated in judaism, other than a visit or two in the synagogue, no committed practicing jew would rationally speak bad of the idea of a chosen people, however,

i will say this, how some *atheist* read the old testament see the idea of the chosen people as a precusor to nazi-supremicism. many atheists claim their understanding of the new testament is superior to the understanding of christians. this is debatable. of course, many atheists claim they understand what the old testament is really saying.

farrell till speaks for a lot of atheists in interpreting the old testament idea of chosen people when he wrote (which i think is what the old testament is saying -- it is hardly a nonviolent good book)

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../003front.html

Meanwhile, Jewish leaders should seriously consider issuing an apology of their own. Anyone who makes a statement like this runs the risk of being accused of anti-Semitism, but it is something that needs to be said. What happened to European Jews in World War II was morally despicable, but the history of Judaism is marred by atrocities every bit as reprehensible as the holocaust.

The Old Testament (known to Jews as the Tanakh) is filled with tales of a nation that thought it was the "chosen people" of God (Deut. 7:6), who had been ordained by this god to take the "promised land" by force from its original inhabitants. They used this "divine mandate" to "utterly destroy" entire tribes in Canaan, including even children and babies, and to "leave nothing alive to breathe" (Deut. 20:16). The book of Joshua claims to be a record of the Israelite execution of this divine mandate under the leadership of Joshua, and it repeatedly claimed that the commandment of their god was carried out just as "Yahweh had commanded Moses his servant" (11:15). Nothing was left alive to breathe (10:40; 11:11, 14, 20).

The genocide actually started on the Israelite trek to the "promised land" and continued after the land was taken. The "chosen ones," presumably under orders from the god who had chosen them (Num. 31:1-2), attacked the Midianite nation, and after thousands of women and children were taken captive, Moses ordered his officers to kill all of the male children and nonvirgin females but to keep the virgins alive for themselves (vs:17-18). Four centuries later, the Israelites thought that they had received a mandate from Yahweh to utterly destroy the Amalekites, including again even children and babies (1 Sam. 15:2-3). The Tanakh claims that this mandate was carried out (vs:7-8).

The belief that one tribal group had been divinely chosen from all the people on the earth (Deut. 7:6) to occupy a geographic area and the use of this belief to justify the extermination of all other ethnic groups in that area smacks of the Hitlerian idea of an Aryan super race that had been divinely chosen to rule the world for a thousand years. Who could quibble about the difference?

Jews were treated horribly during the Hitler era, but to deplore the pope's failure to apologize for the church's silence during the holocaust seems a bit hypocritical of those who practice a religion whose history is also tainted with genocide. Jews want an apology for the church's passivity while atrocities were committed against their ethnic group, but many wanting the apology venerate ancestors who actively participated in atrocities committed against other ethnic groups. Where's the consistency in this? May both sides should apologize.

*****

jews & xians can believe whatever they wish to believe about the OT, but hartung & till comes close to how i understand what the OT authors r telling us.

Anat while judaism may have a long history of debate, has any jew prior to the enlightenment, ever questioned or debated or even rejected the idea of the moral goodness of the old testament/Torah, and remained a Jew? it's almost unimaginable someone would consider themself a religious jew yet debate and argue the torah/OT is moral abomination.

for example, in the second century, a non-jew xian named marcion rejected the ot as the product of an evil deity, and the gnostics followed marcion. (they r regarded 2day as xian heretics)

moses maimonodes & other jews of antiquity seemed to accept as a postulate the goodness of the ot.

spinoza seemed to reject the ot (though more on science grounds apparently) but he did NOT remain a jew.

thomas paine rejected the ot and the claim it represents moral goodness although he was not a jew (not sure if he was ever an xian)