Why a Chosen Nation?

Judaism is perhaps the most universally acknowledged religion. At least two other religions admit that G-d Himself once spoke to the Jewish Nation on Mt. Sinai and entered into a covenant with it, and one of those two religions actually includes the Book of that Covenant in its own scriptures. Even a Catholic book in my possession which purports to "prove" the truth of Catholicism by its founder (J*sus) vis a vis the various Protestant churches by theirs (Luther, etc.) lists the founder of Judaism as "G-d." Since the truth of Judaism is so widely acknowledged, what is it that is preventing a large portion of mankind from acknowledging the Noachide Laws which are the responsibilities Judaism's G-d has imposed on non-Jewish humanity?

This is a problem I myself had to face in my search for the Truth. It is indeed indisputable that G-d founded Judaism, even from the perspective of some of its greatest critics and opponents, but Judaism remains a covenant with a particular nation, not an abstract religious/ethical philosophy or universal organization. Therefore (it is reasoned) while it may have been G-d's vehicle of Truth at one point it simply cannot be any longer, since the True G-d would never have chosen a purely national covenant as His final conduit to mankind. This arrangement simply must have been merely temporary, a prototype of a more universal or abstract instrumentality that would be inaugurated later and which would then become His voice to the world for the rest of human history. To do otherwise--to choose a national covenant as His permanent means for addressing mankind--would be "contrary to His very nature."

The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate to the reader exactly why this national covenant indeed had to be G-d's final method of addressing mankind as a whole and why an abstract religion or universal organization would never have worked.

The great temptation of the creature is to worship itself rather than the Creator (and it didn't take Paul to "discover" this). Thus while mankind originally knew the True G-d (how could they not with Adam, the First Man, living in their midst?), from the days of 'Enosh Ben Shet (see Genesis 4:26) idolatry gradually grew in the world. And while idolatry has always taken many forms, including the worship of the heavenly bodies, forces of nature, and the universe itself, one of the most persistent idolatrous temptations has been the worship of a projection of oneself. This particular form of idolatry has been expressed in history by the worship of the various national "gxds," who were the creations of each nation's particular experience and "spiritual genius." This has been so despite the fact that many of these national "gxds" were in fact shared by other nations and simply worshiped under different names. Despite their "universal" character they were seized upon and inculturated by each nation as the spiritual incarnation of its own essence. In worshiping these national "gxds" the nations of the world in fact worshiped themselves.

Already it can be seen from the above that "universal" religions never remain universal. Despite its boasts, chr*stianity is no different from the old pagan religions in this regard. Despite the various theological differences among all the forms of chr*stianity, the greater splintering has been caused by national inculturation of the "universal" savior, making him a totem of the national, the local, and the subjective. This goes deeper than the often-pointed-out similarity between the old "gxds" and the various native chr*sts, virgins, and saints who inhabit local wells and caves. Perhaps one of the most obvious examples is the hostility between Pat Buchanan (mach shemo) and his Mexican "co-religionists." Despite the fact that Buchanan and his "wetback" bete noire are theoretically united in the same "universal" religion, we see that religious philosophy and multinational religious bodies mean little in the real world. Buchanan considers his primarily loyalty to be to his ethno-racial group, and therefore he appeals to Protestant fellow-"aryans" in his war against his "brothers and sisters in the faith." The Catholicism of Buchanan and his fellow palaeoconservative "civilizationists" is not univeral or abstract but the creation and essence of European Man. The Catholic J*sus of Buchanan and Company is the totemic "gxd" of "Aryan" Europe and the Pope is the President (or King, if you prefer) of Indo-European Culture (despite his appeal and that of his Church to the Third World). This "Aryan" J*sus is engaged in a death struggle with the "wetback" J*sus of Juan Diego and Cesar Chavez, of Latin American "liberation theology" and of illegal aliens (with their alien and un-Aryan cult of the "virgin of Guadalupe"). And the hostility is not one-way; the mystical nationalists of (and sympathizers with) the "indigenous" peoples (how can "Latinos" be "indigenous" to America?) see their J*sus as the creation of their own revolutionary culture and see him as every bit the "poke in the eye" to "Aryan man" that "their" Spanish language is. The theoretical unity of European palaeoconservatives and radical "Hispanic" nationalists has not prevented them from engaging in a war of civilizations that is nothing other than a "war of the gxds."

Nor is the Buchanan/Mexican hostility the only example. Even harder to understand (and perhaps not as noticeable since it is accepted as a matter of course) is the simmering hatred between American Fundamentalist Protestants of European and African descent. Again, the religion is allegedly the same and the theology doesn't even seem to address the existence of race. Yet these two communities seem to be at odds on every political issue and their "common savior" seems incapable of uniting them. In fact (as is well-known), there are those among the European faction who regard J*sus not as a universal savior but as their "kinsman-redeemer." And while I am not sure if there are currently radical Black nationalists who make the same claim for their version of J*sus (since islam is currently the "true national religion" of Blacks), it is obvious that radical Blacks who mock the Fundamentalism of poor whites are as mute as Harpo Marx on the Fundamentalism of their own people (which is perhaps seen as the expression of their "revolutionary" culture). Nor should it be forgotten that the "mockers and scoffers of chr*stianity" on the secular Left have always given a free pass to Black Fundamentalism, just as Black Fundamentalists have always given them a pass on their radical hostility to a religion which the Black community theoretically professes. This example also applies to "anti-chr*stians" who mock the Vatican while going into paroxysms of ecstasy at the spectacle of Juanito crucifying himself in a fit of religious ecstasy or "Hispanic activists" demonstrating their "scientific socialism" by conducting "stations of the cross" on "good fr*day."

But these are merely the most blatant examples. The plain fact is that an "abstract" and "universal" G-d would never remain so. He would be--as He has been--claimed and inculturated as a purely national "gxd," a subjective and imaginary symbol of the national essence of each people. Thus despite all claims to the contrary, the Irish J*sus is not the Polish J*sus is not the Filipino J*sus is not the Bolivian J*sus is not the Romanian J*sus is not the Armenian J*sus is not the "redneck" J*sus is not the Ethiopian J*sus. And despite its somewhat greater apparent unity, these divisions exist in islam and (other "universal" religions) as well. A "universal" G-d bereft of an objective relationship with a particular nation is merely an idol in the making.

This then is the reason for the universal hatred of the Jewish Nation by the "nationalists" of the world. Because He chose Israel rather than (fill in the blank) they must either acknowledge a Jewish G-d or engage in utter vanity by worshiping an imaginary projection of themselves. Yet that G-d chose Israel is absolutely undeniable, since He created the world with the Hebrew Alphabet (using the Torah of Israel as its blueprint) and then gave this Torah to them on Mt. Sinai. Nothing is so universally acknowledged and so universally resented. The election of the Nation of Israel is the infallible mark of the identity of the True G-d--something no abstract religious philosophy or "universal" body could provide.

Has Israel lived up to its lofty calling? Of course not. Yet the calling itself remains objective and undeniable. And note how much anti-Semitic rhetoric provoked by liberal Jews does not invoke Universal Truth as the victim of Jewish liberalism but rather the various subjective national "truths." Jews are accused of undermining "chr*stian America" or "chr*stian Germany" or "moslem Egypt" "Socialist Russia" or sh*nto/b*ddhist Japan, but almost never of undermining the Torah (which is after all the primary target and victim of Jewish liberalism). The propagandists who make these accusations are in fact appealing to their countrymen to turn from the Universal Jewish G-d and to the subjective local religious identity. Jewish liberals provide the excuse for these attacks, but faithful Jews and the Covenant at Sinai are the ultimate targets. In fact, one could say that liberal Jews are the greatest gift anti-Semites have ever received.

One more objection needs to be dealt with, and it is much more prosaic than that of the blood-and-soil idolatries of the "palaeoright." It is simply that the choosing of a Nation (and one not currently noted for its zeal in converting others to a knowledge of G-d) seems to have been a very poor choice for bringing the world to HaShem. There are two responses to this. The first is that the withdrawn and insular nature of Jewish Orthodoxy are due in large part to the dire penalties visited on its adherents in the past for attempting to convert non-Jews to Noachism or Judaism. The other response is simply that no religion, however abstract or universal, has ever reached everyone, and to act as if Judaism were unique in this regard is simply dishonest.

Thus we see that the yeitzer hara` (evil inclination) within man inclines him to engage in idolatrous worship of symbols of himself in his national/cultural manifestation. The election of a Nation was thus necessary (as well as sufficient) to identify before mankind for all time and throughout all generations the True and Objective G-d. Resentment of this election is at the heart of anti-Semites who celebrate not what is objectively true but simply what is theirs. Was the choice of this Nation rather than any other "fair?" That probably depends on one's definition of "fairness." But for all those who resent the fact that each nation cannot pretend to be a "chosen nation" of a "national gxd," I advise them to take up this argument with the One who created all that is . . . according to the Torah of Israel.

Thus despite all claims to the contrary, the Irish J*sus is not the Polish J*sus is not the Filipino J*sus is not the Bolivian J*sus is not the Romanian J*sus is not the Armenian J*sus is not the "redneck" J*sus is not the Ethiopian J*sus. And despite its somewhat greater apparent unity, these divisions exist in islam and (other "universal" religions) as well.

I disagree. The image of Jesus, among Christians, is in some ways vague, but it is consistent. It is not much affected by national considerations. For instance, even so militant a group as the Spanish Empire of the 16th century, did not make Jesus a warrior, but stayed with the image of gentleness and suffering, however little they seem to have imitated it in practice.

In the Islamic world, God is a transcedent being, exactly similar to the Jewish concept of God.

Also, there are very significant national differences between Jews, and in Jewish laws and observances, but no real differences in their concept of God, and the ideal means of relating to Him.

Despite their "universal" character they were seized upon and inculturated by each nation as the spiritual incarnation of its own essence. In worshiping these national "gods" the nations of the world in fact worshiped themselves.

An almost complete inversion of the truth. The pagan peoples - the word "nations" is an anachronism in this context - never saw their gods as extensions of themselves. They rather saw themselves as under the tutelage of their gods. Every new venture - city, colony, temple, even tavern - had to petition an existing god to be their patron. As, for instance, Athena was the patron of Athens, and the Capitoline Trinity the patrons of Rome.

But there were no "national gods" - the same deity could patronize whatever and whomever he chose. Before the Battle of Marathon, for example, Miltiades did not ask Athena to grant victory; he said rather, "I believe that, provided the gods will give fair play and no favor, we are able to get the best of it in an engagement." Because the same gods watched over both Greece and Persia.

Pagan theology was almost relentlessly syncretistic. Different peoples might use different names, and have different legends, but the gods were the same. Jupiter simply is Zeus.

Megasthenes, the Seleucid ambassador to India, had no difficulty recognising that "Krishna" simply was "Herakles", and a comparison of the legends confirms this. On the other side of the world, it is likewise obvious that the Mayan "Kukulcan" is simply Thoth, "Ixchel" is Selene, "Nacon" is Ares, and so on across most of the pantheon. Likewise, when I moved to Asia, it was obvious that their "Kuan Yin" is just my Isis.

But why should different peoples, all over the world, describe the same gods? For the same reason different peoples, all over the world, describe the same heavenly bodies: because they are real.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.