Archive for the ‘’ Category

B’midbar 5768 – The State vs. The Family

Sunday, May 25th, 2008

Numbers 1:2

…by the house of their fathers… God’s people are organized by families headed by patriarchs, and when left to their own devices, families in agrarian societies will almost always organize themselves into patriarchal clans with or without ever having heard of the God of Abraham. The modern secular state is incompatible with God’s intended form of civil government. Lawrence Stone wrote,

The modern state is a natural enemy to the values of kinship, especially among the upper classes, for kinship is a direct threat to the state’s own claim to prior loyalty. Kinship leads to aristocratic faction and rebellion, such as the War of the Roses or the Fronde, to the independence of entrenched local potentates using kin loyalties to create powerful local connections, and to making the working of the jury system of justice impossible by the subordination of objective judgment to ties of blood. In the sixteenth century, the State in England increasingly assumed monopoly powers of justice and punishment, military protection, welfare, and the regulation of property. This takeover was accompanied by a massive propaganda campaign for loyalty, inculcating the view that the first duty of every citizen is obedience to the sovereign, that man’s highest obligation is to his country, involving the subordination of all other considerations and loyalties, even life itself.1

Although Stone is demonstrably incorrect concerning the jury system, his observations on the tendency of the state to subvert kinship ties is not. The Assyrians regularly deported entire nations in order to uproot them from their ancestral homes and break the alliances of blood. The same phenomenon was observed in the relocation programs of the Soviets in the twentieth century and of the Americans in the nineteenth. Tying such things as military commands to patriarchal clans tends to discourage the military adventurism of conquest and world policing and the centralization of power into the hands of a small political elite.

1 Lawrence Stone. “The Rise of the Nuclear Family in Early Modern England: The Patriarchal Stage”, The Family in History, Ed. Charles E. Rosenberg. Philadelphia: 1975. 24

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

B’midbar 5767 – Authority and Separation of Powers

Monday, May 21st, 2007

Numbers, numbers, numbers. This is one of those sections of the Bible most of us skim over if we bother to read it at all. Apart from a few historians, who really cares how many fighting men were in the tribes of Gad and Simeon? Who cares about the names of the census takers? Well, I admit that it all seems a little obscure, but, as I’ve said before, every detail included in the Torah was included for some enduring reason. There is Pshat in every word of the Torah, Remez in every passage, Drash and Sod in every name and number. (See Ohr Somayakh’s Ask the Rabbi.) As pointless as it might seem to the casual reader, there is meaning in the Bible’s long lists of names and numbers.

Here is a bit of Remez from B’midbar, last week’s Torah portion:

The right to count, number, and name a thing is derived from authority. You do not have authority over your neighbor’s possessions, therefore you do not have the right to see his bank statement, name him or his children, or inventory his collection of rare coins. The exact measure of his strength, his family, and his wealth are none of your business. However, God owns everything, and everything is God’s to count.

In Numbers chapter one, God ordered Moses and Aaron to count the fighting men of twelve of the tribes of Israel. However, they weren’t to do it on their own. God chose one man from each of those tribes to count along side them. They were not initiate their own count, but could only do so at the command of God. The implication is that the army did not belong to its two supreme human leaders. It belonged to the nation as a whole, and was subject to God’s Law and direction.

The tribe of Levi was not counted by these men, but by Moses alone, who was God’s personal representative. Earlier, God had required the firstborn males of the nation to be dedicated to him. Rather than form another pseudo-tribe out of those men, he substituted the tribe of Levi. They were separated out for service to God, and so could not count as an asset of the nation. The twelve leaders had no part in counting them.

Those twelve men were not elected by the people, appointed by Moses, nor approved by any human agency. God chose them for their character and informed the nation of their identity, no paperwork required. Echoing Paul’s criteria for church leaders, they were already leaders among their people, whether by reputation, age, or some other currency. Together with Moses and Aaron, they formed a counsel of tribal chiefs of fourteen men.

Eventually, the government of Israel would be divided into three branches, much as that of the United States. The three branches were the tribal chiefs headed by both Moses and Aaron as mentioned above, the executive-judiciary embodied by the sanhedrin and the system of judges headed and appointed by Moses, and the Levitical priesthood headed by Aaron. Moses served as president and commander-in-chief, with a great deal of discretionary power. After Moses’ death, Joshua, as senior member of the senate, took his place as the executive. That role came to be known as the Judge of Israel and was never hereditary. Its holder was chosen from among the tribal chiefs until the accession of King Saul. Notice that not one official was elected. The judges, priests, and even the kings were all appointed. God does not appear to be a great proponent of democracy, despite the preaching of our modern day republocrats.

Despite the non-democratic nature of Israel’s government, the rulers were not simply autocrats. They were not allowed to count the nation or even the army without God’s blessing. They were not allowed to change borders, confiscate property without cause, or unseat one another. The nation still belonged to God and limited authority was only delegated by him. When we count our income, we count his income. When we name our children, we name his children. We have only been made stewards. Like Moses who was denied entry to the Promised Land, David who lost his sons, and the Israelites who were removed from the land, we will be held accountable for our treatment of his people and assets.

05/23/2007 update: Doug Newman posted an article on democracy. “Not only was democracy an anathema to the Founders, it should be abhorrent to every follower of Jesus Christ. In Luke 23, Pilate declares that he found Jesus not deserving of death. However, he caved into the roar of the angry mob and sent a totally innocent man to die an excruciating death.”

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,