Abel Still Speaks — A Biblical Critique of Zionism
For those who have lived their entire lives in the comfy and secure climate controlled western suburban neighborhoods, it is essentially impossible to understand the abysmal conditions for those living in Gaza. We may be able to sympathize when we hear about atrocities on the news, but we can never fully grasp the feeling of being a people seemingly invisible to the outside world, except in the image of their most extreme and violent ambassadors. Yes, there seems to be a notion that because Gaza has been politically dominated by the Islamist militant group, Hamas, this must characterize the Palestinian people of Gaza as a whole. The inability to separate citizens from their government is incredibly dangerous, especially during wartime. This lack of distinction is precisely the same one that led to the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans into concentration camps during World War II. When there is no distinction between the people and their government, a door is opened to total war which is essentially what has been initiated in the Gaza Strip. Citizens, whose only crime is the misfortune of having been born in the wrong place at the wrong time, are punished as if they are active combatants themselves.
If there is a group of people who should understand this feeling well, it would be the Jewish leaders of the modern state of Israel. It is no exaggeration to say that Jews have historically been one of the most relentlessly persecuted groups in all of human history. This tragic fact has understandably informed their history and development, and is likewise always at the forefront of the rhetoric surrounding Israeli politics. The Jewish history surrounding Zionism, though, is rather complex and would take way more proverbial ink than I wish to spend to go through every rabbit hole. It is important, though, to state at the onset that being against Zionism and the apartheid policies and conditions of the Israeli government has nothing to do with the welfare of the Jewish people. There is a dangerous notion in these discussions, that to be anti-Zionist is to be anti-Semitic, which is just flatly ridiculous. One can acknowledge the horrific conditions Jewish people have suffered under for thousands of years and still criticize a government that just so happens to be operated by people who are Jews. Their identity is immaterial to how they govern. It is the state of Israel I am criticizing, not the Jewish people. Again, it is the government, not the citizens, who are to be criticized. This carries some extra weight for me, because as a Christian, it is difficult to not feel a bit of inherited guilt from how Christians have historically been at the forefront of Jewish persecution. It is not inaccurate to say that the Holocaust is simply the climax of persecution which had begun during the Christian domination of the Roman Empire, up to the inquisition and Russian pogroms throughout the Middle Ages leading to the 20th century. It also carries a special kind of sting that one of the hallmarks of anti-Semitic literature, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, was published under the nose of the Russian Orthodox Church, my particular denomination. As may be surprising for modern people to learn, the Jews during the Middle Ages actually prospered when they were under Islamic rule. Particularly, Islamic Spain was a major hotbed for the development of Jewish philosophy and literature. From the perspective of the Muslims, the Jews were among their closest allies. They were fellow strict monotheists, and didn’t commit shirk as expressed by the Christians in their doctrine of the Trinity. From the perspective of the Christians, however, the Jews were seen as the Christ killers and those who were among the worst kinds of apostates. These Christians wrongly took the New Testament’s critique of the first century Jerusalemite elite, and indicted an entire group of people based on the behavior of some of their ancestors. Clearly this is wrong and disgusting and does not reflect the attitude of the New Testament, which sought to bring Jews and gentiles together, not to force them apart. Paul’s routine collection for Jerusalem (Rom. 15:14–32; 1 Cor. 16:1–4; 2 Cor. 8:1–9:15) that he made in his travels to gentile churches should put to rest any rumors that the New Testament itself harbors the anti-Semitism that was practiced by European Christians.
There are also several myths about this conflict that are way too commonplace in these conversations, which always serve to dehumanize the Palestinian people who simply want to exist in their ancient homeland free from the colonial influence initiated by the British in 1918. This actually leads into the first major myth, that this conflict is primarily concerned with differences in religion. While the so-called religious significance of Palestine is a factor in the conflict, the main source of contention has to do with what transpired in the Levant after the fall of the Ottoman Empire following World War I. What became the British Mandate for Palestine and later the state of Israel, commenced from an agreement between British statesman Arthur Balfour and banker, Walter Rothschild. Rothschild was part of the wider Rothschild banking clan, and was also a powerful figure in British politics. Being a prominent Zionist, Rothschild was able to solidify Zionist ambitions within the scope of British post-war power grabbing and geopolitical strategics. Having a British ally in the levant to replace Ottoman Palestine was a logical move, strategically speaking. These factors led to what is known as the Balfour Declaration which established British support of Zionist aims, and the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine.
Balfour declaration:
“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”
It’s important to read the entirety of this statement, especially where it lays out the importance of not “prejudicing” the rights of non-Jews in Palestine. While this is a noble platitude, the ethics of Zionism became incredibly complex with the nature of “Jewishness” being either a religion or an ethnic group. Thus, a state where all Jews would have automatic citizenship upon arrival is problematic when a complete outsider who just happened to convert to the Jewish religion would have more right to the land than a Palestinian whose family had existed there for generations. This is the tension which inevitably led to the pushback among the Palestinians. It was after the creation of the British Mandate for Palestine, where we start to see the violence escalate between the Palestinian Arabs and the immigrating Jews. It is worth noting that throughout Jewish history, many notable rabbinic figures had made ‘aliyah (ascent) to the Holy Land without much pushback from the existing inhabitants. While there were some violent episodes for various reasons, over all, the Jewish immigrants of Palestine were able to coexist with their Arab neighbors. One of the keys to this relative harmony was the fact that they were all technically Ottoman subjects since they were under the Ottoman turf, and their religions and ethnicities were of secondary status. It wasn’t Jews and Arabs, but Ottomans of different religious customs. There was no nationalism here, just individuals living within the aegis of a Turkic empire. It wasn’t until Palestine came under the governance of British colonialism, that Zionism under the influence of the British government and the Rothschilds, came to wreak havoc upon the peaceful coexistence of Jews and Arabs. Tensions among the British police presence, Arab natives, and thousands of migrating Jews boiled over into several riots throughout the 1920s and 30s. The Arab revolt followed as a response to unending land purchases and seizures. In 1948, the infamous war between the Arabs and the Zionist military was sparked by the declaration of Israeli independence. As many cities such as Jaffa and Haifa fell, many thousands of Palestinians were forced to flee their homes. What resulted was the creation of the state of Israel, a complete colonialist brew meant to secure an “Oriental” ally to the NATO countries. These conditions were not unique, as many have pointed out the similarities between the political situation in Israel to that of apartheid South Africa. The 19th and 20th centuries were eras of rampant nationalism, which only fueled the divide between socio-political groups which previously were able to coexist. It is also important to highlight the fact that Zionism was primarily a political issue and less of a religious one. In the late 19th century, there was a vocal opposition to Zionism from Orthodox Jews who objected that the land of Israel was eschatological in nature and couldn’t come about except via the Messiah (Ezek. 34; 40–48). Moreover, the state of Israel was modeled as a secular ethno-state which complicated the matter. Why was it necessary for Palestine to be the land in question? That it wasn’t necessarily so in the beginning is demonstrated by other lands, namely Uganda and Argentina, being also considered. Palestine was chosen, and backed by the British government specifically for geopolitical reasons.
Seeing that Zionism is political rather than religious in nature, it is also important to discuss another dangerous myth exacerbated in these discussions. The myth being that the Jewish people have exclusive rights to possess the land. While in the eyes of the world, land ownership tends to be up to the victor in a struggle for control, the problem with this issue is that people use the Bible to defend Zionist policies. Such a position cannot be defended from scripture because it contradicts the basic message that the God of the Bible is the sole owner melek of the world and that he only allows or disallows people to occupy space. For the remainder of the essay, I would like to briefly demonstrate why this is so.
The answer is elucidated by the original Hebrew. The word melek referenced earlier is often translated as king but can also refer to someone who owns something. This ownership is akin to that of a landlord, and for the Bible, this is only legitimate when applied to God. While human beings in the Bible claim that mantle, they are still subjects to God and are more akin to vassals. In this sense, if we think of God as a landlord, the human beings are tenants who are occupying the land on conditional grounds. The conditions are laid out in an agreement which is known as the covenant, and the instruction which sets out these terms is the Torah. If the Torah is broken, the people are evicted from the property. The promise to inherit the land is only functional if the Israelites abide by the terms of that said Torah.
“And if you faithfully obey the voice of the Lord your God, being careful to do all his commandments that I command you today, the Lord your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth. And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, if you obey the voice of the Lord your God. Blessed shall you be in the city, and blessed shall you be in the field. Blessed shall be the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground and the fruit of your cattle, the increase of your herds and the young of your flock. Blessed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl. Blessed shall you be when you come in, and blessed shall you be when you go out”. — Deut. 28:1–6
Conversely, if the Israelites fail to follow the terms of this agreement, God’s punishment is not only eviction, but complete subjugation by foreign governments.
“The Lord will bring you and your king whom you set over you to a nation that neither you nor your fathers have known. And there you shall serve other gods of wood and stone. And you shall become a horror, a proverb, and a byword among all the peoples where the Lord will lead you away”. — Deut. 28:36–37
Anyone familiar with the biblical narrative knows that this is exactly what happens in the course of the story. What is even more striking is the notion of Israel becoming a proverb and a byword. What is translated as proverb in this passage is actually mashal in the original. In this sense, it is identical to the notion of a parable, since the Greek parabolē is often used to translate mashal in the Septuagint. This is demonstrated in the two parables outlining Israelite history in chapters 16 and 23 of Ezekiel. The challenge for the Zionist is that if the Jewish people truly owned the land, how could they be exiled in the first place? Even in the Bible, any gift can be relinquished. The land of Israel is a grace that cannot be earned, but it can be lost. Like any agreement bound by a contract, breaking its terms brings whatever was promised as a result, void. This has to do with the correct rendering of the Hebrew word yarash which is typically translated as possess but is better understood as an inheritance. When modern people, affected by the Lockian understanding of property and ownership, read the word possess in scripture, they have the understanding that the gift of God is totally their acquisition. They see it transactionally, like living in a house that has its mortgage totally paid off. In reality, it is more akin to living in a rental property. If you don’t pay rent or damage the property in some way, the contract you signed with the landlord in the beginning will be invalidated and an eviction will become imminent. That is how God operates in scripture. Any elevation of man to this level is inherently blasphemous and heretical.
To push this point further, we can see how scripture operates right from the earliest chapters. The story of Cain and Abel serves as a template which will elucidate what is meant by scripture being anti human kingship. Remembering what I said earlier about kingship being synonymous with ownership in Hebrew, we have in Genesis 4 a clear introduction to this biblical paradigm. In 4:1, Eve says that she has gotten a man with Yahweh’s help and has named him Cain. In English, this means very little to us. But in Hebrew, there is an interesting play between ‘gotten’ qanah and ‘Cain’ qayin. Both of these words come from the same root, QNH, which refers to obtaining something in order to own it. Literally, this is the word that is used in scripture when referring to the buying and selling of goods. Eve is saying that Cain is her possession from God, not an inherited privilege (rather than a right). In lockstep with his own name, Cain becomes a worker of the ground and presents his own handiwork, that is his own earned possession in the Lockian sense, to God as an offering. God rejects Cain’s offering because he rejects all of our work. The reason being that God has already provided what is necessary and how we rearrange pre-existing matter to fit our desires is ultimately of no value to God. Cain’s brother Abel, on the other hand, is totally different. His name, hebel, refers to a vanishing breath. It is famously used in the sense of vanity in Ecclesiastes chapter 1, and has a clear Arabic counterpart in the word habal which means ‘stupidity’. There is a sense that Cain is set up as Eve’s secure possession, while Abel is inherently impermanent. Instead of being a worker of the ground, Abel is a shepherd. The sheep of his flock are not his handiwork, but as living creatures, are entrusted to him by God (Gen. 1:26–28). As such, Abel offers the highest quality lamb of his flock back to God. In other words, it is a thanksgiving offering and an acknowledgement that God is truly the owner of the sheep, and Abel is merely keeping it for him. In this sense, it is like a manager giving the keys back to the boss after a shift has been completed. The boss gave the manager the keys, not to communicate a change of ownership, but for safe-keeping. This is why God had regard for Abel’s offering. Cain tried to offer what he had made, whereas Abel was offering exactly what had been given to him. This lays the groundwork for how to understand the highly technical instructions for the priests in Leviticus. The nature of the sacrifices are essentially to underscore the teaching that God is the sole king/owner. That is why God commands in Deuteronomy 17:18–20 that a king must have the copy of the law with him at all times. It is a taunt. The sacrifices in the law are not about appeasing God’s sense of justice, as we understand it in Western Christian circles, but are about emulating Abel’s correct behavior. Likewise, God’s command to Cain after killing his brother is not to make a blood sacrifice, but to emulate Abel by wandering as a shepherd. That Abel’s correct behavior serves as the source for biblical praxis is confirmed in Hebrews 11:4.
“By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts. And through his faith, though he died, he still speaks”. — Heb. 11:4
“Abel still speaks” because his blood runs through the veins of not only the ceremonial rites of the law, but the entire scriptural teaching. Once again, the teaching being that God’s gifts are essentially keepsakes and not possessions. This can be seen in the book of Deuteronomy where even cities are given up as burnt offerings.
“You shall gather all its spoil into the midst of its open square and burn the city and all its spoil with fire, as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. It shall be a heap forever. It shall not be built again”. — Deut. 13:16
That Eve and Cain attempted to secure their own property is what lost them the gift that was Abel. God being rich in mercy, however, gives Eve and humanity a second chance in the person of Seth. In contradistinction to Cain, Seth refers to an appointed thing rather than property. See how Eve changes her phraseology when Seth is born.
“And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, “God has appointed seth for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him.”’— Gen. 4: 25
This is how the Bible introduces its paradigm between shepherdism on the one hand, and monarchy on the other. Shepherd life (Abel) acknowledges God’s sovereignty and monarchy (Cain) competes with it. That is why God’s chosen shepherd to lead his people out of exile is not a king but a prince.
“And I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them: he shall feed them and be their shepherd. And I, the Lord, will be their God, and my servant David shall be prince among them. I am the Lord; I have spoken”. — Ezek. 34:23–24
It is only via the arrival of this messianic figure that the eschatological events of Ezekiel 40–48 are able to take place. In this sense, it invalidates religious Jews who wish to use their scriptures to justify Zionism. The current Jewish presence in Israel is no different than the second temple period which came and went with the times. While the exiles returned to Jerusalem from Babylon following the edict of Cyrus, it was only a matter of a few centuries that Jerusalem was under siege by the Greeks and then later, the Romans. While the Hasmoneans secured temporary victory, their reign was incredibly short lived. If devout Jewish Zionists truly take their scriptures seriously, the state of Israel is nothing to boast about, and their current treatment of Palestinians is not a good prognosis for their future prosperity.
In relation to Christian Zionists, this situation becomes even more perplexing. If even the Hebrew Bible cannot defend Zionism, how could it possibly be defended by the New Testament which was written specifically against the notion that the earthly Jerusalem was of any import on its own? Not only that, but Jewish identity is not to be understood in the sense of matrilineal descent as it is in Rabbinic Judaism, but in whether one lives according to God’s teaching.
“For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God”. - Rom. 2:28–29
If a Christian is taking their own scriptures seriously, they have no choice but to understand that someone’s genealogical descent and physical circumcision has no bearing on Paul’s definition of Jewish identity. This means that the modern state of Israel has no scriptural value because its Jewish identity is outward, and not necessarily inward. Those who boast in the marks of their flesh, i.e. outward piety, are sharply rebuked by both Paul and Jesus. To view the modern state of Israel with any legitimacy is to totally miss the entire point of the New Testament.
“But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring”. — Rom. 9:6–8
While I could go on ad infinitum about the scriptural nature of land and covenant, the aforementioned examples should suffice. I am confident that the argument is strong. But, more important than argumentation, is the notion in scripture that God is always on the side of the oppressed (Ps. 12:5). This includes both Palestinian civilians and Israeli civilians who are simply trying to exist in their respective homelands. The real villains here are the elites who use the human life God put under their care (Rom. 13:1) as cannon fodder for their political aims. The situation for the Palestinians is especially dire because, unlike the Israeli citizen, they have no real allies. Atleast, they have no real human ally. If we truly believe in the Abrahamic God, we can be confident that where no human ally exists, God is sure to be that ally. So when the Israeli government decimates a hospital in Gaza as they have done today (Oct. 17, 2023), it is not only Palestinian flesh and blood they are fighting, but God himself. In the 1960s the late Metropolitan Philip Saliba attended a conference in Miami where he proposed the concept for an alternative to the existing polities of Israel and Palestine called The State of the Holy Land which would be committed to equal rights and representation among the three major Abrahamic faiths. The political system would be secular, and the ethnic tension between Arabs and Jews would be decimated from a legislative point of view. In other words, there would be no situation like there is today where every Jew effectively has automatic citizenship. All three faiths would be seen as equals from a legislative point of view and the conditions would hopefully be similar to the coexistence of Jews, Christians, and Muslims before the “nakba”. While such a situation seems terribly out of reach, change begins once people are aware of the atrocities and of the propaganda which gets spewed from special interest groups. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all have a responsibility to stand for the truth and for justice, and to actively aid in a more peaceful world in accordance with the decrees of the God we worship. I will leave this article with the beatitudes, which lay out orthopraxy as it was taught throughout all the scriptures.
Matthew 5:1–11 ESV
1 Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down, his disciples came to him.
2 And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying:
3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
5 “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
10 “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
