Arabs-Israel Clash
Everyone has an opinion about the current conflict between the Arabs and Jews, but where should one start?—Scripture, history, or geopolitics?
Generally, Evangelical Christians base their verdicts on their ‘interpretation’ of the Covenant Promise that God made with the Jews—such as the promise of returning to Jerusalem and rebuilding the temple. Given the various interpretations of this Covenant Promise, even biblical scholars sometimes struggle to find clarity. As a layperson without a deep understanding of history or a clear grasp of Scripture, I feel confident expressing my own perspective.
There are numerous camps among Muktivedic scholars. One group adheres to the ‘replacement’ theory, which posits that the church has replaced the Jews. Another group interprets passages literally, viewing the church and Israel as parallel entities. Jewish followers of the Lord have their own perspectives, and yet another group supports the ‘grafting’ view based on Romans 9. {I gathered this information from one person}. However, as a lay bhakta of the Lord, I hold that every Scripture has its limitations and often imposes limitations on us by influencing our interpretations based on contemporary issues, especially geopolitical ones.
There is nothing wrong with attempting to understand Scripture systematically. However, Scriptures were never intended to present a systematic theology. While a systematic approach can enhance our understanding, it is often better to consider each Scripture in its own textual, theological, social and historical context rather than forcing it into a pre-defined theory or theology. This systematic approach often involves what some scholars refer to as ‘text torture.’
The reason I mention this is that many evangelicals superimpose their slogans onto the Muktiveda and promote them as if they are part of it. One example suffices to illustrate this. During a Muktivedic study on a particular point, one person claimed that ‘the Bible holds final authority.’ In response, I asked where in the Bible such a verse could be found to support this view. Not expecting this question, he began to explain using various means. For example, he mentioned that the Bible says we cannot add or remove even one iota from it. I responded that this does not address the authority of the Bible. I explained that it is the Lord who holds final authority, and to understand His authority, we need to study the Muktiveda properly. This requires the assistance of other Muktivedic teachers and scholars, and above all, the guidance and prayers of other bhaktas or mandali. This cannot be achieved through personal bhakti or private study alone.1
I do not know the original languages in which the Muktiveda were written. However, I often read and hear scholars using Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic terms to help us understand the original context and translate it accurately into other languages. For instance, in Tamil, punctuation marks like the comma, full stop, colon, and semicolon were introduced only recently with the advent of printing in India. Before this, when palm leaves were used for writing, these punctuation marks were not employed. Poems were written continuously, without gaps between sentences, making them difficult to read. Only those trained in reading them properly could read the poems aloud, as most Tamil scriptures were written in poetic form.
Improper division of words can lead to completely different meanings than what the author intended. A famous example from our teenage years illustrates this. Outside vegetarian hotels, it used to be written, ‘the place where Brahmins can eat’ = “brahmanarkal sappidum idam” [பிராமணர்கள் சாப்பிடும் இடம்]. As a joke, we would incorrectly separate the words and say, ‘the place where Brahmins can drink arrack [country wine].’ The word “brahmanarkal” [plural பிராமணர்கள்] means Brahmins. However, if separated as “brahmanar + kal” [பிராமணர் + கள்], where “kal” means country-made arrack, the meaning changes entirely. This display has since been removed from hotels in Tamil Nadu.
The same principle applies to other languages. For example, in Sanskrit, separating two words (known as sandhi vichchheda) can give a text a completely different meaning. As I have previously mentioned, Sankara divides one sloka in the Gita as ‘anadimat + param’ to support his advaitic message, whereas Ramanuja divides it as ‘anadi + matparam’.2 I have heard that in Arabic or Urdu, changing a dot from the top to the bottom of a word can alter its meaning. Given these limitations, it is better not to torture texts to fit contemporary political issues.
Having stated this, and without aligning with any particular theological camp, I find Dr. N.T. Wright’s exegesis on the Muktiveda to be a reasonable approach for understanding the complex issue of the Covenant promise made by God to the Jews. [Christian Relationship with Modern Israel by N.T. Wright: https://youtu.be/PPtGuM80c-Y; N.T. Wright on Christian Zionism: https://youtu.be/xR1EKXnJn7s; N.T. Wright and Mark Kinzer: A Dialogue on the Meaning of Israel: https://youtu.be/qlBt64m-Py4].
My personal view is this: Even if the Jews, with the assistance of America and other Western military powers, manage to re-establish a Jewish state in Palestine, I do not believe that the Muktiveda endorses the reconstruction of the temple in Jerusalem to resume sacrificial rituals. Such a move would imply a salvation by works and the existence of an alternative salvation, which Sevanad explicitly rejected in Galatians.
Pro-Jewish Christian theologians may interpret the Uttara Veda to align with their parallel theology, but if we take textual criticism seriously, many prophecies interpreted by the apostles in the Uttara Veda would be violated. By examining the textual context, we see that many verses quoted from the Purva Veda were originally given in different contexts. Nonetheless, we accept their interpretation of the message about the Lord because we believe that the Muktiveda is the inspired word of God, written by the apostles and others under divine inspiration. Without this belief, an outsider who does not accept the Muktiveda might point out contradictions between the Purva and Uttara Vedas. To illustrate this, consider the topic of Atonement, which I have discussed in detail in the blog ‘On Sacrifice’. [https://dayanandbharati.in/sacrifice/]
Given the realities of reading and interpreting any scripture, it is important to recognize the limitations of the Scriptures and the constraints they place on us. We should avoid imposing contemporary issues onto them. Every scripture is historical—reflecting how, when, and why it came into existence. Similarly, each scripture provides some historical information. However, they were not written to offer a complete or partial account of any particular faith. We must glean this information from other sources. For example, while we get some historical insights about the Jews in the Purva Veda and about Christianity in the Uttara Veda, we need additional sources to form a more comprehensive understanding. Information about the Jews during the inter-testament period, which is not covered in the Muktivedic texts, must be obtained from other historical sources. Without this knowledge of the inter-testament period, our understanding of the Uttara Veda remains incomplete.
My perspective on understanding sacrifice within both Hindu traditions and the Muktiveda is nuanced. My devotion to the Lord does not hinge on this aspect. Born into a Brahmin family, I find the concept of bloodletting abhorrent. What perplexes me is the “single-window” gospel presented to Hindus, focusing solely on the atonement of the Lord. While understanding this atonement is central to the Muktiveda, it need not be the sole basis for God to intervene in our lives through Muktinath or for us to deepen our devotion to Him.
Despite my studies, the portrayal of the Lord’s sacrifice in the Uttara Veda as atonement and its relation to various sacrifices described in the Purva Veda remains unclear. The terms—sin-offering, substitution, redemption, ransom, propitiation, appeasement of God’s wrath, and prayaschiita—each have distinct contexts and meanings within the sacrificial practices of Israel. Understanding how the disciples and early bhaktas (particularly in Hebrew) interpreted these practices is crucial. Insights from Walton, Matthews, and Chavalas provide valuable perspective on this complexity:
For the early bhaktas, the Lord’s death represents all these aspects and transcends them.
In my faith, I have found the guru I was seeking, and it is there that my devotion begins. Understanding doctrinal aspects related to the Muktiveda enriches my faith but is not essential for maintaining my devotion or growing in it. Recognizing this, we should remain open to how God reveals His grace in others’ lives, without limiting it based on our own experiences or understanding—especially concerning the Muktiveda.
– Even in Israel, there is little to suggest that the sacrificial institution was primarily understood as having a vicarious or substitutionary element. Redemption of the firstborn and Passover are notable exceptions at the fringe of the sacrificial institution. — John H. Walton; Victor H. Matthews & Mark W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, Old Testament, Downers Grove, Illinois, 2000, GENESIS, p. 53:
…The concept of substitution in sacrifice is not as common as we might think….—p. 53, pp.122-23;
… Redemption of the firstborn and Passover would be notable exceptions on the fringe of the sacrificial institution.—p. 53
… blood served as a purifying element. And not to ward off evil power….—p. 85, pp.155-56
Animal killed in sacrifice is not necessarily for ‘atonement’ rather for ‘purification’….—p. 120
Sacrifices are done not to feed God—p. 122, 181, 184, 423, 514, 584-85
…one who is offering these sacrifices seeks reconciliation with God, not pardon from punishment.—p. 123
Regular offerings are for forgiveness whereas scapegoat and annual ritual along with it is to dispose the sin of the people—Lev. 16:6-10, p.131
Sacrifice is done only in the tabernacle or in temple related to ritual and not outside it. At the same time temple is not constructed to perform sacrifice but sacrifices were done there to maintain the temple.—132, 513
Burnt offerings and fellowship offerings are… served as an opportunity for festive celebration and a communal meal before the Lord….— ibid. 1 SAMUEL p.295
…. We know that Israel’s worship centered around sacred space (the temple), sacred times (Sabbath, festivals), sacred rituals (sacrifice) and sacred words (prayers)…..—comments on Psalms, p. 513
…In Israel we should think in terms not of sins being eternally removed but of the sacrifices cleansing ways the desecration of God’s presence caused by sin (see comment no Lev 1:4, “atonement”)….—p. 531
34:18 …cutting a calf in two. The ritual of severing an animal body as part of a covenant-making ceremony is found only here and in Genesis 15:9-10….—p. 668
I am uncertain about how Muslims approach this issue based on the Quran, nor am I sure whether contemporary Jews are seeking solutions based on their Scriptures.
Regarding historical perspectives, numerous volumes of Jewish history have been written by various scholars, often based on extensive research. I lack the resources, time, or expertise to read all these works to reach a definitive conclusion. However, reading Jews, God and History by Max I. Dimont provided me with a significant understanding of Jewish history. Although evangelicals might have differing views, Dimont’s preface mentions that two Jewish scholars, Dr. Julius J. Nodel and Dr. Jacob R. Marcus, reviewed every chapter and provided valuable feedback, adding authenticity to his work.
Dimont highlights a crucial historical decision made by the Jews in the 2nd century AD:
“One additional decision made at this time had far-reaching psychological effects on the Jews, changing their character for twenty centuries. That decision was to abandon the idea of reconquering Palestine and establishing another Jewish state there. Henceforth, Palestine would be a spiritual homeland only, where pious Jews could go to die. Just as the Jews in the tenth century B.C. had discarded their nomadic life to become men of war, so in the second century A.D., they became men of peace. Though they would fight in the defense of the country in which they resided as a sign of gratitude for sanctuary, they would not fight as a militaristic people and would not attack anyone. Not until the twentieth century, when political Zionism came of age, advocating that Palestine once again be the political homeland for the Jews, did they take up arms, as Jews, fighting to restore their ancient homeland.” — p. 123
To understand this decision in context, Dimont outlines four laws formulated by the Jews in the 2nd century AD:
1. No Jew should have to obey a Jewish law beyond their capacity to observe. If a law that was workable in one generation became unworkable in another, it would need to be repealed or reinterpreted.
2. Jews must recognize the validity of non-Jewish documents in both Jewish and non-Jewish courts, and all oaths taken in any court, in any language, were valid.
3. All laws of a country where Jews resided had to be obeyed, provided they did not arbitrarily forbid religious practices, force incest, worship idols, or commit murder.
4. Jews must fight in the defense of the country where they lived, even if it meant fighting against fellow Jews in another country during wartime. — pp. 122-123
Despite the historical decision to avoid reconquering Palestine and establishing a new Jewish state, given the persecution Jews have faced, primarily from Christians, they have every right to reconsider their position and seek to establish a homeland in Palestine. The question then becomes: How did they achieve this?
Given my limited understanding of history, my summary here is admittedly superficial and based on various assumptions.
As Zionism gained momentum to reclaim Palestine and establish a homeland, they sought British assistance. At that time, Britain, which had occupied Palestine after defeating the Ottoman Empire, divided the land, granting more territory to Jews, whose population was smaller, and less to Arabs, whose population was larger. According to a Tamil video on the Palestine issue, this division set the stage for future conflicts. The British, known for their “divide and rule” policy, often left local populations to fight among themselves, as seen in the ongoing Kashmir conflict between India and Pakistan. This approach, likened to the Tamil proverb about the ill fate of a house where both a tortoise and a court peon enter, reflects the destructive legacy of British colonial rule.
Initially, Jews sought support from Arabs, who welcomed them and even sold some land to them. However, as Jewish immigration increased, conflicts arose over land encroachments. The Arabs, alarmed by the expanding Jewish presence, launched attacks in 1949, 1967, and 1971 but were defeated, resulting in further territorial losses.
An evangelical Christian perspective claims that Arab nations collectively attacked Israel in every conflict, and Israel consistently gained territories. This raises questions about the modern legitimacy of territorial expansion through military victories, a tactic also seen in China’s actions around its borders today.
American involvement followed, as Jews sought support from the US. The American approach, inheriting the British legacy of self-interest, has often prioritized its own benefits over the welfare of local populations. The US’s actions in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan exemplify this pattern. The common sentiment among Afghans, as reported by BBC Panorama, is feeling “betrayed by America” due to its agreement with the Taliban while disregarding the democratically elected Afghan government. This mirrors America’s involvement in Palestine, where it has pursued its interests at the expense of genuine peace efforts.
The recent conflict between Hamas and Israel underscores this issue. During the eleven-day clash, the US initially ignored the situation. Only when Egypt brokered a ceasefire did the US step in, seeking to claim credit for diplomacy, as reported by Palki Sharma on WION TV. The disparity in the responses of Netanyahu and US Secretary of State Blinken during the post-ceasefire press conference highlights the imbalance in this relationship.
Zionism, which has significant support in America, often drives US policy regardless of the President. According to journalist and author C.J. Werleman, Zionism has more in common with fascism and white supremacy than with Judaism. Given America’s own history of racial issues and geopolitical strategies, this connection seems plausible.
While not all Americans agree with these policies—evidenced by protests against the Vietnam War and electoral outcomes—the nature of democratic politics often means that elected leaders must navigate complex political pressures, sometimes contradicting their pre-election promises. Even figures like Gandhi, known for his principles of nonviolence and truth, had to engage in political maneuvering to achieve his goals.
The role of the US as a global power and self-proclaimed defender of human rights often results in supporting certain groups while undermining others. This approach, focusing on self-interest rather than genuine justice, leads to repeated patterns of betrayal and conflict.
Given the complex geopolitical dynamics, the prospects for lasting peace in Palestine seem bleak. Various regional and international actors continue to pursue their own interests, complicating any efforts for a sustainable resolution. As suggested in the Gravitas Plus documentary on Jerusalem, we must observe these developments with an open mind rather than imposing our own interpretations based on scripture.
Dayanand Bharati
26-05-2021, Revised on 13-09-2024
Notes
1 Similar another famous slogan is that ‘Muktiveda [alone] is the Word of God’. About this Paul Sudhakar said, ‘To say that Bible is the Word of God is Biblical, but it is unbiblical to say that Bible only is the Word of God. The Biblical truth has to be seen separate from the cultural additions and even distortions of it…. — Wilhelmina Sudhakar, Chosen to Serve: The Life and Writings of Paul Sudhakar, 2007, p. 269
2 There cannot possibly be any doubt regarding the meaning of the word Brahman in XII.12 {there is an error here and it should be XIII.12, as the foot note given below as well as Gita refers–db} since the description in 12-17 clearly indicates that this is the Highest Brahman. But a very subtle point regarding the relation of this Highest Brahman and Krsna is raised by the commentators while commenting on ‘Anaadimatparam’. Samkara to whom there is nothing else higher than Brahman, divides the words as Anaadimat and Param, while Ramanuja to whom Krsna is higher than Brahman, divides as Anadi and Matparam understanding the latter as ‘that in relation to which I am the Supreme. If only the beginning were to be negatived for Brahman, mere ‘Anaadi’ would have been sufficient and there is no necessity of adding a possessive ‘Mat’ to it. Samkara notices the difficulty and gives the excuse that it is for the sake of completing the sloka. Ramanuja’s interpretation has the support of a tradition that goes to pre-Samkara times as is indicated by the fact that Samkara notes this interpretation…..(p.24)
This is more or less a problem in textual criticism, but before Samkara the words were so divided and interpreted. Considering the spirit of the Bhagavadgita, Ramajuna appears to be nearer the truth. Samkara’s interpretation is actuated by a desire to prove that Brahman is Nirguna and Highest.— T. G. Mainkar, Comparative Study of the Commentaries on The Bhagavadgita, New Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, 2nd Edition, 1969, pp. 24-25
Leave a Reply