Next
Now the Karaites I have a lot of respect for. They adhere to the divinity of the Hebrew Scriptues as I do. So you'd think I'd agree with them on this point of this exclusive relationship with Deity. In fact, since I was a christian and then left christianity only via the plain understanding of the Jewish Scriptures, it would be weird for me to disagree with the christian view I was raised with and the view of a good number of people that only accept the divinity of the written scriptures as I do. But strangely enough, I find myself having problems with the Karaite point of view.
What are these problems? Well it logically follows that as Karaites and people like them only fundamentally use scripture, then they would have scriptural backing for their ideas. And they do. Some use Genesis 17, the institution of the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision (i.e., circumcision was the sign of that covenant), to say that it was meant for every male, descendent of Abraham or not, to be circumcised. Or they may use Exodus 12:48 to say that, in Israel, the righteous gentile, called the "ger", the sojourner or stranger, had to be circumcised and become an Israelite. Add to that Joshua 5:1-7, which they use to say that every male in the camp of Israel, including foreigners had to be circumcised. Isaiah 56, according to them, shows that all gentiles are meant to "join to the Lord" and "keep the covenant" which means becoming Israelite. And Jeremiah 9:24-25 has the Almighty punishing non-Jews because they haven't been circumcised. Some say that Ezekiel 44:7,9 says that people uncircumcised in flesh are among those not allowed in the temple, and Isaiah 52:1 would seem to agree with that saying that the uncircumcised wouldn't even be allowed to walk in the holy city of Jerusalem.
Now this article isn't meant to be a refutation of these interpretations of scriptures. I've written enough on this website on a whole that is just all about refutations. Refutations of the trinity, refutations of messianic prophecies, refutations of so-called "scientific" theories. No, this article is meant to bring something a bit more positive, to make some positive statements. But through my studies, I have found that the Karaite understanding of these verses seems a bit skewed. And here is a brief summary of those problems.
Also, there are sections of scripture and logical conclusions from scripture that appear to contradict this either-in-or-out, Israel-only, way of thinking. The number of times that the Law speaks of the "ger", a sojourner, who is uncircumcised, but keeping other aspects of the law has significance. The sabbath command is applicable to this person (Exo 20:11), and they too must attend the reading of the law (Deut 31:12). It is clear that this "ger", sojourner, is not an Israelite because they are allowed things Israelites cannot do, such as eating any carcasses, things simply found dead, and not slaughtered properly (Deut 14:21), and the "ger" is treated differently to an Israelite in other respects as well. This shows that they are not circumcised, or have become converted totally to being an Israelite, or else they would be treated equally, having to keep every aspect of the law of Moses.
The complete foreigner, not a sojourner, is still allowed to give sacrifices at the temple, according to Leviticus 22:25. The context of this verse is saying that no Israelite or sojourner is allowed to give an animal sacrifice where there is some sort of blemish or injury or problem with the animal. The section ends by saying:
Neither from the hand of a foreigner shall you offer the bread of your Deity of any of these, because their corruption [or, disfigurement] is in them, there is a blemish in them; they shall not be accepted for you. (Leviticus 22:25)
As you can see, the priest should not accept an animal with a blemish even from a foreigner who is not part of Israel. But why would a foreigner, who is not part of Israel alone, be allowed to give sacrifices if this notion of "Israel-only" is true? This shows that even foreigners give sacrifices, which shows that they too can worship the one true Deity.
In 1 Kings 8:41-43 it says the following:
And also, concerning the foreigner which is not from your people Israel, when he shall come from a far country because of Your name - for they shall hear [of] Your great name, and Your mighty hand, and Your outstretched arm, and shall come and pray towards this house - May You, Yourself hear [in] the heavens, Your dwelling place, and do according to all that the foreigner calls to You [for], so that all peoples of the earth may know Your name, to fear You as Your people, Israel, and to know that your name is called upon this house which I have built.
This is speaking of the foreigner who also knows about the Deity that saved Israel, and who acts upon that knowledge in worship. That foreigner, as well as all the peoples of the world, is supposed to know the name of the Almighty, to revere him (be in awe of Him) like the people of Israel fear Him, and respect the temple. None of this is in line with the notion that you are either part of Israel, and thus having a worshipful relationship with Deity, or you are out in the world and lost, unclean, without Deity, and without hope.
In fact, if this verse is understood with Isaiah 56, which speaks of the temple being the house of prayer for all peoples, just as this foreigner prays towards the temple, then it can have some unpleasant implications for the "Israel alone" doctrine.
What about the whole book of Jonah? It talks about a prophet who goes to a non-Israelite city in order to warn a population who are generally non-Israelite to repent. They listened, they fasted and prayed, and then the Almighty condemned them anyway because they weren't circumcised? Actually, that didn't happen. After they had pleaded with Yahweh, he answered them positively by sparing their city. Even this is not consistent with the "Israel-only" policy held by some, because it shows Deity actually concerned about the welfare of foreigners. It shows him sending them a message, and them responding to their prayer and fasting. And he responds. This is what is called "interaction", something almost like a conversation. But it is between the foreigner, the non-Israelite and Deity. That is why it is inconsistent with the "world-out, Israel-in" teaching.
I could give other scriptural examples, such as Job, Naaman, the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezar, and even Abraham himself, amongst others. I could speak of the fact that nations like the Canaanites were judged and expelled from the land because of their sin, which shows that they were still accountable to a standard of morality, and their sin was not the transgression of the full law of Moses. All of these examples would show how Deity still has a relationship with a world outside of Israel in a good way, and that he expects something from the nations, even if they are not part of Israel.
Think about it. Properly speaking, Israel is a nation connected with a certain land, even if they didn't always occupy it. Is it really the case that if you are not part of that nation, not wanting to live in that land, that Yahweh will not accept your worship or not still demand some sort of standard of morality from you? Is Yahweh simply the deity of Israel and not Deity of the whole world? Is the only morality available to a foreigner the entire law of the nation and people of Israel? Notice that he makes a special covenant with Israel. That is a well known fact. That singles Israel out, but for what?
There are fundamental problems with this exclusive approach, whoever adopts it. This sort of thinking has been seen in christianity, and all parts of historical Judaism, even in some Orthodox Jewish rabbis. So I'm not just focusing on people here, but an idea that could potentially be held by anyone who respects the scriptures of the Deity of creation and of Israel.
Back
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.