In The Beginning

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Thus begins the preeminent book (The Hebrew Bible) in the history of mankind. A sacred book that has been more often cited than read, and more read than understood.

This discourse will attempt to explain Creation, and specifically the first human being. In other words, it is the beginning of a beginning.  

I have come to understand that the conflict in interpretation, aka commentary, of the Hebrew Bible, or Torah,[1] is man made. This conflict can be understood in the context of a Non sequitur. A Non sequitur is a Latin phrase meaning “it does not follow.” It means that the conclusion reached does not follow from the premise(s). Nowhere is this more in evidence than rabbinic interpretation and commentary of mankind’s creation. 

The account of Creation is so fundamentally rooted in Judaism’s consciousness that any attempt to consider it from solely an intellectual distance is immediately seen as suspect, and even amateurish. However, much contemporary commentary, in my view, as it relates to Creation, has been tendentious. In this sense, the historiographical shift from the literal to a figurative symbolism, shows the notion that mankind’s creation was not what it was. In terms of Creation, the contrast between literal and symbolic is easily understood. However, it is increasingly clear that contemporary interpretations have acquired a more ideological inclination. 

It needs to be said; the assertion that man can faithfully interpret G-d is naive at its best, and egotistical at its worst. An assertion is not a valid justification. Argument by assertion is the logical fallacy where someone tries to argue a point by merely asserting that it is true, regardless of contradiction. For example, the statement that ‘everybody would agree.’ The assertion establishes an a priori as a fact that in fact may not be true, or at very least cannot be verified as true. An individually intuitive perception is not sufficient. To simply assert something or some action is good, is not proof, nor is it even reasoned justification.  Hence, it is only a supposition, an assertion, and certainly not a certainty. In this light, thus can we begin to interpret G-d’s meaning in Genesis.

As Harold Bloom[2] cogently discerned, ‘to read in the service of any ideology is not, in my judgment, to read at all.’

It is problematic to interpret Genesis as only figurative language. The plain sense of the Book of Genesis text (Torah) does not support this interpretation. Instead, Genesis is a literal account given to Moses from G-d. It is the only book in the bible that Moses was not an active participant in, and as such, is exhaustive and unabridged by definition. 

The point is, some commentary try to work out what happened in each hour of the creation of Adam on the sixth day. But here they delved way beyond the information in Genesis (text). In fact, this is the problem in much of the commentary to Genesis. The commentary does not reflect the text, and, in fact, goes way beyond.       

A primary example, is Bereishit 1:27, Human Beings, “And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them." Yet, the Chumash[3] states in its text[4] that “He created them as a single, androgynous being comprising both male and female bodies, attached back to back.” This is a contradiction with the text,[5] and therefore must be suspect and taken as conjecture. It would only be correct in the sense that Eve was later created from Adam’s “bone and flesh.”[6] Yet, that is not what the Chumash says or implies. Clearly, man was created first – the first human being was a man, and not an androgynous being! No where in Genesis does it say that the first man, Adam, was partly male and partly female in appearance, or in any other feminine aspect.

Furthermore, the verse, "He created them," should be understood, not that G-d "created them" at the same time, for that contradicts the preceding, "so God created the human in his image, He created him in the image of God." Accordingly, "He created them," should be read in the future tense. Additionally, G-d created the fish, birds, reptiles, and animals in the plural, with the intention that all would go forth and multiply. However, it is only latter that He creates woman (Eve) for much the same purpose, in their role as humans.        

Moreover, Genesis says “ he created him,” not he/she, or it. “Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”[7] The fact is that Genesis recounts creation as “his nostrils,” and “the human,” not humans. “And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the Garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.” Again, it is man and him, singular, not them. G-d did not put “them” in the Garden of Eden. “And the LORD God said: It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help(er) meet for him.”[8] If “Eve existed along with “Adam,” why would G-d say ‘that the man should not be alone,’  and why would the helper need to be created? 

Genesis tells us, “And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the place with flesh instead thereof.“And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from the man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man.”[9] G-d created Eve from the rib and flesh of Adam. The first women did not exist at the same time that the first man was created.

By attempting to reduce Creation to a politically correct ideological distortion that man was an androgynous being, one is only too prone to limit non-bias intellectual scrutiny. Within that framework nothing is easier then capitulation to interest group politics. But, in reality, critical analysis and Devine understanding are not so simple.

As previously stated, the Chumash avers that “He created them as a single, androgynous being comprising both male and female bodies, attached back to back.”[10] However, it is not believed that a closing of ranks by rabbinical commenters is ipso facto validity to adopt an illogical assertion – that the first man was an androgynous human being. In other words, an illusion and invalid assertion does not confirm respectability of an opinion, regardless of how many times you repeat it. Again, the first women did not exist at the same time that the first man was created.

Creation when recounted by means of politically correct ideological distortions, are often used as a veil of ideology, which then hides the real meaning of the event. Such is the case of this understanding of Creation. 

The purpose of this discourse is to interpret and understand Creation void of ideological sentiments. And, to debunk a pathological state of cognition in which ideology takes precedence over the genuine search for truth. 

---

[1]The Greek term is Pentateuch, which means five scrolls.

[2]Harold Bloom (b. 1930) is an American literary critic Professor of Humanities at Yale University.

[3]Chumash, Chabad House Publications, Los Angeles, CA, Kehot Publication Society, Brooklyn, NY, USA, 2015.

[4]Ibid. Page 11

[5]Genesis 2:18

[6]Genesis 2:21 – 24

[7]Genesis 2:7

[8]Genesis 2:1

[9]Genesis 2:22

[10]Chumash, Chabad House Publications, Los Angeles, CA, Kehot Publication Society, Brooklyn, NY, USA, 2015, Page 11.

Redemption: It Will Not Be For Everyone

What will be proffered here, are not logical arguments about the nature of Redemption, but the contemplation and the interpretation of its consequences vis-à-vis divine scripture of Torah. This then becomes the essence of discovery, and thus understanding of Divine revelation, to the extent it may be possible to know. We should acknowledge the insights of earlier interpretations, however, acceptance is another matter. We should not expect a consensus of what is posit here that most Jews would accept. At its core, this discourse seeks to understand the relationship of G-d to the material world, and hence predict the consequences of man’s allegiance to his covenant with G-d, and his subsequent redemption.

My Rabbi says I should love all Jews. But I do not! "A good Jew is a good American."[1] I believe that unreservedly. A Jew is who I am, and America is whom I bear my allegiance. I took an oath,[2] and I am of my word.

Ms. Caroline Glick, in her insightful Op-Ed of July 8, 2018,[3] “Why Democrats are turning anti-Israel,” proffers, “but the fact is that the Democrats’ shift in values from nationalist to post-nationalist,[4] rather than any action Israel has taken in its domestic or foreign policy, is what has caused the rupture in Israel’s ties to the American left. So long as ... post-nationalist forces continue to rise in the Democratic Party ... bipartisan support for Israel, like bipartisan support for American nationalism, will remain a thing of the past."

Today, secularism, liberalism, progressivism, socialism, and communism, are the values of the Democratic Party in America. They are anti-American, and they are anti-Israel. They are not neutral. They are not benign. They are pernicious. And they are G-dless. 'I have no tolerance for their intolerance,'[5] and neither does my G-d. Time is running out for liberal/progressive American Jews to live-up to their Covenant. Today, you cannot be silent.

Some Jewish religious leaders have proffered an eschatological exegesis to this difficult question regarding Jews in today’s Democratic Party. They maintain that, "let the sins seized exist and not let the sinners cease to exist" (יתמו החטאים מן הארץ ולא החוטאים).[6]  In other words, it is the sin that is the problem. The sinner alone is blameless. So at the end of time his sins will cease to exist, but the sinner, the man himself, will still be around albeit after repentance. This is not Torah. It is Talmudic. This Talmudic interpretation of redemption is incongruent with G-d’s Word.

Should we then say, that a man who murders another without reason, thus committing a sin (avone / עָוֹן) would be forgiven his wicked act? What moral implication does that leave mankind? If all acts were forgiven, “by what measure of justice would G-d punish the wicked and reward the righteous?”[7] “The deeds of man are in the hands of man, and G-d does not induce or coerce a person to do anything.”[8]

On Mount Sinai, G-d (elohim) revealed to Moses the laws by which all Israel should live. It was the word of G-d. Some disingenuously may consider it to be an "oral tradition," because G-d “instructed” Moses. However, it is the word of G-d! There is no excuse for disobedience. There is no excuse for ignorance. The Torah is replete with accounts of horrendous consequences for those who did not obey. On the other hand, the Mishnah, the Tosefta, and the Babylonian Talmud, are all "oral tradition," or the 'Torah of the mouth,' in contrast to the written Torah of scripture. The former are from men, the latter is from G-d. As Moses tells us, "choose life" -- choose G-d.[9]

I believe that time is running out, or in fact has run out, for liberal/progressive American Jews to live-up to their Covenant. Today, you cannot be a "good Jew" and a Democrat. A "good Jew" does not sit silently along side those who call for the destruction of the State of Israel. A "good Jew" cannot sit silently as anti-Semitism murders innocent Jewish men, women, and children, throughout the world. A "good Jew" does not threaten severe consequences to Jews who support Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Trump, Vice-President Pence, and other American Jews who support those listed here.

As in David, 'rewards and punishment come after death ... some to ever lasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.' G-d says "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from their ways and live."[10] Yet today, liberals/progressives/socialists of all being have not “turned from their ways.” Do you believe the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, will not punish the sinners?" If one is searching for an answer, look to Sodom, The Flood, Exodus, or Korah and his followers. ‘The deluge that came to punish’[11] is the sinners’ destiny, not redemption.

In the concept of Teshuvah commonly understood to be repentance, the sinner looks for redemption. However, its more definitive meaning is turning back to G-d to atone for one’s sins. The Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson (“Rebbe”), which many would recognize as the greatest and most important leader of Judaism in the twentieth century tells us[12], “G‑d prefaced the creation of Teshuvah to the creation of the world — so that the potential is there for Teshuvah to do its work!” The salient word is “potential.”

There are the sins of omission and sins of commission. The former are understandable such as speaking ill of another, thinking evil thoughts, eating unclean food, et cetera, and are forgiven by G-d through repentance. However, the latter such as turning your back and not supporting Eretz Israel (Land of Israel) is evil with intent, and not to be forgiven.

The concept of Tzaddik (righteousness or a righteous person) also accentuates this point. It is at the time of death that the Tzaddik reaches the epitome of his worldly existence. ‘And the spirit returns to G‑d who gave it.’ [13]

The soul returns to its source in a manner of absolute perfection. The physical life of the saintliest Tzaddik is merely a sojourn of descent. In that milieu the Tzaddik functions and accomplishes his goals till he reaches the day when his life is completed, and when he expires he attains a much loftier success — the infinite leap to the source.

However, for those Jews such as politicians, celebrates, elites, secularists, atheists, their judgment will be catastrophic. “If you persist in keeping silent at a time like this, relief and deliverance will come to the Jews from some other place while you and your father’s house will perish.”[14] In other words, the Lubavitcher Rabbi Shmuel Schneerson, “Rebbe MaHarash,” guides our understanding of this matter as follows: ‘if you refrain from lending assistance the relief and deliverance will come from somewhere else, but then you and your father’s house will be lost — you will forfeit your chance to have the benefit and merit of having helped other Jews.’ [15] Thus, for a Jew, to not support Eretz Israel for one’s politics is without redemption. They perplex the conscience.

‘It has long been established that universal observance of the laws (Halakhah) are not enforceable by either direct authority or custom.’[16] Hence, local rabbinic leaders whether Orthodox, Conservative, or Reform, inevitably retain a role as decisor. However, in a matter as important as eschatology, only divine authority is determinate. We may argue over whether the Hannakkah Menorah should be lighted in side the home or outside the home.[17] Normative argumentation not withstanding, adherence and observance of G-d’s Commandments may not be parsed as some temporal existence. In this sense, you cannot profess to accept G-d and Judaism if you cannot also support the State of Israel against its enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Revelation and its eschatological consequences as an existential reality and a messianic promise culminate in G-d’s judgment of a man’s soul. Mankind will find it cannot escape judgment, and forgiveness for some will not be forthcoming.

Indeed, Redemption is not for everyone!

Lawrence S. Schneiderman
Label ben Yosef 
כֹּהֵן‬ kohén

---

[1] Letter from Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, to Rabbi Joseph Glaser, June 8, 1978.

[2] “I, Lary Scott Schneiderman, having been appointed an officer in the Navy of the United States (USPHS), as indicated above in the grade of Lieutenant (03) do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." 

[3] Caroline Glick, “Why Democrats are turning anti-Israel,” Jerusalem Post, July 8, 2018.

[4] The distinction between nationalist and post-nationalist is not a mere policy preference. It is a far more fundamental shift in values.

[5] Karl R. Popper, “The Open Society and Its Enemies,” Routledge, 1956.

[6] Emails to author from Lubavitcher Rabbis Levi Brook and Dovid Grossbaum, July 9^th and 10^th 2018.

[7] Rabbi Moshe b. Maimon (Maimonides), Mishneh, Laws of Repentance 51:4.

[8] Rabbi Moshe b. Maimon (Maimonides), Mishneh, Laws of Repentance 51:5.

[9] Devarim –Deuteronomy – Chapter 30:19

[10] Deut 12:12; 16:11

[11] George Santayana,” The Philosophy of Santayana,” Random House, 1942.
[12] Shabbos Parshas Haazinu, 13th Day of Tishrei, 5746 (1986)
[13] Ecclesiastes Koheles12: 7

[14] Esther 4:14

[15] Rabbi Shmuel Schneerson, Selected Teachings of Rabbi Shumel, Chabad.org

[16] Martin Goodman, A History of Judaism, Princeton University Press, Oxford (2018).

[17] Moses b. Maimon Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, that Hannukkah lights be outside in the street as mandated in the Misnah. Still, Moses Isserles, known as the Rama, in his Mappah, endorsed the universal practice of his day, when Jews lived among non-Jews, to light Hannakkah lights in the home.

BLOOD ON THE DOORPOSTS

Passover: An Interpretation of The First Night And A Lesson For Today

“At midnight, then the north wind arouse and then G‑d wrought His vengeance [on Egypt, killing their firstborn]. Israel (was) instructed to mark their houses with the blood of the sacrificed paschal lamb with three marks, "upon the lintel, and on the two sideposts" (Ex.12: 23).

What is the reason [why G‑d commanded the blood to be marked in these 3 places on the doorway]? It has been understood that these marks represented the Holy Name. Because it is a Holy mark, and the Angel of Destruction [which came to sow destruction in Egypt] would have mercy on Israel when it saw this blood that was marked on their doors. This is what is written: “And the L-rd will pass over the door and will not let the destroyer come into your houses to strike you” (Ex.12: 23). This final Holy act to free His people from bondage was proscribed by G-d.

The Torah Parashaha (portion), Exodus 12 (רָשָׁה‬ Pārāšâ), is concerned with this Holy act. Conventional wisdom and its interpretation, is that this Holy act was a simple act of “faith.” By that I mean, a symbolic gesture of primal human compliance.

This interpretation, in my view, is naïve. Are we to believe that Israelites in Egypt on the night of Passover marked their doorposts with blood as a symbolic demonstration of their faith in G-d? Keyn! That is not the reason why.

The explanation, which is proffered here, can be found in the principle of Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is the best.

First, G-d said to Moses that “I will pass through the land of Egypt on this night, and I will smite every firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast, and upon all the gods of Egypt will I wreak judgments I, the Lord” (Exodus 12:12) … “And the blood will be for you for a sign upon the houses where you will be, and I will see the blood and skip over you, and there will be no plague to destroy [you] when I smite the [people of the] land of Egypt” (Exodus 12:13). G-d did not ask – He said, “I will,” and therefore you will.

Second, G-d said to Moses, “Moses summoned all the elders of Israel and said to them (Exodus 12:21) … you shall extend to the lintel and to the two doorposts the blood that is in the basin, and you shall not go out, any man from the entrance of his house until morning (Exodus 12:22) … and the Lord will pass over the entrance, and He will not permit the destroyer to enter your houses to smite [you]. Moses did not ask Israel, it was an order—“you shall.”

Third, this was an order given by Moses to Israel. As a Hebrew on the night of Passover, I put the blood on my doorposts as prescribed, not as a pious act of faith, but rather as an existential and obedient act to G-d. Other then the plaques G-d brought to Egypt, what did the Hebrew’s in Goshen truly know about G-d? What they knew and believed, was He was all mighty, and when He instructed them through His Chosen One (Moses) to mark their doorposts with blood, those who were not morons obeyed.

Therefore, it was not an act of faith – it was an act of salvation. It was not spiritual – it was corporeal. It was not symbolic – it was explicit.

This was the reason why Israel put blood on their doorposts.

Today, in western society the paucity of religious conviction, the absence of belief in G-d and His Commandments, is leading to the destruction of society. And, secularization is the axe being wielded to remove morality from society in furtherance of nefarious ends.

Secularism is not neutral. Secularism is not benign. It is pernicious. And it is G-dless. Thus, secularism, at least as a general trend, is the practice of Progressives / Liberals in society – which more or less convincingly drape their resolutions in notions of the people’s interests and later the people's will – however, regrettably results in a far more usurpation of power and morals, than an elaboration of democratic ideals and morality.

To an ever increasing ignorant society, Progressives / Liberals give a new fictive appearance of democracy by deceitful means.

Hence, the quintessential question is: will you put blood on your doorposts, or are you a moron?

INDEED, WHO IS CARTER PAGE?

Who is Carter Page?

Answer: A Red Herring.

It was clearly evident to me in March 2017, approximately one year ago, that the Obama Administration used the Government of The United States of America, to spy and attempt to take down a candidate for the presidency, and failing that, a duly elected and sitting President. 

http://thegreygrater.blogspot.com/2017/03/trump-towergate.html

Make no mistake; this should be regarded as an unparalleled assault on the Constitution and the foundation of our democracy, by departments and agencies of our federal government, e.g., DOJ, FBI, NSA, and DOS.

http://thegreygrater.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-united-states-of-russia.html

The next question is: will democracy, justice, and the rule of law prevail, or will the "Deep State" and our establishment elitists of both political parties prevail? It is not hyperbole to believe that the very foundation of who we are as a people, hangs in the balance.

It is always appropriate, and especially at times like this, to quote Sir Winston (Churchill): "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." Accordingly, unless there are serious consequences for those who committed these "crimes," in other words, violations of federal laws, then the United States of America is no better than a "Banana Republic," and will continue its precipitous decline into lawlessness.

I remember Watergate well. I remember how the Republican leadership in Congress and the Mainstream Media, once the infamous tapes were discovered and its contents known, hounded President Nixon until he resigned, and government and non-government perpetrators were indicted, arrested, tried, and imprisoned. However, today, the Democratic leadership in Congress and the Mainstream Media, do everything in their power to protect those responsible for these crimes, in and out of government, going so far as to lie, obfuscate, obscure, conceal, dissimulate and denigrate, the truth from the American people. 

“Truth at last cannot be hidden. Dissimulation is of no avail. Dissimulation is to no purpose before so great a judge. Nothing is hidden under the sun.” 

― Leonardo da Vinci

The Book of Jonah: An Interpretation of G-d’s Message

INTRODUCTION

G-d speaks to Jonah, “Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and proclaim against it; for their wickedness is come before Me.” [1] And so begins, arguably one of the most recognizable books of the bible, however, its true meaning, it is argued here, has been misunderstood.

The Story of Jonah has been, in part, taken over and rendered canonized by reformed rabbinical rationalizations that consolidate the story’s meaning by making it appear a conceptual fact. [2] This liberal / progressive approach to understanding Jonah, amounts to a narrative of events written in an ideological mode. Hence, G-d is merciful and has “love” for all mankind. Yet, I would posit, one should not understand G-d’s primary meaning that way. 

In other words, any interpretation of the Book of Jonah must remove tendentious thought, and advance from the physical to the metaphysical. When the veil of ideology hides or distorts meaning, understanding is at best impaired, and at worst impossible.

THE BOOK of JONAH

G-d tells Jonah, a Hebrew prophet of the 8^th century B.C., to go in harms way, when He commands him to go to Nineveh, and “proclaim” to its inhabitants to repent their wickedness. Nineveh is the Assyrian capital, and a great and powerful city of its time. It was perhaps the most important city of the known world. One further point should be noted, which is that Nineveh was the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah historic enemy, its fiercest rival, and in the parlance of our time, an “existential threat” to the Kingdoms’ national security.

Jonah knowing the threat Nineveh poses to his King and Kingdom cannot abide. Instead he “flees,” with the intention of going to Tarshish. Tarshish was a port village on the southern tip of the Iberian Peninsula. In other words, to the end of the world!

Found in the Book of Jonah, are multiple and profound lessons. Here is the first. Do you obey the word of G-d? Your G-d, who is unlike any other, “the Lord is our G-d; the Lord is one;” do you dare defy Him and flee? We know that Abraham was willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, and hence obey G-d’s command to demonstrate his faith in the All Mighty. Certainly, Jonah knew this. Yet, he did not obey. He fled.

Jonah is, in the parlance of our time, a runner! [3] Not necessarily a coward, but runner nevertheless. He flees to the Israel port city of Joppa (Jaffa). He flees from Joppa on a ship destined for Tarshish, to escape his duty to G-d. Once on the ship and on the sea, “G-d hurled a great wind into the sea, and there was a mighty tempest in the sea, so that the ship was like to be broken.” [4] But, Jonah flees to the lower cabin on the ship while his fellow shipmates are left to fight the tempest without his help.

Lots are cast, “that we may know for whose cause this evil is upon us.” [5] Then Jonah said to them, “Take me up, and cast me forth into the sea: so shall the sea be clam unto you; for I know that for my sake this great tempest is upon you.” [6] Jonah is then “cast forth into the sea: and the sea ceased from its raging.” [7] It is proffer that although Jonah’s request to be thrown from the ship is indeed a noble act; it also can be interpreted as another example of Jonah “fleeing” a situation.

“And the Lord prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah; and Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights” [8] Here it should be noted that the “great fish” that swallows Jonah and takes him to the depth of the sea, and after three days and nights vomits him upon dry land,[9] is involuntary, and not Jonah once again escaping his duty to G-d.

G-d again (second time) commands Jonah, “Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and make unto it the proclamation that I bid thee.” [10]  This time, Jonah obeys G-d, and sets out for Nineveh, a day’s journey. Jonah proclaims G-d message, “And the people of Nineveh believed G-d.” [11] Even the King rose from his throne and accepted the will of G-d, and decreed that all Nineveh’s inhabitants comply with G-d’s exhortation, and “turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.” [12] G-d accepted Nineveh’s repentance. [13]

However, Jonah would have none of it, and again “flees” in anger out of the city, and asks G-d to take his life for he has saved the greatest enemy of his people, who wish to destroy Israel and Judah. G-d said no.

Then we are told that Jonah “flees” to a hill on the east side of the city to watch what will become of Nineveh. “And the Lord prepared a gourd, and made it come up over Jonah, that it might be a shadow over his head, to deliver him from evil.” [14] This made Jonah happy.

Yet, in another twist of fate, G-d sends a “worm” that kills the gourd, that gave Jonah protection from the blazing sun. Without the gourd’s shade, Jonah faints from the sun’s heat, and again asks G-d to let him die. It can be argued that Jonah’s wishes to die are his ultimate attempts to “flee,” and his pathological need to flee from any adverse situation.

With no place to go, G-d asks Jonah, why he weeps and has pity for the gourd, “for which thou has not labored, neither madest it grow, which came up in a night, and perished in a night.” [15]

It is essentially a rhetorical question, because now G-d imparts his unparalleled wisdom to Jonah (and the world). G-d says, “and should I not have pity on Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than six score thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand, and so much cattle?” [16]

The phrase, “cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand,” is G-d’s teaching through the prophet Jonah.

It is argued here that G-d does not spare Nineveh because He is merciful. G-d’s purpose is not simply about life and death, for that is a fact of nature and always with mankind. No, He spares Nineveh to instruct mankind for all future generations. Jonah as wise as he may be is yet to understand.

The last words in the Book of Jonah are, “… cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand …” G-d does not intend this to mean that mankind must accept ignorance. On the contrary, ignorance then and now is abhorrent and sinful. The One and Only G-d does not show mercy for those that indulge in loathsome and wicked behavior, such as His judgments in Sodom and Gomorrah and the great Flood. The indulgence of ‘they know not what they do,’ is not an acceptable excuse.

G-d did not, as most biblical scholars would argue, choose to view Nineveh evil ways as redeemable. However, He would of course have had His reason to spare Nineveh, but it is argued here that that was not it. Rather, it has been a misjudgment of G-d’s wisdom through the ages.

Is it possible to know goodness without also knowing wickedness? Someone or something is not good because they say they are – someone or something is good because he or it exhibits qualities that are recognized to be good. Which begs the question, how would one know what is good and its qualities, unless one also knows what is wicked?

And there is the teaching of Jonah, Quod Erat Demonstrandum (Q.E.D.). Mankind needed Nineveh to know right from wrong, or more eloquently, ‘discern between our right hand and our left hand.’

CONCLUSION

How then does one interpret the Book of Jonah? The fact is that scholarship is never sufficient in itself to modify the conceptualization of a divine purpose. Today, ideology, mental laziness, pious rehashing,  political correctness, and the bankrupt and fraudulent theory of social justice, hamper the theological historiography of the Hebrew Bible even more.

To understand the Book of Jonah, one must remember Genesis, and how understanding begun. In the Garden, G-d created goodness and the perfect world, however, perfection can only be understood if there is imperfection.

Hence, we are led to the serpent, deception, and the resulting worldly consequences. That has been mankind ever since, the search for wisdom and spiritual fulfillment. It has always been so, that to know something is to know its opposite. How could one understand beauty without ugliness; right from wrong; and faith in G-d from secular atheism?

The lesson of the Book of Jonah, is G-d allowed all living things in Nineveh to survive His wrath, because He needed the world to understand the evil that exists in it, and what it looks like. It is through G-d’s blessings that the civilized world know their “right hand and their left hand.” In simpler words, G-d does not shine His countenance on the stupid!

The story of Jonah is immortal not because it is recited each year on the most holy day in Jewish life, but because in Jonah we receive G-d’s teachings in a profound story like manner. 

Still, G-d’s teachings will not always be revealed in an obvious manner, that is, so clumsily that one will realize its meaning immediately, so easily that one will need no thorough understanding of the matter, and so inconsequential that one will be able to dismiss or ignore it without consequences. The dialectic between the story and its interpretation has probably existed since it was first told or read.

In fairness, there will be differences in interpretation. Not everything can be explained. By that I mean, man cannot know G-d, and the meaning of all he does. It is the nature of our ability and limits to understand that ipso facto G-d creates shadows.

---

[1] Hebrew Bible, aka Old Testament, Jonah, Chapter 1, verse 2.

[2] I would proffer that this interpretation is even more evident in Christian writings.

[3] In this sense, is a person who leaves a place hastily to avoid a difficult or unpleasant situation.

[4] Hebrew Bible, aka Old Testament, Jonah, Chapter 1, verse 4.

[5] Hebrew Bible, aka Old Testament, Jonah, Chapter 1, verse 7.

[6] Hebrew Bible, aka Old Testament, Jonah, Chapter 1, verse 12.

[7] Hebrew Bible, aka Old Testament, Jonah, Chapter 1, verse 15.

[8] Hebrew Bible, aka Old Testament, Jonah, Chapter 2, verse 1.

[9] Hebrew Bible, aka Old Testament, Jonah, Chapter 2, verse 11.

[10] Hebrew Bible, aka Old Testament, Jonah, Chapter 3, verse 2.

[11] Hebrew Bible, aka Old Testament, Jonah, Chapter 3, verse 5.

[12] Hebrew Bible, aka Old Testament, Jonah, Chapter 3, verse 8.

[13] Hebrew Bible, aka Old Testament, Jonah, Chapter 3, verse 10.

[14] Hebrew Bible, aka Old Testament, Jonah, Chapter 4, verse 6.

[15] Hebrew Bible, aka Old Testament, Jonah, Chapter 4, verse 10.

[16] Hebrew Bible, aka Old Testament, Jonah, Chapter 4, verse 11.