Biblical Judges: Chiefs?

So say some Jewish scholarsOne per “Tribe” of the traditional 12 Tribes of Ancient Israel?  Maybe even a permanent office in each Tribe, versus the occasional charismatic commander we’re told about?  Some of whom were more noteworthy than most?  (How many Presidents, Monarchs, or Prime Ministers of any one country can you name?!)

I know enough Hebrew to know Professor Sarfatti isn’t out on a limb here (no pun intended!).  Conflating shevet and shofet?  Consider that every Sunday School class — or Hebrew School — has been asked, “Why are they called judges?”  We see them as military commanders, prophets, philosophers, power-lifters, lovers….  The answer is, They might not have been called “judges” as the word has been most commonly understood in the centuries since then!

Maybe King James should’ve sent the Old Testament by his translators one more time!  Then again, a Biblical book of “Chiefs” or “Chieftains” around that time, the early 1600s, might’ve made Irish or American Indians look too favorable for His Majesty’s comfort … or rather, that of his wicked counsellors….

It’s a minor semantic point.  The roles and deeds of the particular Israelite Chiefs upheld in Judges are clear enough for Scriptures’ purposes.  But since the English words chief, chieftain, chiefdom, etc., are today so identified with Indigenous Peoples, Scottish Clans, Irish Septs, and other oppressed people, “Speak to the weary a word that will rouse them.”

What do we see, then, in pre-Monarchy Israel?  Twelve or so loosely-affiliated “Tribes,” or rather, Chiefs, each with his “staff” or “scepter,” literally and figuratively — the Tribe.  “Tribal Sovereignty,” even!  With him, various officials, aides, counselors.  And within each Tribe, Clans, Houses, and so forth.  And a God Who opposed a permanent royal federation under an earthly king: The Israelites’ problem in Judges isn’t that they keep getting harried by their neighbors, but that they keep slacking-off in their devotion to Him Who Is, so He lets them have their way, and they get the stuffing beat out of them — rightly, we are to believe, since who knows better than God how to do anything?!  Their problem isn’t geopolitics, it’s Theology.  (Even these gentlemen agree today.)  Doesn’t God say so often throughout Scripture?  Early Israel’s throne was atop the Ark of the Covenant, not in “a cedar palace.”

And so should we who are “Judeo-Christians” today continue to adjudge the ups and downs of our favorite “nations”: My sins, not anybody else’s, not any other nations either.

(I know: “Joshua Chiefs Ruth” doesn’t have the ring of “Joshua Judges Ruth”….)

Advertisements

Is McCain a Christian Zionist like Hagee?

That’s the worry of English journalist Victoria Clark, author of the recent book Allies for Armageddon.

Will McCain try to do what W. has (so far) failed to do, and “bring back Jesus“?!?!?!  (Yes, it’s total heresy – see here for a little info – but that doesn’t stop them from screwing the rest of the world!)

See also “McCain’s Christian Zionist, Subprime Mortgage Pimping Problem” for some more people and more importantly, THINGS HE HAS TO REPUDIATE.

How to solve Israel’s Iran problem

Israeli leaders – in the midst of a growing domestic scandal, interestingly – threaten to attack Iran, which would be an act of war and perhaps provoke the holocaust – if they will pardon the expression – that they claim to want to avoid.

They’d take alot of wind out of Iranian sails if they just made peace with their neighbors, especially the Palestinians.

This wouldn’t be “appeasement.”  Letting Israel hang on to the Illegally-Occupied Territories of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights, and attack her neighbors Lebanon and Syria with impunity and out of all scale to the problem that was emanating therefrom, is appeasement.  Letting Israel continue to make innocent Palestinians’ lives hell on earth, and not pay for the excessive devastation in Lebanon, is appeasement.  Letting Israel perch the whole planet on the precipice of World War III / Global Jihad / World Crusade for its own shortsighted, misguided, narrow policies and international noncooperation and dictation, is appeasement.  Bu’ushist threats of a nuclear first-strike against a non-nuclear Iran, besides illegal in themselves, are an appeasement of Israel.  New French “neocon” threats of a similar nature are shockingly disappointing for this formerly-responsible member of the world community, as well as appeasement and “red meat” for their “base” in France and the U.S.  US and French disingenuousness is similarly appeasement.

Iran is most definitely not “a direct threat to the national security of the United States and our allies,” because we have no treatied allies under Iranian “threat.”  Such a statement is ignorant of the situation at International Law as it currently stands.  Iran is a nation of more than 70 million population, a modern State and economy, and a major world culture.  It cannot be simply ordered around like some tribal sheikdom or Third-World Banana Republic.  Bu’ushists bluster in perfect Middle Eastern fashion, while “the West” claims to be heir to a better-developed international legal and diplomatic tradition.  Bush thus gives the lie to Western claims, makes Mideasterners nervous, and they would reasonably feel the need to prepare to defend themselves against violations of their territorial sovereignty, even if they weren’t making such preparations, as Iran, and US and international intelligence estimates claim they are not.  (Of course, reason is not something the Bu’ushists are known for, as they belittle The Reality-Based Community!)

The real rogue states in this process so far are Israel, the US, and now France also.