A consideration of the State of Israel in theological terms may, to historians of Zionism and observers of contemporary Israel, appear contrived, or at least paradoxical. Israel was envisioned, molded, and established by the Zionist movement, and although this movement could point to pious precursors and adherents, it was in many respects a rebellion against religious tradition. Most of its enthusiasts were modern in consciousness and predominantly secular in orientation. They tended to see in Zionism an alternative to classical Judaism and its theological assumptions rather than a continuation or vindication of a holy tradition.
The opposition, however, of some rabbis and theologians does not determine the ultimate place of Zionism and the State of Israel in Jewish religious faith, for Zionist ideals of Jewish responsibility, creativity, return to the land, and national rehabilitation may be regarded as having religious significance. To be sure, the value of collective self-defense, of the Jews’ responsibility for their physical survival, was for some the consequence of the erosion of faith in the divine guardian of Israel; but others, with equal right or rigor, defended this value as a religious imperative in an age of Holocaust and return to the land. Zionism may be explained as mystic, as liberal and rational, or as redemptive. Indeed, there is a vast polemical literature in which it is debated whether the Zionist movement and the State of Israel point toward the successful secularization of the Jews or toward a divine redemption which sweeps even secular Jews into its overpowering orbit while providing them with an ideological disguise. For some writers, Israel and Zionism represent a new development in Jewish religion; for others a new nonreligious phase of Jewish spiritual history; and for still others a merciful liberation from a unique historical status and significance. One may venture the thought that this Literature has itself become a kind of theological genre, since it deals with what, for most modern Jews who reflect upon Judaism, is the central positive event in two millennia of Jewish history: the emergence of the State of Israel.
The literature dealing with the religious-rheological significance of Israel centers upon four main issues: (1) messianism and interpretations of redemptive signs and events that may be seen as signifying the end of galut (exile); (2) ereᶎ Yisrael (land of Israel) and its place within the faith-system of Judaism; (3) the Jewish people and its nature and cask, as these couch on the Jews' relationship to God and their relationship to the other peoples of the world; and (4) the demands and parameters of Torah, and how to relate to those who reject its authority or perceive its demands and scope differently. Needless to say, the hierarchical manner in which these various categories are ordered determines to a large degree how each of them is interpreted; moreover, the way contemporary circumstances (and modernity in general) are evaluated influences one's understanding of these theological issues.
Once the relevant theological terms are located and the conflicts that arise in the modern situation are identified, the disagreements become more intelligible and can be placed in appropriate contexts. For example, the radical difference between the ultraditional Neturei Kata (Aramtµc, lie., Guardians of the City) sect of Jerusalem and the religious-Zionist Gush Emunim (lit., Bloc of the Faithful) movement is not due to the fact that one is more messianic, more pacifistic, or less devoted to traditional Jewish law than the other. Both groups, the violently anti-Zionist votaries of Neturei Kata and the Zionist zealots of Gush Emunim, eagerly await the Messiah, share the assumption that God has promised to restore his people to the land of Israel in its biblical borers, and agree that the Torah, as interpreted by Orthodox sages, is the raison d’être and cosmic task of the Jewish people. No one in either group regards galut as anything but a curse and a punishment. Both anticipate the ultimate acceptance of God's kingdom by all men, and both consider contemporary humanity, by and large, idolatrous and spiritually benighted. They differ with regard to the State of Israel: whether its establishment is a redemptive or a demonic event, whether it is the result of providence or sin, and, thus, whether the State of Israel enhances or defames the sanctity of ereᶎ Yisrael. Their dispute over the application of the Torah to the Jewish state flows naturally from their disagreement regarding the true or false messianic nature of Zionism.
The bitter controversy between these particular groups illustrates the rule that serious theological disagreement is always predicated on at least some common terms of reference, which are then diversely interpreted. These terms, parenthetically, are grounded in theological assumptions that, until the advent of the modem age, all Jews shared. These assumptions were that the Jews are God's people, that they are in exile, that the Torah is binding but cannot be fully carried out in galut, and that God will eventually restore Israel to its land and usher in a new age through his Messiah. The Messiah, as Maimonides describes him (MT Hil. Melakhim 11), will conquer the land, rebuild the Temple, and reconstitute a Jewish society in ereᶎ Yisrael established according to the norms of the Torah. At that time, God will grant glory to Israel, all peoples will acknowledge his dominion, and there will be universal peace. It is within the historical context of these assumptions and in the reactions of modem Jews to them and to previous understandings of them that our approaches to the theological significance of Israel may be located.
Four basic conceptions of theological significance with regard to the State of Israel may be discerned: (1) theologies of negation: the State of Israel is an act of rebellion against God or is historically regressive. It is, therefore, to be regarded as militating against the authenticity or relevance of Judaism; (2) theologies of symbiosis: Israel is significant as a vital feature of Jewish civilization, but it has no normative meaning in isolation from other constitutive elements of Judaism; (3) theologies of Torah and ereᶎ Yisrael: Israel, as a Jewish society in the land of covenant, is of central halakhic and moral significance in the sacred system of Judaism; and (4) theologies of historical redemption: Israel is the embodiment of God's saving acts, which mark the fulfillment of his promise and the end of galut.
Theologies of negation can be found in a thoroughgoing religious opposition to the State of Israel in the ultra-Orthodox communities of Israel and the Diaspora on the one hand, and in the radical Reform movement and its offshoots in non-Orthodox Diaspora Judaism on the other.
The opposition of the ultra-Orthodox is based on the belief that the anticipated redemption can be effected only by God and his anointed one, who will implement that prophetic (and midrashic) promise of redemption in full. Until that divinely appointed hour, when God will end galut and restore Israel to his land, human attempts to hasten the redemption are forbidden; the Zionists who brazenly take the redemption into their own hands are merely heretics who espouse a false messiah. According to the thinking of Neturei Karta and the Satmar Hasidic sect, Zionism is the most pernicious movement in Jewish history, for it has flouted the oath imposed upon Israel not to "scale the walls," that is, not to attempt to conquer ereᶎ Yisrael, and not to rebel against gentile domination (BT Ket. 11la). In rebelling against the nations, Zionists have, in fact, rebelled against God and are thereby delaying the true redemption. The historical successes of Israel, especially those that appear miraculous (such as the victory in the Six-Day War), are interpreted demonically, as a temptation to the righteous remnant who must withstand the lure of the alleged salvation.1
Milder forms of this theological orientation are found within the right wing of the Orthodox Agudat Yisrael movement, guided by various Hasidic leaders and rabbinic authorities who head the prominent talmudic academies (yeshivot) in Israel and the Diaspora. In these circles, Israel Independence Day is thus generally ignored. Relations with the general, that is, non religious and Zionist, public in Israel are conducted in accordance with the needs of the community of the faithful and its public interests. Agudac Yisrael's accommodation to the Zionist state is pragmatic and, in principle, no different from a politics pursued with gentile authorities. Yet this accommodation is marked by a curious ambivalence, for Israel is, after all, in ereᶎ Yisrael, and its leaders are Jews who may yet return to true Judaism.2
Negation of Israel on religious grounds in radical Reform Judaism is now confined almost exclusively to the American Council for Judaism, but it once constituted a significant anti-Zionist position, which held that since their dispersion, the Jews have not been a nation and must be seen rather as constituting only a religious faith community. Indeed, the dispersion of Israel was providential, making possible a realization of the biblical prophecy that Israel be "a light unto the nations." Zionism is thus a regressive conception, and the State of Israel seeks to narrow Jewish identity by creating a secular version of what was but an early stage in Israelite religion. 3
Though the Reform movement no longer subscribes to this position, milder expressions of it are sometimes found among liberal Jewish educators and leaders who maintain that a secular state noted primarily for its military prowess is irrelevant to the spiritual meaning and on-going life of Judaism.
The second theological approach, the theologies of symbiosis, assigns religious significance to the State of Israel for having restored a constituent element to the structure of full and balanced Jewish life, namely a Jewish society in ereᶎ Yisrael.
Israelis who espouse this position tend to consider the "restorative" thrust of the State of Israel in a political-Zionist and thus nontheological fashion: the Jewish commonwealth makes it possible for Jews to leave the "abnormal" condition of life among the gentile nations. According to this view, in the natural habitat of the Jewish people fundamental religious issues can be clarified and religious faith may be purified, for here religion is not distorted by the "survival" functions placed upon it in the galut. However, the state has no religious meaning in and of itself; it is an instrument, liberating the Jews from the burden of life in a gentile civilization that is not conducive to a fully Jewish and halakhic existence! Similarly, it has been argued that the separation between religion and state that should be consistently respected in Israel, as behooves a modern liberal state, may allow a modern Jewish national culture to absorb freely Judaism's religious spirit. Diaspora exponents of this theological approach are, like their Israeli fellows, wary of ascribing too much theological meaning to the State of Israel, though their primary concern is to maintain the integrity of Jewish spirituality and life outside the land. While the Israeli thinkers of this school generally negate the value of Diaspora life, their colleagues in the Golah (Diaspora) consider the Diaspora a legitimate and enduring feature of Jewish civilization. Yet they see the State of Israel as an exhilarating development and a vital component of a complete Jewish existence, for it brings to Jewish life and culture its comprehensive social, political, and particularistic aspects. These aspects, however, are-and must be complemented by the Diaspora element of Jewish life. The latter, it is alleged, is characterized by greater interaction with world culture; it is better placed to emphasize the universal features of Judaism, and presents the unique religious challenge to maintain the Jewish faith and people in the midst of the nations. In this view, the model for a normative dichotomy in Jewish life is the Jerusalem Babylon relationship, each pole making its singular social, literary, and religious contribution.
The third theological orientation, the theologies of Torah and ereᶎ Yisrael, draws primarily on normative conceptions of Torah as the instrument of covenant and explores prescribed relationships between Torah and ereᶎ Yisrael, the land of covenant.
In its traditional formulations, in which Torah is viewed through a predominantly halakhic prism, this orientation emphasizes that ereᶎ Yisrael is the normative locus of the Torah and that the land has a defined and central halakhic status with regard co the divine commandments. Not only are certain laws of the Torah applicable only in ereᶎ Yisrael (such as the sabbatical year and tithes), but the entire Torah is the covenantal law designed for the people of Israel in the land that is "the Lord's portion." Thus, the renowned medieval exegete and rabbinic authority Nahmanides notes that the commandments were given for ereᶎ Yisrael and the obligation to carry them out in exile is so that “they will not appear as new [i.e., unfamiliar] when we return to the land” (Commentary on Lev. 18:25). Nalhmanides is also cited for his halakhic ruling that the conquest of erez Yisrael, circumstances permitting, is a requirement of the Torah. For those who hold this theological position, galut is seen as a diminution of the Torah, an aspect of divine punishment or a voluntary renunciation of Judaism. As one thinker expresses it, anyone who believes that Judaism can be fully realized under conditions of freedom anywhere may be affirming the value of emancipation,but is also implying a radical revision of Judaism.6
Liberal-humanistic theologies in this group also stress the place of ereᶎ Yisrael in the life of covenant; the latter, however, is not usually defined halakhically but is understood as the moral demands addressed to the Jewish people, demands that take on their specific content in the situation in which they are experienced. These moral demands are best "heard by" and addressed to a society in a concrete historical situation and in a natural framework of comprehensive community. For the Jewish people, the concrete historical and natural situation that rescues spirituality from the danger of disembodied ethereality and irrelevance is grounded in the holy land; here Israel is charged with the task of constructing a society that will be truly a kingdom of God.7
If theologies in the previous category emphasize the normative aspect of Torah, however understood, and its inadequate "functioning" without the land of the Torah, those of the fourth category, the theologies of historical redemption, are focused on the messianic role of Jewish faith. Here, the emphasis is not on God's demands and man's deed but on God's mighty acts as they are perceived by man, and how man should respond to such miraculous interventions.
According to theologians who hold this view, the events of our time mean that God is leading his people back to their land, as he did after the Exodus from Egypt. Even the Holocaust must be seen in the context of the end of galut. The biblical and midrashic passages that describe the desolation of the land during Israel's exile as an intimation of the divine promise of return and of the land's "loyalty" to Israel are understood to reflect the actual situation (of "the desolate land") that writers as recent as Mark Twain described upon visiting the holy land. Conversely, the blossoming of the arid hills, foreseen in ancient visions of the coming redemption, and the influx of Jews from all comers of the earth are evoked as evidence that we are now in a new biblical epoch, in which God is again taking his people out of the “house of bondage” and, with fire and cloud, leading them to the promised land. Needless to say, the Israeli victories in the War of Independence and the Six-Day War are evoked in support of this approach; these victories were perceived as moments of salvation, inviting a biblical sense of wonder. Even the world’s obsessive preoccupation with events in Israel is said to testify to Israel's theological significance, for believers in a competing faith (that is, Christianity) must denounce as a scandal that which, from within the allegedly atavistic Jewish faith, is clearly "seen" as miraculous.8
In its more cautious and humanistic formulations, this theology emphasizes the tentative character of divine redemption and its dependence for fulfillment on the positive response of Israel to the divine call through aliyah (immigration to the land), through the building of a just Jewish society, and through dedication to the moral destiny of Israel. Some also point out that the end of galut and the beginning of a new Israel entered epoch in Jewish history require new understandings of the Jewish religious tradition that will incorporate modern insights and learn, from God's present redemptive acts, what the demands of Israel are today.9
Radical formulations of this theological approach tend to a more unequivocal messianism and, thus, to a more deterministic view: the tumultuous events of our century, and the Holocaust particularly, are to be recognized by “real believers” as the very “birth pangs of the Messiah” described in trepidation as well as anticipation by the talmudic rabbis. Understandably, those who take the more radical theological view of Israel's historical-messianic significance tend to a more uncompromising position regarding the possible return to non-Jewish dominion of parts of erez Yisrael, even in exchange for peace. Their argument is that relinquishing these territories after God has returned them to Israel obliges him, as it were, to bring upon Israel and its neighbours further conflict so that he can carry out his redemptive purpose. Paradoxically, therefore, compromise for the sake of peace is seen as delaying the complete redemption that will usher in universal peace.
A modified version of this historical-redemptive theology posits that, after the Holocaust, the State of Israel alone maintains the viability of Judaism as a faith in God 's historical presence. The State of Israel is seen a giving Judaism a new lease on Life; it is the embodiment of Judaism as a historical reality, mysteriously endowed with more than mere historical meaning.10
In conclusion it may be noted that there are grounds to suspect that many Jews never think about the State of Israel in theological terms of any kind. For those who believe that Israel points to the moral and religious richness of Jewish life, now again made possible by faithful Providence, this inability or refusal to deal with Israel as a basic religious datum of contemporary Jewish life more than anything else reveals the crisis of present-day Judaism - both in Israel and in the Diaspora.
REFERENCES
1. Norman Lamm, "The Ideology of the Neturei Karta," in Tradition 12, 2 (Fall 1971).
2. Shneur Zalman Abramov, The Perpetual Dilemma: Jewish Religion in the Jewish State (1976).
3. Michael Selzer. ed., Zionism Reconsidered (1970).
4. Yeshayahu Leibowitz, Yahadut, Am Yehudi u-Medinat Yisrael (1975).
5. Simon Rawidowicz, “Jerusalem and Babylon,” in Judaism 18 (l969).
6. Eliezer Berkovits, "The Galut of Judaism," in Judaism 4 (l955).
7. Manin Buber, Israel and the World (1963).
8. Menachem M. Kasher, Ha-Tekufah ha-Gedolah (1968); Uriel Tai, "The Land and the State of Israel in Israeli Religious Life," in The Rabbinical Assembly Proceedings 38 (1976).
9. Yitzhak Greenberg. "The Interaction of Israel and American Jewry After the Holocaust," in Moshe Davis, ed., World Jewry and the State of Israel (1977).
10. Emil L. Fackenheim, God's Presence in History (1978).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Manin Buber, On Zion:The History of an Idea (1973).
Harold Fisch, The Zionist Revolution: A New Perspective (1978). Anhur Herzberg, The Zionist Idea (1959).
Uriel Tal, "Jewish Self-Understanding and the Land and State of Israel," in Union Seminary Quarterly Review 26 (1971).
Source: Contemporary Jewish Religious Thought Edited by Arthur A. Cohen & Paul Mendes-Flohr (1988 Edition).
Original essays on critical concepts, movements and beliefs. The Free Press. Simon & Schuster Inc. ISBN 0-02-906040-0