Scattered Ramblings on Loving One's Neighbor and Relationships

III Maccabees is about the attempt by King Ptolemy IV Philopator in the late third century B.C.E. to obliterate the Jews of Egypt, and God's deliverance of the Jews.  In the course of this plot, God messes with Ptolemy’s brain, such that Ptolemy says to his friends who are participating in the plot: “In fact you would have been deprived of life instead of these [Jews], if it were not for an affection arising from our nurture in common and your usefulness” (III Maccabees 5:32 NRSV).  Ptolemy out of the blue is telling his friends that he would execute them, if not for the affection that he has towards them on account of their growing up together, and also their usefulness.

This is actually a pretty profound passage.  I would not say that it is completely right, but there is some truth in it.  It is understandable that people would feel some affection towards those with whom they’ve grown up or have had a shared history.  That doesn’t always happen, but it does happen.  Familiarity can breed contempt, but it is also a factor in friendship.  And don’t underestimate usefulness!  Some librarians at a public library were rude to me one day, and I fantasized about taking over the library and firing them.  The problem, within my fantasy, was that I would then have to find other people to learn the ropes.  I asked myself: Why not stick with those who already know the ropes?  So the librarians kept their jobs in my fantasy.  I still gave them a stern lecture, though!

III Maccabees also explores the attitudes of the non-Jews in Egypt towards the Jews’ persecution.  Many were reveling in it.  Part of that may have had to do with the non-Jews’ cruelty, and part of it related to a sincere belief that the Jews were a danger to the country, that the Jews were strange, clannish, and misanthropic in their approach to outsiders, and that the Jews may join the enemies of Ptolemaic Egypt in a war.  These non-Jews either explained away or did not pay attention to the times when Jews were loyal to the Ptolemaic realm.

III Maccabees 4 is rather jarring.  III Maccabees 4 depicts old men, young men, new brides, and new bridegrooms being taken to their destination of death, and many non-Jews did not look at them with pity.  Here these non-Jews were, looking at fellow human beings, like themselves, being brutally handled and taken to their deaths, and they did not feel any compassion.  It was ironic that I read this passage after watching a miniseries about the rise of Hitler, in which Robert Carlyle (of Once Upon a Time) played Hitler).  But I thought about a scene in another movie, Schindler’s List.  Schindler was riding horses with one of his girlfriends, and he saw Jews being rounded up.  Among the Jews was a little girl dressed in red.  That caught Schindler’s attention and set him on the path of wanting to save as many Jews as he could from the Holocaust.  Not all Germans had that reaction, however.  Schindler’s girlfriend did not want to see the Jews being rounded up.  A number of Germans rejoiced at it.

We do not know everybody, but hopefully we can respect the common humanity that we share with other people, including those we don’t know, and that can bring about compassion within us.
I was reading a post recently, though.  It was on the web site Prayer Coach, and the post was about loving one’s neighbor.  The author was saying that love for neighbor was about more than helping people, but it involved getting to know them.  Getting to know them is part of our love for God, for it allows us to appreciate the piece of Godself that God put into them.  And the interaction enables us to identify what exactly we believe about God: “As we get to know others we test what we actually believe about God. Do we feel we can comfort others, or do we remain silent when others are hurting (2 Corinthians 1:4)? Do we believe we are accepted in our weakness, or do we hide our faults for fear of being rejected (2 Corinthians 12:9)? Do we believe in God’s protection, or do we refuse to forgive others when they hurt us (Colossians 3:13)?”

I can easily get defensive about what this post says on account of my shyness, my introversion, and my Asperger’s Syndrome.  But, in applying this post, I do not have to beat myself up for not interacting with everyone, as if God will not love me if I do not.  But I can be encouraged to see God’s greatness in the make-up of human beings, to remember that all people have a story, and, if I can summon the nerve or the right things to say, to listen to their stories. I can do this through reading and also social interaction.

I can also identify with what the post said about how our interactions can reveal what we truly believe about God.  I am sometimes afraid that, if I interact with others, I will fall short spiritually.  I am not saying that I fear others would contaminate me with their worldliness, but that I fear falling short—-that I will become impatient with someone, or unforgiving, or desire to leave the relationship.  Better not to start the relationship in the first place, I think to myself.  Then I won’t fall short spiritually!  What does that reveal about what I think about God?  That God is a perfectionist who will not accept me if I make mistakes, or find that I have difficulty coping with a relationship.

That brings me to something else that III Maccabees says.  III Maccabees 5:13 calls God “him who is easily reconciled” (NRSV).  The story of III Maccabees is so-so, maybe even a bit odd, but some of its jewels are in its incidental statements.  God is easily reconciled.  Imagine that!

Working with Who We Are?

I was reading III Maccabees recently.  III Maccabees is about the attempt by King Ptolemy IV Philopator in the late third century B.C.E. to obliterate the Jews of Egypt.  But the king has a miraculous change of heart and turns against his advisers who suggested such a plan.

How III Maccabees depicts this change of heart is rather odd.  There is nothing natural about it.  The king does not have an epiphany in which he realizes that he was wrong and why.  He just changes out of the blue.  Moreover, he doesn’t seem to take any personal responsibility for his anti-Jewish policy.  He just blames his advisers.

Josephus tells a similar story in Against Apion 2.53-55, only Josephus’ story has a different Ptolemy and is set later in history, during the time of Antony and Cleopatra (and the latter plays a significant role in Josephus’ story).  In Josephus’ story, though, the king of Egypt does not change his mind out of the blue.  Rather, there are two factors that influence him to abandon his plot against the Jews.  First of all, he sees a ghost who warns him not to hurt the Jews.  And second, his beloved concubine persuades him not to continue with his plan, and he changed his mind in response to her.

Josephus’ version of the story makes more sense to me, in this respect.  I think that God works with who we are rather than magically changing us out of the blue.

Would Calvinists disagree with me on this, with their belief in irresistible grace, and their notion that human beings are so sinful that they by themselves cannot seek God and thus need their hearts to be regenerated?  I wouldn’t be so sure.  They believe that God changes the heart, but they also believe that God uses means: the preaching of the word, for example.  In addition, I doubt that they would portray conversion the way that III Maccabees depicts it: as the king suddenly wondering what is going on and castigating his advisers for a policy that he himself helped institute.  My impression is that, for Calvinists, there is some continuity between the pre-Christian human being and the Christian human being: the Christian human being, however, sees things differently.

Stoic Martyrs

Source: John Sellars, Stoicism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006) 108-109.

"If I am doing my best to be a rational being who is free and independent of others, then I will sometimes have to make choices that may appear not to further my own self-preservation. For instance, if a tyrant threatens to kill me if I do not do certain things that I find objectionable or think to be wrong, then--if I am to preserve myself as a rational being--I should stand up to the tyrant even if this may mean the loss of my life (see e.g. Epictetus, Diss. 1.2). But why? How could getting myself killed possibly contribute to my self-preservation? Well, it may not contribute to my self-preservation in so far as I am merely a living animal, but giving in to the tyrant will equally destroy me as an independent rational being. I may remain biologically alive if I give in to the tyrant, but I will have lost something far more important, having reduced myself to a slave. Thus the Stoic doctrine of self-preservation will, in cases of rational beings--that is, philosophers working towards the ideal of the sage--sometimes lead to choices that may actually threaten an individual's physical existence. But then as Socrates famously put it, it is not merely living, but living well that matters (Plato, Crito 48b)."

When I read the books of Maccabees, a question that entered my mind every now and then was, "Why does any of this matter?" What do I mean by that? Well, basically, the books are about the Jews being willing to fight and die for their religion. They fought to preserve the Sabbath and circumcision. When Antiochus threatened them with death if they refused to eat pork, many of them held fast to God's food laws. I guess my question was, "Why? What's the big deal?" What's it matter if a Jew leaves his foreskin on rather than taking it off? Or if a he works on a Saturday rather than resting on it? Or if he has a taste of nice, juicy pig-meat?

I wonder how Catholics would answer my question. They see I-II Maccabees as canonical, yet they believe that Jesus abolished the Sabbath, circumcision, and biblical food laws. Were Jews dying for things that Jesus would soon abolish, anyway? What was the point of that?

I've wondered at times if I would be willing to die for the Christian faith. To be honest, Christianity often looks to me like one religion among others. Why should I die for this particular belief system? Does it really matter?

I guess this quote on Stoicism made certain things clear to me. One should be willing to die for something because otherwise he's a slave. He's a slave to someone who tries to force others to see things his way, while eliminating belief systems that contain a lot of good.

I'm approaching this from a perspective of modern-day tolerance, and the ancients may not have done that. Jews and Christians believed that their deaths demonstrated their commitment to the sovereignty of God, not some petty dictator. And I'm not sure why the Stoics died. Maybe they wanted to show that nothing shook them, not even death.

Still More on Maccabees and Theodicy

I finished III Maccabees last night. III Maccabees is not actually about the Maccabees, for it relates to the persecution of the Jews under King Ptolemy Philopator of Egypt (221-203 B.C.E.). Ptolemy defeats the Seleucid Antiochus III at the Battle of Rafia, and the Jews of Jerusalem are eager to congratulate the victor. Ptolemy then goes to the holy city in order to offer a sacrifice, and he is so enamored by the temple that he wants to go inside. The Jews tell him he can't do that, since only the high priest can enter the holy of holies--and once a year, at that. But Ptolemy doesn't listen, and he tries to go into the innermost sanctuary. God then knocks him down. That makes Ptolemy mad, and the Egyptian king tries to wipe out the Jews of Alexandria (in Egypt) and other places.

In III Maccabees, there are Jews who want to take up arms against Ptolemy, but the elders dissuade them from doing so (III Maccabees 1:23). The Jews of III Maccabees solve their problems through prayer, as they trust God to work in unexpected ways. And the Jews in that book really don't do much else but pray. God is the one who fights their battles for them. God strikes down Ptolemy when he tried to enter the temple (III Maccabees 2:21-24). When Ptolemy's intoxicated elephants are about to stomp the Jews to death, God sends two angels to frighten them, leading them to stomp Ptolemy's men instead (III Maccabees 6:18-21). And God is the one who changes Ptolemy's heart and makes it favorable towards the Jews (III Maccabees 6:22ff).

In I-II Maccabees, by contrast, God does not fight Israel's battles as it passively looks to him. Rather, the Israelites have to fight for the survival of their nation and customs, and they trust in God to assist them in battle (I Maccabees 3-4). And they try to conduct themselves in a godly manner in their fight against Antiochus, for they rest and purify themselves on the Sabbath rather than pursuing their enemies (II Maccabees 8:26-28; 12:38). But they are not passive, for God helps them through their action, not apart from it.

But they realize early on that they may have to break the Sabbath to preserve their nation and their laws. In I Maccabees 2, we read that Antiochus' army attacked a group of observant Jews on the Sabbath, and the Jews refused to fight back. As a result, the Jews got killed. The priest Mattathias then declared that Jews are allowed to fight on the Sabbath.

But why didn't God protect those Jews who chose to honor his Sabbath day rather than fight? And God could have done so. Sure, he could've used some of the techniques we see in III Maccabees, but let's look at Scriptures whose canonicity Protestants, Catholics, Jews, and the Greek Orthodox can agree on. God could have put the Seleucid army in a frenzy so that they killed each other off (Judges 7:22; II Chronicles 20). He could have dropped heavenly stones on the Seleucids (Joshua 10:11). He could have sent an angel to kill them off before they arrived at the Jews' location (II Kings 19:36). He could have blinded them (II Kings 6:16-18). He could've arranged for Antiochus to meet a hot Jewish babe who would make him favorable to the Jewish people (Esther). God had done these things before, so they were not logically impossible for him. Why didn't he help out those who were simply honoring his Sabbath?

I don't know why God acts one way in one situation, and another way in another. In the case of the Maccabees, perhaps he wanted the Jews to take an active stand for his laws, or to value life above the rigid observance of the Sabbath. The latter idea set the stage for Jesus' Sabbath ministry (Mark 2; Luke 6:7-10; 14:5), in which Jesus declared that the Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath. But there may have been other times when the Jews were not militarily strong enough to take on their opponents, and so God intervened in a miraculous sense.

But then another question confronts us: Why didn't God intervene during the Holocaust? I guess he did, in the sense that he used the allies to defeat Hitler, but that was after millions of Jews had died.