Subscribe to the IHARE Blog

Nathan

King David Did Not Have Immunity: “Thou art the man!”

April 30, 2024
by Peter Feinman
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/david-nathan-bible.html?blackwhite=1&sortBy=relevant

The story of David and Nathan is one of the most dramatic in the Hebrew Bible. Even as one reads the words, one can see the figures in one’s mind. There is no mention of Nathan extending his arm in the direction of David, yet we see it. There is no mention of Nathan pointing a finger at David, yet we see it. There is no mention of David’s physical reaction to the words and gestures of Nathan, yet we see it. Only when Nathan is telling his parable, does the storyteller mention an emotion, the anger of David. The story teller leaves it to our imagination to visualize David’s appearance after Nathan’s exclamation.

This story exemplifies the oral nature of biblical storytelling. It cries out for a physical performance. Undoubtedly, that was how most Israelites originally experienced the story – not read silently alone but as a public display. The op-ed pieces of yesteryear were performed in ancient Israel.

One key ingredient in the story is frequently overlooked. It is not the historicity of the story but its believability. There is no sense in the story that it lacks validity. The story is not one of science fiction, fantasy, or even dreams. It is a presented as a real world event that the audience easily could believe as true. There is no surprise in the display of truth to power. There is no sense that it defies all credulity that someone could call the king to task. There is no astonishment about the actions of Nathan. The only uncertainty is in the reaction of the accused.

That credibility extends beyond the prophet denouncing the action of the king to his face. Just as Nathan’s declaration garners no surprise, neither does David’s reaction. The king’s repentance is presented in just as routine a manner as Nathan’s charge. As far as the audience is concerned, it is expected that a prophet would call a king to task. It is equally expected that the king would respond positively when he heard the words of the prophet and repent his wrongdoings.

In ancient Israel, the word of someone sent by the Lord trumped the power of the king. Part of the uniqueness of ancient Israel was the belief that an individual, or at least a prophet, could confront the king. Can you imagine someone standing before Sargon the Great and bellowing “Thou art the man!”? How about before Hammurabi? Sargon II? How about before Pharaoh? With Pharaoh, it actually is easier to imagine. There is a major story from the ancient Near East precisely involving a person sent by the Lord to exclaim “Thou art the man!” The person is Moses, the prophet of prophets in the biblical tradition.

The origin story of Israel in history and celebrated to this very day involves an individual confronting a person in power. Time and time again, the Israelite tradition told the story the prophet challenging the power of the king in the name of the Lord. Such occurrences were not isolated incidents but part of an ongoing pattern:

Samuel against Saul
Nathan against David
Ahijah against Rehoboam and Jeroboam
Elijah against Omri and Jezebel.

The independence of the prophet reaches a point where a king can even make of fun of it while not ignoring it:

1 Kings 22:8 And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “There is yet one man by whom we may inquire of the LORD, Micaiah the son of Imlah; but I hate him, for he never prophesies good concerning me, but evil.”

So how is that Israel was so different? Was it something in the water? Did the landscape or ecology render Israel different? Did Canaanite kings act the same way only we do not have their stories? The obvious answer is “no.” The difference is a cultural one that needs to be understood within Israel’s history. Can you imagine Russia or China televising to the world a direct challenge to a nominee of the political leader of those countries? The idea is absurd. On the other hand, the United States was born in a declaration levied against a king who was compared to a Pharaoh. Truth to power is in the American DNA.

What about ancient Israel? What is it in the history and culture of ancient Israel whereby a prophet could challenge a king and a king was expected to adhere to the word of God expressed through this non-royal person?

And as with the story of Nathan and David, the idea itself of Moses challenging Pharaoh is presented as a believable part of the story. It is not a miracle that he stood before Pharaoh. It is presented to the audience as something which could occur. But how in the real world could anyone do that? There is nothing in the Egyptian cultural construct that suggests such a challenge was possible. The Egyptian tradition despised the hot head, it did not make a hero of one who waxed hot with anger before king. When Sinuhe returned to Egypt from the land of Canaan is was to be reunited with Pharaoh so he could die and be buried as an Egyptian. That was the Egyptian ideal. Israel’s version was quite different. It was legitimate to challenge the authority of the king who had abused his power.

Moses, too, could be held accountable. He did have immunity. Instead he wandered in the wilderness until he died. He only glimpsed the Promised Land (remember the final scene with Charlton Heston).

So too, Israel had to wander in the wilderness. The people of the covenant were not above the law either.

Israel and the United States share a tradition where no one is above the law. Not Moses, not the King, not the people, not the President, not no one. At least until now.

 

 

 

“Thou Art the man” Said the Prophet Cheney

July 27, 2022
by Peter Feinman
Trump contemplating his future

One of the many stirring moments in the Hebrew Bible occurs when the prophet Nathan says to King David:

THOU ART THE MAN (II Sam. 12:7).

This example of truth to power has had an enduring impact on Western cultural values. It strikes a chord when Martin Luther nails his theses to the wall or John Hancock boldly signs his name to the Declaration of Independence.

Liz Cheney is following in these footsteps. Even prior to the televised House Select Committee hearings, she had asserted this charge against the former President of the United States. In the opening broadcast, she itemized the charges to be brought against the Loser just as Thomas Jefferson had spelled them out in the parts of the Declaration people routinely skip over.

Now she has upped her game. Just as the stirring words of the opening of the Declaration are the ones most frequently recited, Cheney has ratcheted up her words of existential doom facing America if the insurrectionists are not brought to justice. Teddy Roosevelt said “We stand at Armageddon, and we battle for the Lord.” Prophet Cheney continues in that mode. We the People are standing on the abyss of nonexistence and may topple into it if the insurrectionists are not held accountable.

Finally, at long last, there is public evidence that she and the House Select Committee are not waging this war alone. The DOJ has revealed that it is actively pursuing the investigation of the insurrection – not just January attack but all the ways in which the Loser sought to reverse the election, overthrew the government, and replace the rule of law with the rule of Trump.

Cheney has called out the Republican men in their fifties, sixties, and seventies, who hide behind executive privilege and fear to tell the truth. She has told them that one day Trump will be gone but their dishonor will remain forever as a permanent stain on their lives. How stupid do

Steve Bannon
Jeff Clark
John Eastman
Rudy Giuliani
Jim Jordan
Doug Mastriano
Mark Meadows
Peter Navarro
Scott Perry
Roger Stone

have to be not to know that they are going to be subpoenaed and indicted at some point in the near future. All the nonsense about executive privilege and the showmanship of going medieval will be for naught. Whatever concerns there may be over indicting a former President who has announced his candidacy for 2024 do not apply to them or any of the other people associated with the fake electors. Once the DOJ issues the subpoenas, who will be the first to flip? Soon there will be a betting line.

One cannot help but notice the role of women in the actions against the male insurrectionists. This is not to take anything away from the frighteningly scary Sydney Powell [who will play her in the movie?] or Ginni Thomas. Still, it is women who have borne the brunt of the attacks from the brave male Trumpicans with their anonymous obscene phone calls. True, men who told the truth have received them as well. But overall the invective and threatened kidnapping against the female Democratic Michigan governor exceeds that against the male Republican Georgian governor who easily triumphed in the Republican primary.

These attacks against women highlight another facet of the political dynamic. We have the image of attractive young white women working for older more powerful males. Doesn’t that seem a lot like Hollywood? I do not mean to suggest any sexual activity occurred. I do mean to suggest that a familiar power dynamic is at play. The women are there to serve the political needs of the more powerful males. If they fail to do so and instead turn against them under oath, on the cable talk shows, or both, then all hell breaks loose.

After all, the head of the Trumpican party who led the insurrection has a decades long reputation for abusing women. It is only when he lost his mojo during the first decade of this century that he ceased any physical abuse of women. Where would the Trumpican party be without “Lock her up! Lock her up!” If Joe Biden had been the candidate in 2016, Trump would have been rendered silent. Do you think a crowd would rally behind “Lock Hunter up. Lock Hunter up”?

Loyalty is one way to be endorsed by the Loser. Another way is to have taken care of women, i.e., physically put them in their place. Have you ever seen an abuser whom Trump didn’t endorse?

Abortion just continues the pattern.

If only the real world was like Westworld before the female programming went haywire.

If only all wives were from Stepford.

HE CAN’T HIDE SO HE HAS TO RUN

“Thou art the man” prophet Liz Cheney is an existential threat to Donald Trump. He is right to pour out all the invective he can muster against her. If she prevails, he loses. It is a zero-sum game. So far he controls the Trumpican Party so her future in Wyoming is non-existent. However her future in the national arena is just beginning. She is the greatest hero in America so far this century, this millennium. That designation will not change after the Wyoming primary.

In 2024, all the Trump wannabees will have fallen by the wayside. None will criticize him. Only alternate-reality Pence who thinks he was ordained to be President will persist. And then there will be Cheney, eager to go one-on-one with him. Watching Trump hide from Cheney in the 2024 elections will be a sight to behold. It will be one for the history books. His cowardice and gutlessness will be on full display … when he is not pleading the Fifth in all the cases brought against him.

The Gospel According to Rick Perry and the Rule of Law

December 5, 2019
by Peter Feinman
America Was Born with Articles of Impeachment (Photo Credit: istockphoto)

The Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) and the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR) held their annual conferences in San Diego the week before Thanksgiving. The Protestant Evangelical Institute of Biblical Research and the American Academy of Religion also met then. Nothing the approximately 10,000 in attendance said or did made the news.

The religious event which made the news was the Gospel according to Rick Perry as revealed through Fox News host Ed Henry to the world.

God’s used imperfect people all through history. King David wasn’t perfect, Saul wasn’t perfect, Solomon wasn’t perfect….And I actually gave the president a little one-pager on those Old Testament kings, about a month ago. And I shared it with him, I said, “Mr. President, I know there are people that say, y’know, ‘You said you were the chosen one.’” And, I said: “You were.” I said, “If you’re a believing Christian, you understand God’s plan for the people who rule and judge over us on this planet and our government.”

These words echo those of other Trumpicans:

Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale: “only God could deliver such a savior to our nation.”
Former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders: [God] “wanted Trump to become president.”
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo responding to interviewer Chris Mitchell’s query “Could it be that President Trump right now has been sort of raised for such a time as this, just like Queen Esther, to help save the Jewish people from an Iranian menace?” said: “As a Christian, I certainly believe that’s possible.”

So the Gospel according to Perry is not out of line with the core beliefs of his fellow worshipers.

By coincidence, my own paper during these conferences was “Political Texts of Terror in the Book of Judges.” The paper is about Saul and David and I mention Solomon once. Since Thanksgiving I have been asked by the editor of online The Bible and Interpretation to write an essay of 2,000-3,500 words on my paper for the general public.

With that background in mind, let’s turn to the kings mentioned by Perry.

SAUL

As I am sure Perry knows, Saul was the first person in Israel to be designated a “messiah” or anointed one.

Saul was a warrior; he was not a bonespur boy. He did not pick on women or children or people smaller than him. True he died in battle against the Philistines, but the point here was that fought in the real world against foes who could fight back.

Saul’s Deep State was the Levites represented by the prophet Samuel. He was there to present the law. While not exactly the Constitution, it did provide one key item: only the Levites, priests of Moses, could call Israel to war. Saul did not have the right to initiate a military confrontation without the blessing of Samuel. Scholars debate the historical relationship between the king and the prophet in ancient Israel. One should recognize, as surely Rick Perry does, that in ancient Israel there was a battle of over whether the king was constrained by the law or not. According to the pro-Samuel writers, Saul was bound by the law; according to the pro-Saul writers, Saul did nothing wrong when he acted on his own in the absence of Samuel. Who knew they had Fox and MSNBC in ancient times.

DAVID

David, too, was a warrior in the real world unlike Bonespur Boy. Unlike Saul, David remained successful at it throughout his life although he did have some close calls.

David also could write. He actually was a far greater writer than he is given credit for. He certainly was a far superior writer to the juvenile tweets and 3rd grade letter to Erdogan of Perry’s Lord and Savior, the Chosen One, Blessed Be His Name.

David had to deal with his own famous confrontation with the law. The incident in question is the Bathsheba one. During the incident, the prophet Nathan, from a different priesthood/political-faction than Samuel, said after telling a parable:

THOU ART THE MAN! (II Sam. 12:7 or Two Samuel if you are the chosen one).

Consider now what David did not say in response.

David did not say: “Fake News.”
David did not call Nathan a disloyal traitor.
David did not call Nathan human scum and an enemy of the people.
David did no disparage Nathan as “Little Nathan.”
David did not call Nathan a maniac and deranged human being.
David did not claim Nathan grew up with a complex for lots of reasons that are obvious.
David did denigrate Nathan as a very sick man who lies.

Note: Is it coincidence that Little Donne Waney himself fits his description of Schiff except for the size?

Quite the contrary, David replied that he had sinned before the Lord.

Hard to imagine Perry’s Lord and Savior, the Chosen One, Blessed Be His Name responding as David did.

SOLOMON

Solomon, of course, was not a warrior and is remembered as a builder of the temple among other things. Perhaps the most famous story about him occurs when two women claim to be the mother of the same child. Solomon famously adjudicates the dilemma with the following wisdom:

Kings 3:23 Then the king said, “The one says, `This is my son that is alive, and your son is dead’; and the other says, `No; but your son is dead, and my son is the living one.'” 24 And the king said, “Bring me a sword.” So a sword was brought before the king. 25 And the king said, “Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other.”

It’s not exactly Charlottesville with good people on both sides but it is close enough. The difference is that in the biblical story, Solomon’s pronouncement is a ruse to expose the fraudulent claim while in Charlottesville, the assertion was meant to be taken on face value.

It would be interesting to hear Rick Perry expound on his theological musings. What are the imperfections of Saul, David, and Solomon that he refers to? What did the three kings do in the face of these imperfections? What has Perry’s Chosen One done? I do not have the power to ask Rick Perry to comment. Perhaps someone reading this blog can inquire of him for me.

So which biblical figure is most like our current President? Back on March 19, 2018, I wrote
Is Donald Trump Our Rehoboam? – A Bible Penis Story. If you are interested in my opinion, check out that blog.

In the meantime, it is important to note the ancient Israelite tradition of truth to power even involving the king. There certainly was nothing like that in ancient Egypt. The only person who called Pharaoh to task was Moses and he had to leave Egypt after he did so. But that spirit came to define Israel.

There was nothing like that in ancient Mesopotamia either. There the prophets knew their place and to tell the king what he wanted to hear. Ancient Israel followed the Mesopotamian tradition up to a point. But in the end, Israel was different. Before going into battle even the king needed permission as Saul had not done.

1 Kings 22:5 And Jehoshaphat [the king of Judah] said to the king of Israel, “Inquire first for the word of the LORD.” 6 Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, about four hundred men, and said to them, “Shall I go to battle against Ramothgilead, or shall I forbear?” And they said, “Go up; for the Lord will give it into the hand of the king.” 7 But Jehoshaphat said, “Is there not here another prophet of the LORD of whom we may inquire?” 8 And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “There is yet one man by whom we may inquire of the LORD, Micaiah the son of Imlah; but I hate him, for he never prophesies good concerning me, but evil.” And Jehoshaphat said, “Let not the king say so.” 9 Then the king of Israel summoned an officer and said, “Bring quickly Micaiah the son of Imlah.”

In ancient Israel, they knew to trust not the yesmen who told the king what he wanted to hear but the one who did not. You need to have some adults in the White House!

That spirit of Moses lived on the creation of the United States. The Declaration of Independence was an impeachment of King George III. It is a legal document that indicted the king on multiple counts of an abuse of power. It was written by people who were disloyal traitors to the king and who compounded their disobedience by voting with their guns to remove King George III from power over them. Now we are engaged in battle to determine if the rule of law or a would-be King George will prevail. Where are Moses and David when you need them?

The Wicked Witch of the White House: Is Nancy Pelosi Dorothy?

October 17, 2019
by Peter Feinman
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/david-nathan-bible.html?blackwhite=1&sortBy=relevant

The Wicked Witch of the White House is a formidable foe. He has been a sleezeball virtually his entire chronological adult life. Year after year he won the coveted “Slimeball of the Year” trophy awarded by the New York City Real Estate and Construction community to the single most disreputable builder in the city.

His winning was no fluke. He is blessed with having no morals, no ethics, and no values save narcissism. He brings to the fight an inexhaustible energy. He throws an unlimited number of punches all below the belt.  Now our immature child president has brought his lack of integrity, competence, and intelligence to the national and international arenas. He is a full-time resident of an alternate reality functioning at a child level with supreme confidence that he can get enough people to believe he really is THE DONALD, the chosen one, and that only he can solve the problems (he has caused).

The Wicked Witch of the White House is not alone. Standing with him are the Flying Monkeys. These are the people who have sold their souls to their Lord and Savior assuming they had souls to sell. They have sworn an oath to take a bullet for him. They will obstruct any effort to obtain the truth. They willingly will be thrown under the bus once their usefulness ends. As always, loyalty is a one-way street.

The Flying Monkeys are well-known to the American public. They frequently appear on Fox if they do not already work there. They include:

Vice President Brown Nose
Bill Barred for Life
Jay Sunk-so-low
Duped-by-Russia Hannity
Nunes the Clown
Clueless Jim Jordan
Marked-down Meadows
Meeting-crasher Maculate Gaetz
All Angles Ingrham
The Grahm Cracker
Kelly Alternate-Reality Conway
The Huckabee Huckster
Ridiculous Rudy, Hero Attack mutt

and the list goes on and on.

The Wicked Witch of the White House and his Flying Monkeys are further aided by Trumpicans – the American people who attend his realities, ignore or disbelieve all charges against him, and cheer him on. His skill as a con artist is his ability to connect with them through his gut-instinct. He uses their pain to service his gain. The results have been spectacular.

Now the real world is closing in. Playtime is over. The Wicked Witch of the White House in the domestic and foreign arenas has to face adults. This is not scripted political professional wrestling where he can mock and insult people all he wants as the seventh-grade smart-aleck dumb-aleck he actually is. The doctored videos of him wreaking havoc against his foes will not help him in the real world of adults. North Korea, Iran, Turkey, and Russia all know he is a weeny limited to simpleminded tweets and sanctions.  The only ones who fear him now are our allies as they know they can no longer rely on the United States as long as Bonespur Boy is President. It’s not Turkey who is concerned, it is the Baltics who destroyed Yugoslavia, it is Israel who knows it faces Iran alone, and it is the Kurds who know even a private message to the President of the United States will be delivered to their enemy.

This is Nancy Pelosi’s moment. This is the moment that history will look to try to understand what the American people finally did when their immature child President attempted to function in the adult world and did not have the mental necessities to do so.

At this point for all practical purposes impeachment is a done deal.  As far as the Ukraine is concerned the public record itself is sufficient grounds to impeach. The hearings serve only to disclose how extensive the conspiracy and coverup were in the effort to use the American government to pursue personal political needs to get dirt on an opponent and then to hide the effort. The testimony of the people outside the power of the Wicked Witch of the White House or who defy it will simply provide the details for the articles of impeachment…not whether or not there will be any.

For those still under the sway of the Wicked Witch of the White House, their obstruction will only serve to add obstruction articles to the impeachment. Their actions will not prevent it. These people have been advised on several talking shows of their need to get lawyers for their own defense.

The number of people involved in the conspiracy raises the question of how Pelosi should proceed. The impeachment of the President is the end game but should it be the only game? As We the People were reminded again and again during the Mueller investigation, Department of Justice guidelines prohibit the indictment of a sitting president. Putting aside the issue of whether that is a Constitutional restriction or simply a matter of policy, that leaves exposed people who are not President.

My advice, for whatever it is worth, is to start with the unprotected non-Presidential people prior to the impeachment of President himself.  In particular, start with the Attorney General. At minimum that should force him to recuse himself. His removal from power will make it easier to pursue the other unprotected people through the federal attorneys. Bill Barred for Life would no longer be able to curtail the work of the Department of Justice the way he declined to pursue the whistleblower’s report in the first place. In fact, that decision could easily be the first article of indictment against him.

Following the indictment of Attorney General, Pelosi could proceed week by week to recommend indictments of the remaining members of the conspiracy and cover:

Vice President
Acting Chief of Staff
Secretary of State

and whoever else deserves it. Then would come the big one.

By that time, would even Republicans in the House of Representatives support impeachment? It’s possible. The 354-60 vote to rebuke the President on his Syria pullout including 129 Republicans shows that it is possible for even the majority of Republicans in the House to defy the Wicked Witch of the White House. It also identifies the 60 Flying Monkeys in the House. In other words, the brilliant strategy in Syria may create the context which the perfect Ukrainian phone call did not. Now Republicans in the House and Senate can free themselves from the power of the Wicked Witch of the White House and vote to impeach and remove him from office…maybe even in time to select another candidate for 2020. But that’s the subject of another blog or two.

Thou Art the Man! – King David and Judge Kavanaugh

October 3, 2018
by Peter Feinman
The Shining City on a Hill: Commentary on Reagan by Bryan Caplan

The American Civil Religion posits that we are a city on a hill. At this point both political parties have abandoned that idea. The longtime staple of presidential politics and the America culture has been banished from public discourse. It died with the death of John McCain. We no longer aspire to a leadership role in human history.

But besides the city on a hill vision, there is a second line: the eyes of the world are upon us. Even though we choose not to lead, because of our size and might we still serve as an example to the world. Sometimes this influence is referred to as soft power. It means besides Coke and McDonalds, American cultural values and practices also ae known, in one form or another, around the world. So even as we forsake a political leadership role, the eyes of the world are still upon us.

Recently and still ongoing we have had two such examples of this phenomenon: the appearance of the President of the United States at the United Nations and the confirmation hearings of Judge Kavanaugh.

UNITED NATIONS

At the United Nations, the President of the United States spoke as if he were on Fox News. He spoke as if he were at one of his professional wrestling arena rallies. He spoke as if he were still in Trumpietown. But he had ventured outside of his comfort zone. He was speaking to an audience he has routinely insulted. He has insulted people based on their race. He has insulted people based on their religion. He has insulted people based on their cosmopolitanism. And he has launched economic war against many of them while withdrawing from providing American leadership.

Their reaction to his speech was exactly what you should expect: they laughed. They did not laugh with him, they laughed at him. In his surprised response that he was not expecting that reaction, he then did what he rarely does in his life – he told the truth. He really was surprised. He soon recovered and said they were laughing with him and they were just having fun with each other. Perhaps this “interpretation” was what inspired Kavanaugh to give his interpretation of being a member of the Renate” alumni.

Senate Judiciary Committee: Do You Have the Right Stuff to go into the Arena?

The story of David and Nathan is one of the most dramatic in the Hebrew Bible. Even as one reads the words, one can see the figures in one’s mind. There is no mention of Nathan extending his arm in the direction of David, yet we see it. There is no mention of Nathan pointing a finger at David, yet we see it. There is no mention of David’s physical reaction to the words and gestures of Nathan, yet we see it. Only when Nathan is telling his parable, does the storyteller mention an emotion, the anger of David. The story teller leaves it to our imagination to visualize David’s appearance after Nathan’s exclamation.

This story exemplifies the oral nature of biblical storytelling. It cries out for a physical performance. Undoubtedly, that was how most Israelites originally experienced the story – not read silently alone but as a public display. The op-ed pieces of yesteryear were performed in ancient Israel long before Saturday Night Live existed.

One key ingredient in the story is frequently overlooked. It is not the historicity of the story but its believability. There is no sense in the story that it lacks validity. The story is not one of science fiction, fantasy, or even dreams. It is a presented as a real world event that the audience easily could believe as true. There is no surprise in the display of truth to power. There is no sense that it defies all credulity that someone could call the king to task. There is no astonishment about the actions of Nathan. The only uncertainty is in the reaction of the accused.

That credibility extends beyond the prophet denouncing the action of the king to his face. Just as Nathan’s declaration garners no surprise, neither does David’s reaction. The king’s repentance is presented in just as routine a manner as Nathan’s charge. As far as the audience is concerned, it is expected that a prophet would call a king to task. It is equally expected that the king would respond positively when he heard the words of the prophet and repent his wrongdoings.

The contrast between yesterday and today is remarkable. In Nathan’s words, we see the uniqueness of his actions in the ancient Near East.  No one can imagine anyone delivering truth to power in ancient Assyria. No one can imagine anyone delivering truth to power in ancient Babylon. No one can imagine anyone delivering truth to power in ancient Egypt. Actually we can in Egypt. It was delivered by Moses and commemorated in a holiday still celebrated to this very day.

The Senate Judiciary Committee hearings are an American phenomenon. The televising of these hearings to the world is part of the soft power of this country. The eyes of the world are upon us as we publicly debate whether or not to confirm an individual to the highest court in the land. Should the court be an independent judiciary? What is the answer in China? What is the answer in Russia? What is the answer in Turkey? What is the answer in Iran? What is the answer in Venezuela? What is the answer is so many countries throughout the world?

In David’s response we see the not only the uniqueness of Israel in the ancient Near East but to today. In the followup of the accusation levied at the Senate Judiciary Committee against Judge Kavanaugh, no one expects any change to occur in the behavior of the one charged. No one expects Kavanaugh to conduct an investigation into his own life, to ask his friends and classmates if he rely drank so much, if he really blacked out so often, if he really could have done what he is charged with doing. Unlike with David, there will be no change in behavior. He will not rise to the occasion. He will not be a profile in courage. He will not face the truth of his adolescent life that he thought he had left behind. Certainly a President who still is an adolescent himself will not encourage him to do so.

In the previous post, I referred to the possibility of the situation spiraling out of control. The Republicans have attempted to prevent such a collapse by limiting the scope and time of the investigation. But the challenge to do so is magnified by the number of venues available to people to speak out now. While some of the voices defy credulity and seem like a con job, too many others seem true. Those expressions will not be contained by the artificial constraints imposed on the investigation. The Republicans are in a superb position to alienate a huge swath of the American voting population for years to come. Of course, having a fifth Republican legislator on the Supreme Court may make jeopardizing the Republican position in the other two arms of the government worth the price.

Whatever happens, it will be seen around the world because the eyes of the world are still upon us.

Thou Art the Man! – King David and the Senate Judiciary Committee

October 1, 2018
by Peter Feinman
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/david-nathan-bible.html?blackwhite=1&sortBy=relevant

The story of David and Nathan is one of the most dramatic in the Hebrew Bible. Even as one reads the words, one can see the figures in one’s mind. There is no mention of Nathan extending his arm in the direction of David, yet we see it. There is no mention of Nathan pointing a finger at David, yet we see it. There is no mention of David’s physical reaction to the words and gestures of Nathan, yet we see it. Only when Nathan is telling his parable, does the storyteller mention an emotion, the anger of David. The story teller leaves it to our imagination to visualize David’s appearance after Nathan’s exclamation.

This story exemplifies the oral nature of biblical storytelling. It cries out for a physical performance. Undoubtedly, that was how most Israelites originally experienced the story – not read silently alone but as a public display. The op-ed pieces of yesteryear were performed in ancient Israel.

One key ingredient in the story is frequently overlooked. It is not the historicity of the story but its believability. There is no sense in the story that it lacks validity. The story is not one of science fiction, fantasy, or even dreams. It is a presented as a real world event that the audience easily could believe as true. There is no surprise in the display of truth to power. There is no sense that it defies all credulity that someone could call the king to task. There is no astonishment about the actions of Nathan. The only uncertainty is in the reaction of the accused.

That credibility extends beyond the prophet denouncing the action of the king to his face. Just as Nathan’s declaration garners no surprise, neither does David’s reaction. The king’s repentance is presented in just as routine a manner as Nathan’s charge. As far as the audience is concerned, it is expected that a prophet would call a king to task. It is equally expected that the king would respond positively when he heard the words of the prophet and repent his wrongdoings.

In ancient Israel, the word of someone sent by the Lord trumped the power of the king. Part of the uniqueness of ancient Israel was the belief that an individual, or at least a prophet, could confront the king. Can you imagine someone standing before Sargon the Great and bellowing “Thou art the man!”? How about before Hammurabi? Sargon II? How about before Pharaoh? With Pharaoh, it actually is easier to imagine. There is a major story from the ancient Near East precisely involving a person sent by the Lord to exclaim “Thou art the man!” The person is Moses, the prophet of prophets in the biblical tradition.

The origin story of Israel in history and celebrated to this very day involves an individual confronting a person in power. Time and time again, the Israelite tradition told the story the prophet challenging the power of the king in the name of the Lord. Such occurrences were not isolated incidents but part of an ongoing pattern:

Samuel against Saul
Nathan against David
Ahijah against Rehoboam and Jeroboam
Elijah against Omri and Jezebel.

The independence of the prophet reaches a point where a king can even make of fun of it while not ignoring it:

1 Kings 22:8 And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “There is yet one man by whom we may inquire of the LORD, Micaiah the son of Imlah; but I hate him, for he never prophesies good concerning me, but evil.”

So how is that Israel was so different? Was it something in the water? Did the landscape or ecology render Israel different? Did Canaanite kings act the same way only we do not have their stories? The obvious answer is “no.” The difference is a cultural one that needs to be understood within Israel’s history. Can you imagine Russia or China televising to the world a direct challenge to a nominee of the political leader of those countries? The idea is absurd. On the other hand, the United States was born in a declaration levied against a king who was compared to a Pharaoh. Truth to power is in the American DNA.

What about ancient Israel? What is it in the history and culture of ancient Israel whereby a prophet could challenge a king and a king was expected to adhere to the word of God expressed through this non-royal person?

One important consideration is the first expression of the “Thou art the man!’ syndrome. In order to challenge someone’s abuse of power there needs to be someone in power. The time from Merneptah to monarchy was two hundred years. During that time Israel did not have a king. To say that Israel had no king, no taxes, no corvée, also means no one was in a position to abuse power. Once the monarchy started, so did the challenges to the king, to the person in power.

Did the sudden appearance of the monarchy in Israel give rise to the prophetic tradition of challenging the person in power?

Or was the tradition of challenging the person in power always part of the Israelite tradition from its beginning? Was it simply dormant until such time as a person was in a position to abuse power?

As noted according to the biblical account, Israel’s origin in the Exodus derived from an individual challenging a king for an abuse of power…and that person himself was challenged in the wilderness after the departure from Egypt by the very people he led.

And as with the story of Nathan and David, the idea itself of Moses challenging Pharaoh is presented as a believable part of the story. It is not a miracle that he stood before Pharaoh. It is presented to the audience as something which could occur. But how in the real world could anyone do that? There is nothing in the Egyptian cultural construct that suggests such a challenge was possible. The Egyptian tradition despised the hot head, it did not make a hero of one who waxed hot with anger before king. When Sinuhe returned to Egypt from the land of Canaan is was to be reunited with Pharaoh so he could die and be buried as an Egyptian. That was the Egyptian ideal. Israel’s version was quite different. It was legitimate to challenge the authority of the king who had abused his power.

Once you realize that the Levites were Hyksos, it makes it a lot easier to understand Israel’s origins in defiance of Pharaoh and how that tradition of truth to power became part of the Israelite DNA. The origin of the Israelite tradition of truth to power exclaimed by a prophet to a king occurred with the origin of Israel when it left Egypt.