teaches us to make no exception with regard to idolaters, or others who
have not the same creed, but gives the following general rules:—“As we
have, therefore, opportunity, let us do good UNTO ALL MEN, especially
unto them that are of the household of faith.” (Gal. vi. 10.) “See that
no man render evil for evil UNTO ANY MAN; but ever follow that which is
good both among yourselves, and TO ALL MEN.” (1 Thess. v. 15.) “The Lord
make you to increase and abound IN LOVE one toward another, and TOWARD
ALL MEN.” (1 Thess. iii. 12.) You observe that in these general rules
the New Testament makes no reservation with respect to idolaters, or
epicureans, or heretics, or any other of those unfortunate beings whom
the Talmud outlaws from all the common charities of humanity. It
commands us to do good to _all_—and that not to avoid enmity, nor for
the sake of the ways of peace, nor because we are afraid, nor because we
wish them to speak well of us, and to be thought honest people, but
because it is our duty. The New Testament requires of its followers, not
only to abstain “from active violence” in injuring them, but to do
active good in assisting them, and the examples, which it proposes for
our imitation, are of the same character as the precepts which it
imposes upon our obedience. It sets before us Jesus of Nazareth, whom
the traditionists crucified, praying for his murderers, and saying,
“Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do”—and Stephen, his
first martyr, interceding for them that stoned him, “Lord, lay not this
sin to their charge.” And Paul, whose feelings to those who differed
from him in religion are thus expressed, “Brethren, my heart’s desire
and my prayer to God for Israel is, that they may be saved.” It sets
before us the disciples of the Lord Jesus healing the diseases of all
who applied, without reference to their religious opinions. (Acts xix.
11.) We repeat our question, then, which system is according to the
truth and the will of God, the Talmud, or the New Testament? Your
brethren in France and Bavaria have declared, by adopting the New
Testament exposition, that it is right; and by rejecting the intolerant
principle which pervades the oral law, that the oral law is wrong. We
trust that your hearts respond to their declarations. But we do not rest
the decision on the natural feelings of the heart, we appeal to Moses
and the prophets.
The question is, do the laws, which God gave respecting the idolatrous
nations of Canaan, apply to all other idolaters, and under all
circumstances? The oral law answers this question in the affirmative,
and hence the source of all those revolting laws which we have just
considered. But the oral law is wrong: 1st, Because it draws a general
conclusion from a particular case, which is contrary to all sound
reasoning. That the command to destroy these nations was peculiar
appears from the command itself—God does not speak generally of all the
heathen, but only of certain nations which he specifies—“When the Lord
thy God shall bring thee into the land, whither thou goest to possess
it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the
Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites,
and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier
than thou; and when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee;
thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no
covenant with, nor shew mercy unto them.” (Deut. vii. 1, 2.) Here the
command is precise, and is as much violated by extending it to those to
whom God has not extended it, as by refusing to execute it on those whom
He has here designated as the just victims of his wrath.
2dly, The oral law is wrong in this general application, for it
contradicts the written law—God expressly distinguishes between these
and the other nations—“When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight
against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make
thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the
people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they
shall serve thee.... Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are
very far from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. But of
the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an
inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth, but thou
shalt utterly destroy them; the Hittites, and the Amorites, the
Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the
Lord thy God hath commanded thee.” (Deut. xx. 10, 18.) In the first case
God commands mercy—in the second, extermination. And if, as in the first
case, he commands merciful dealing even to a nation at war with Israel,
much more does he command it towards those, with whom Israel is not at
war.
3dly, The written law not only gives a general rule, but lays down
exceptions founded on certain principles. “Thou shalt not abhor an
Edomite, for he is thy brother; thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian,
because thou wast a stranger in his land.” (Deut. xxiii. 7.) Now the
Egyptians were idolaters, yet God commands the Israelites not to abhor
them, and gives a reason which will now apply to most nations of the
earth—“Because thou wast a stranger in his land.” Suppose, then, that a
Rabbinist were to see an Egyptian drowning, is he to show him mercy? To
say, No, will contradict the written law; and to say, Yes, will
overthrow the monstrous fabric of Rabbinic legislation respecting
idolaters.
4thly, The general practice of the Israelites, as described in the
subsequent books of the Old Testament, directly contradicts the oral
law. We have seen already that the Prophet Daniel did not hold the
doctrine, that no mercy was to be shown to an idolater. When he knew of
the judgment that was about to descend on Nebuchadnezzar, he was deeply
distressed. “He was astonied for one hour, and his thoughts troubled
him;” and instead of leaving the idolater to perish, he endeavoured to
find means to ward off the calamity. The prophet Elisha was of the same
mind: when the idolatrous leper came to him for help, he administered
it, and, contrary to the Talmudic command, he administered it
_gratuitously_; and Gehazi, for acting in conformity to Talmudic
ordinance, and making the idolater pay, was smitten with the leprosy. (2
Kings v. 20.) In like manner, when the Syrian host was miraculously led
into Samaria, and the King of Israel proposed to act as a Talmudist and
smite them, the man of God answered, “Thou shalt not smite them;
wouldest thou smite those whom thou hast taken with thy sword and bow?
Set bread and water before them, that they may eat and drink and go to
their master.” (2 Kings vi. 21, 22.) This answer is important, as it not
only furnishes an example, but exhibits the principle, according to
which idolatrous captives, not Canaanites, were to be treated. The
prophet appeals to the general rule, “Wouldest thou smite those whom
thou hast taken captive with thy sword and bow? Even then, as they are
not Canaanites, they ought not to be smitten: therefore, in this case
much more, they ought to be treated with mercy.” We have still another
instance of a prophet acting contrary to the oral law, and in conformity
with the New Testament interpretation. The prophet Jonah once saw
idolaters “nigh unto death,” and ready to sink in the great deep, but he
had mercy on them, and pointed out the means of deliverance. When he
fled from the presence of the Lord, the mariners in whose ship he sailed
were idolaters; for when the storm raged, it is said, “They cried every
man unto his god.” In their anguish they said unto him, “What shall we
do unto thee, that the sea may be calm unto us?” In other words, “What
shall we do to save our lives?” Now if Jonah had been a Talmudist, it
would have been plainly not his duty to have told them, but to have
allowed the sea to rage on until the ship went to pieces, and he had the
satisfaction of seeing the idolaters go to the bottom. This would have
been an act of obedience to a precise command, and could have made no
difference to Jonah. For, as to himself, there are two suppositions
possible, either he knew that the Lord had prepared a fish to swallow
him, or he knew it not. If he knew it, then he was secure of his own
safety, and would have known that the fish could find him out just as
readily if the ship went to pieces, as if the idolaters threw him into
the sea. It would, therefore, have been doubly his duty to conceal from
the idolaters the means of deliverance. On this supposition, Jonah’s
counsel to them can only be accounted for on the principle that he was
not a Talmudist, but considered it his duty to save the lives of
perishing idolaters, even when nothing was to be feared or to be gained.
If, on the other hand, he did not know of the fish, he must have
expected a watery grave, whether the idolaters threw him into the sea,
or whether he waited until the ship went to pieces. In this case, also,
if a Talmudist, it would have been his duly to have staged where he was,
and if he perished, die in the fulfilment or the command, to show no
mercy to idolaters. But he did not—he had compassion on them, and, to
save their lives, relinquished his only chance of safety, by telling
them to throw him into the sea. It is plain, therefore, Jonah was not a
Talmudist. We have here, then, three inspired prophets, Daniel, Elisha,
and Jonah, all bearing a practical testimony against the Talmudic
principle, which extends God’s law against the Canaanites to all
idolaters, and under all circumstances.
Lastly, We have the testimony of the God of Israel himself. He who gave
the command to destroy the Canaanites on account of their exceeding
wickedness, shows by his own dealings with the world, that this case is
an exception to the general rule, for “The Lord is good to all, and his
mercies are over all his works.” He provides food and clothing for the
idolater, as well as for those who worship him in truth; or, as the New
Testament says, “He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good,
and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust.” (Matt. vi. 45.) He, then,
whose conduct most resembles that of his Creator, is, beyond all doubt,
the nearest to the truth. The Talmud, therefore, is wrong, and the New
Testament explanation of the command, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself,” is right. We ask the Jews, then, to account for this fact,
that Jesus of Nazareth was right, and those who condemned him wrong,
respecting one-half of the whole law. And we ask, moreover, those Jews
who abhor the above Talmudic principles, how they can conscientiously
join in the synagogue prayers, which ascribe to the Talmud Divine
authority? We ask them why, at the very least, they have never publicly
protested against these enormities; but allow their brethren through the
world to remain victims to a system, which not only contradicts the
written law of God, but outrages all the better feelings of even fallen
humanity?
Footnote 11:
Hilchoth Rotzeach, c. xii. 15. See also Bava Bathra, fol. iv. col. 1.,
about the middle of the page, where the punishment of Daniel is more
fully discussed.
No. VI.
COMPULSORY CONVERSION OF THE GENTILES.
When, at the close of the fifteenth century, the Jews were driven out of
Spain, some of the magnanimous exiles, who had preferred loss of all
things to a compulsory change of religion, arrived at the frontiers of
Portugal, and there sought an asylum. A permanent abode was refused, and
a temporary sojourn was granted them on two conditions—1st, That each
should pay a certain quantity of gold for his admission; and 2dly, That
if they were found in Portugal after a certain day, they should either
consent to be baptized, or be sold for slaves.[12] Now Jews of every
degree and shade of religious belief will agree with us, that these
conditions were most disgraceful to those who imposed them. To refuse
gratuitous assistance to the poor and needy, merely because they had
been brought up in a different religious faith, was utterly unworthy of
those professing faith in Divine revelation. To compel the unfortunate
to choose between loss of liberty or of conscience was the act of a
fiend. But now suppose that the Portuguese had endeavoured to persuade
these poor exiles that their conduct, however base it might appear, was
commanded by God himself. Suppose, further, that when called upon to
prove that this command was from God, they had confessed that no such
command was to be found in the written books of their religion, that it
was only a tradition of their oral law, do you think that the Jewish
exiles would have been satisfied with such proof, and submitted? Would
they not, in the first place, have questioned the authority of a command
resting merely upon uncertain tradition? And would they not have argued,
from the detestable nature of the command itself, that it could not
possibly emanate from the God of truth and love? We ask you then to
apply these principles to תורה שבעל פה the oral law. The Portuguese
refused to perform an act of humanity to the unfortunate Jewish exiles,
unless they were paid for it. Your oral law, as we showed in our last
number, forbids you to give medical advice to a sick idolater
gratuitously. The Portuguese voluntarily undertook to convert the Jews
by force. Your oral law teaches compulsory conversion as a Divine
command. If the oral law could be enforced, liberty of conscience would
be at an end. Neither Jew nor Gentile would be permitted to exercise the
judgment, which God has given him. His only alternative would be
submission to Rabbinic authority, or death. The dreadful command to
kill, by any means, those Israelites who have become epicureans, or
idolaters, or apostates, is well known,[13] and sufficiently proves that
the oral law recognises no such thing as liberty of conscience in
Israel. It pronounces a man an apostate if he denies its Divine
authority, and demands his life as the penalty. The execution of this
one command would fill the world with blood and horror; and recall all
the worst features of inquisitorial tyranny. Not now to mention those
Israelites who have embraced Christianity, there are in England, and
every part of Europe, many high-minded and honourable Jews, who have
practically renounced the authority of the oral law. The Rabbinical
millennium would commence by handing over all such to the executioner.
Their talents, their virtue, their learning, their moral excellence,
would avail nothing. Found guilty of epicureanism or apostasy, because
they dared to think for themselves, and to act according to their
convictions, they would have to undergo the epicurean’s or the
apostate’s fate.
Such is the toleration of the oral law towards native Israelites, but it
is equally severe to converts. It allows no second thoughts. It
legislates for relapsed converts, as the Spanish Inquisition did for
those Jews who, after embracing Christianity, returned to their former
faith and sentences all such to death.
בן נח שנתגייר ומל וטבל , ואחר כך וצה לחזור מאחרי ה׳ ולהיות גר תושב בלבד
כשהיה מקודם , אין שומעין לו , אלא יהיה כישראל לכל דבר או יהרג ׃
“A Noahite who has become a proselyte, and been circumcised and
baptized, and afterwards wishes to return from after the Lord, and to be
only a sojourning proselyte, as he was before, is not to be listened
to—on the contrary, either let him be an Israelite in everything, or let
him be put to death.” (Hilchoth Melachim, c. x. 3.) In this law there is
an extraordinary severity. The oral law admits that a Noahite, that is,
a heathen who has taken upon himself the seven commandments of the
children of Noah, may be saved. It cannot, therefore, be said that the
severity was dictated by a wish to deter men from error, and to restrain
them from rushing upon everlasting ruin, as the Inquisition pleads. The
oral law goes a little further, and not only will not permit a man to
change his creed, but will not even suffer him to change his ceremonial
observances. Though the man should commit no crime, and though he should
continue to worship the one true God, in spirit and in truth, yet if he
only alter the outward forms of his religion, modern Judaism requires
that he should be put to death.
But the tender care of the oral law is not limited to the narrow
confines of Judaism, it extends also to the heathen, amongst whom it
directs the true faith to be propagated by the sword. First, it gives a
particular rule. In case of war with the Gentiles, it commands the Jews
to offer peace on two conditions—the one that they should become
tributaries, the other that they should renounce idolatry and take upon
them the seven precepts of the Noahites, and then adds—
ואם לא השלימו או שהשלימו ולא קבלו שבע מצוות עושין עמהם מלחמה והורגין כל
הזכים הגדולים , ובוזזין כל ממונם וטפם ואין הורגין אשה ולא קטן שנאמר
והנשים והטף וכו׳ ׃
“But if they will not make peace, or if they will make peace but will
not take upon them the seven commandments, the war is to be carried on
against them, and all the adult males are to be put to death; and their
property and their little ones are to be taken as plunder. But no woman
or male infant is to be put to death, for it is said, ‘The women and the
little ones’ (Deut. xx. 14.), and here little ones mean male infants.”
(Hilchoth Melachim, c. vi. 4.) Now what difference, we would ask, is
there between the conduct here prescribed, and that actually practised
by the Portuguese, at the period above referred to, and thus described
by a Jew:[14]—“At the expiration of the appointed time, most of the Jews
had emigrated, but many still remained in the country. The King
therefore gave orders to take away from them all their children under
fourteen years of age, to distribute them amongst Christians, to send
them to the newly-discovered islands, and thus to pluck up Judaism by
the roots. Dreadful was the cry of lamentation uttered by the parents,
but the unfortunates found no mercy.” Do you condemn this conduct in the
Portuguese? Be then consistent, and condemn it in the Talmud too. As for
ourselves, we abhor it as much, yea more, in those calling themselves
Christians, We look upon the actors in that transaction as a disgrace to
the Christian name, and the deed itself as a foul blot upon the history
of Christendom. But we cannot help thinking that, dreadful and
detestable as this mode of conversion is, it pleased God in his
providence to suffer wicked men thus to persecute Israel, that the Jews
might have a practical experience of the wickedness of the oral law, and
thus be led to reject such persecuting principles. The Jewish nation
rejected the Lord Jesus Christ, and preferred the oral law. This law,
not dictated by a spirit of retaliation upon the Portuguese, but
invented by the Pharisees centuries before Portugal was a kingdom,
commanded the Jews to convert the heathen by force, to murder all who
would not consent to be thus converted, and to take away the children.
And God suffered them to fall into the hands of men of similar
principles, who took away their children, attempted to convert
themselves by force, and sold for slaves the Jews who refused to be thus
converted; so that the very misfortunes of the nation testify aloud
against those traditions which they preferred to the Word of God. But
perhaps some Jew will say that this is only a particular command,
referring to the nations in the vicinity of the land of Israel. We
reply, that the command to convert the heathen by force, is not
particular, but general, referring to the whole world. If the Jews had
the power, this is the conduct which they are to pursue towards all the
nations of the earth.
וכן צוה משה רבינו מפי הגבורה לכוף את כל באי העולם לקבל מצוות שנצטוו בני
נח , וכל מי שלא קבל יהרג ׃
“And thus Moses our master, has commanded us, by Divine tradition, to
compel all that come into the world to take upon themselves the
commandments imposed upon the sons of Noah, and whosoever will not
receive them is to be put to death.” (Hilchoth Melachim, c. viii. 4.)
Such is the Talmudic system of toleration, and such the means which it
prescribes for the conversion of the world. We acknowledge that persons
calling themselves Christians have had an oral law very similar in its
principles and precepts, but we fearlessly challenge the whole world to
point out anything similar in the doctrines of Jesus Christ, or in the
writings of his apostles. The New Testament does, indeed, teach us to
seek the conversion of the world, not by force of arms, but by teaching
the truth. “Go ye, therefore, and make disciples of all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you.” (Matt. xxviii. 19.) In the parable of the tares and
wheat, Jesus of Nazareth hath expressly taught us that physical force is
not to be employed in order to remove moral error. The servants are
represented as asking the master of the house, whether they should go
and root out the tares that grew amongst the wheat, but the answer is,
“Nay, lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with
them. Let both grow together until the harvest; and in the time of
harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares,
and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my
barn.” (Matt. xiii. 24-43.) He tells us expressly to have nothing to do
with the sword, “For all they that take the sword, shall perish with the
sword.” (Matt. xxvi. 52.) And therefore the apostle says, “The weapons
of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling
down of strong holds.” (2 Cor. x. 4.) Here again, then, there is a great
difference between the oral law and the New Testament. The former
commands that the truth be maintained and propagated by the sword. The
latter tells us that “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word
of God.” Which, then, is most agreeable to the doctrine of Moses and the
prophets? We answer fearlessly, the means prescribed by the New
Testament, for—
1st, No instance can be adduced from the Old Testament, in which God
commanded the propagation of the truth by the power of the sword. The
extirpation of the seven nations of Canaan is not in point, for the
Israelites were not commanded to make them any offer of mercy on
condition of conversion. The measure of their iniquity was full, and
therefore the command to destroy every soul absolute. Neither in the
command referred to by Maimonides is there the least reference to
conversion. It simply says, “When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight
against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be if it make thee
answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be that all the
people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they
shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make
war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: and when the Lord thy God
hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof
with the edge of the sword. But the women and the little ones, and the
cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt
thou take unto thyself.” (Deut. xx. 10-14.) Here is not one word said
about conversion, or about the seven commandments of the sons of Noah.
The command itself is hypothetical, “When thou comest nigh unto a city;”
and therefore gives no colour nor pretext for setting out on a war of
conversion, “to compel all that come into the world.” As it stands, it
is a humane and merciful direction to restrain the horrors of the then
prevailing system of warfare; and beautifully exemplifies the value
which God sets upon the life of man, whatever his nation or his
religion. He will not suffer it to be destroyed unnecessarily; and even
in case of extremity, he commands the lives of the women and the
children, who never bore arms against Israel, to be spared. There is not
a syllable about forcing their consciences: that is all pure gratuitous
addition of the oral law, which turns a merciful command into an
occasion of bigotry and religious tyranny.