A (Jewish) Biblical Case for Divestment

Share this story!
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

West_Bank_&_Gaza_Map_2007_(Settlements)The Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) votes today on whether it will divest finances from Caterpillar, Hewlett-Packard, and Motorola Solutions. This decision will be even more controversial than the Church’s vote yesterday to allow ministers to officiate same-sex weddings. This divestment vote addresses the ongoing violence in Israel/Palestine.

A study by a PCUSA committee concluded that these companies are “entrenched in their involvement in non-peaceful pursuits,” and that they “regrettably show no signs” of changed behavior. “If anything . . . these companies have deepened their involvement with non-peaceful pursuits that make the . . . goal of a just peace even more remote.” These companies are not new to controversy. The Quakers divested from Caterpillar in 2012. Even professional investing firms abandoned Caterpillar: TIAA-CREF eliminated the company in 2012 (divesting $72 million) from its Social Choice Funds Portfolio, and in the same year Morgan Stanley removed Caterpillar from its Capital International World Socially Responsible Index.

Increased attention has shifted to these companies, and their role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, because of the looming Presbyterian vote at its General Assembly in Detroit. Archbishop Desmond Tutu recently waded into the debate by issuing an open letter, calling on Presbyterians to label Israel an “apartheid state” and to divest from these companies. He described the parallels between Israel/Palestine and his own apartheid South Africa as “painfully stark indeed.”

Although I am not qualified to dissect the intricacies of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I would like to reflect on a biblical text that may offer insight on this current debacle.

In Exodus 1-15, God is presented as taking a clear side in a social-political conflict. God consistently sides with the Hebrew slaves, and against their Egyptian slaveholders. God is neither a neutral referee nor a detached observer. As Adonai tells Moses:        

I have observed the misery of my people who are in Egypt; I have heard their cry on account of their taskmasters. Indeed, I know their sufferings, and I have come down to deliver them from the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land to a good and broad land, a land flowing with milk and honey ...

The cry of the Israelites has now come to me; I have also seen how the Egyptians oppress them. So come, I will send you to Pharaoh to bring my people, the Israelites, out of Egypt (Exodus 3:7-8a, 9-10, NRSV).

God’s empathy and sympathy is directed towards the Hebrews, not the Egyptians. God intervenes in this political conflict to help the slaves, and enlists Moses to be an instrument of God’s compassionate justice.

God’s identification with the Hebrews is especially evident in the language God uses to describe them: ami, “my people.” This term conveys God’s special commitment and solidarity with the Hebrews. The phrase is used at least 14 times in Exodus 1-15, and every single time it describes the Hebrew slaves. Not once is the phrase applied to the Egyptian slave owners.

However, not all the Hebrews remain as God’s “people” throughout Exodus. In fact, after the liberation of the Hebrews from slavery, the phrase “my people” is never again used in Exodus to refer to all the Hebrews. This phrase is used again in Exodus, but it will refer to a different group of people. Notice what God says to the Hebrews after their liberation from Egypt:

If you lend money to my people, to the poor among you, you shall not deal with them as a creditor; you shall not exact interest from them. If you take your neighbor’s cloak in pawn, you shall restore it before the sun goes down; for it may be your neighbor’s only clothing to use as cover; in what else shall that person sleep? And if your neighbor cries out to me, I will listen, for I am compassionate (Exodus 22:25-27, NRSV).

Here, the identity of God’s people (ami) is no longer the Hebrews but the “poor” among them. There is a striking shift in Exodus in the identification of God’s people from the Hebrews to poor Hebrews. The principle underlying this shift, however, remains consistent: in a conflict between oppressors and oppressed, God identifies with—and calls the oppressed—“my people.” The God who sided with the Hebrews against Pharaoh is now aligned with poor Hebrews.

Adonai’s commitment to the oppressed encompasses other vulnerable populations:

You shall not wrong or oppress a resident alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt. You shall not abuse any widow or orphan. If you abuse them, when they cry out to me, I will surely heed their cry; my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children orphans (Exodus 22:21-24, NRSV).

Adonai’s solidarity with these oppressed groups entails the same commitment previously enacted on behalf of the Hebrews. If Hebrew widows or orphans are abused and cry out to God, Adonai will heed their cry and kill their Hebrew oppressors. Although the same punishment is not specified for mistreating the poor, it can be inferred from the synonymous parallelism: “And if your [poor] neighbor cries out to me, I will listen, for I am compassionate.”

Since 2000, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has resulted in the deaths of approximately 1,109 Israelis and 6,862 Palestinians. Also since 2000, about 129 Israeli children have been killed. And 1,400 Palestinian children have been killed by Israeli forces during the same period. Twelve Palestinian children, every month, in the last 14 years. These statistics, of course, do not tell the whole story. But such data matters because they reflect human lives, or at least what remains of these lives. Buried under each statistic is a human face, a relative’s body, a person’s name. To neglect these numbers is to ignore human pain, suffering, and loss.

Another number that matters, and one that forever haunts these discussions, is six million. The horrific and unspeakable assault on the Jewish people —in which Christians conspired and were complicit — cannot be reason for allowing the ongoing abuse of an ethnic group today.

Perhaps the most important message that divestment will send is that some people are no longer willing to benefit financially from the misery of other human beings. We live in an age of shared complicity in webs of slavery and oppression, whether it is the garments we wear, the fruits and vegetables we consume, or the mobile devices we use. We can make decisions to remove ourselves from complicity in dehumanizing others. Divesting from these companies is an important start.

 

About Matthew Rindge, Ph.D.

Matthew S. Rindge is professor of Religious Studies at Gonzaga University. His latest book is "Profane Parables: Film and the American Dream." He has published dozens of articles and chapters on the Bible, religion, and popular culture, and he has received multiple awards for teaching and scholarship.

View All Posts

Check Also

Unpacking the word “Queer”

Why are many young people using this word to describe their sexuality rather than “gay” when it used to mean “weird”?

6 comments

  1. Jacob L. Wright

    Just to avoid any confusion caused by the less than ideal title of this (highly problematic) piece: Matthew Rindge is not a Jew and is not offering a Jewish perspective.

    • It’s interesting that the anti-Israel perspective often comes from so-called Christian progressives. These persons never mention that Israel is the only Middle Eastern country whose Christian population is fully protected and growing.

      Elsewhere in the Middle Eastern, a Christian exodus and/or genocide is underway.

  2. So, G-d is a class warrior who sides with the poor even when they send suicide bombers, kidnap, launch rockets filled with shrapnel at civilians living in Sderot, Southern Israel, etc.?

    The Professor failed to mention that Gaza is home to millionaires and is by no means poor. The majority of civilian deaths in this conflict are generated by Hamas’ war with Israel. A war Hamas began to sabotage the Oslo Peace Accords.

  3. God’s choice of Israel was never about anything desirable in them, but for His glory. The bible over and over throughout the old and new testaments affirms God’s intentions to fulfill His unconditional covenant promises to Israel, His chosen remnant. Jerusalem is the center of world attention just as prophecied. It’s about God and His ability to keep His promises, and He most assuredly is able. He is also able to save all who will put their trust in His Son, for forgiveness and eternal life. If they say He wouldn’t keep His promises then those who deny Israel are basically calling Him a liar, and why would they expect them to be kept for Christians? That’s a scary place to be.

  4. Another good place to see God’s proclamation of His history and intentions for Israel is Deuteronomy 4. Not only does it clearly state His intentions but is also His own statement that proves His existence, contrary to what even many good pastors and teachers would say. If you want proof of the existence of the one True God, look at the history and current existance and world events concerning Israel. Absolutely impossible to have happened by chance and also to have been predicted millenia ago by God Himself.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *