Bob Schwartz

Tag: Bible

The Magi

Journey of the Magi
The magi are for everyone, whatever your beliefs.

These three figures in the Christmas tradition appear in only one of the four Christian gospels, and even that role in Matthew is sketchy. They are foreigners bringing gifts for the infant Jesus and they return home by a different route to evade Herod. That’s it.

Translations and interpretations of what they brought vary, and even less clear is exactly who these foreigners were supposed to be in the story. They may be kings, wise men, astrologers or, as some have it, Zoroastrian priests from Persia.

This is why the particulars don’t matter much at all: the story is so basic and illuminating that it has captured the imagination of millions in its various retellings. Christian faithful have one view of it, and the more literal vision is that of concrete history. But for those who lean away from that, there is much to be gotten out of this compelling story:

  • Some people of discernment—in terms of wisdom, astrology or otherwise—had a sense that something special was going on outside of their ordinary sphere. Maybe they saw a light.
  • They travelled a long way to discover what was going on, and having found out, expressed their gratitude humbly and generously.

Again, that’s it. Some may want to think about theology. Others may want to think about other sorts of lights they’ve glimpsed, journeys they’ve made or haven’t made, and about possibilities. Christmas or just winter solstice and New Year, there is no better time to think about possibilities and all the rest.

T.S. Eliot wrote a brief but cinematic poem about the magi. It is written from a believer’s perspective, as the magi suffer twice, once on the journey, once again when they return home and find themselves so spiritually transformed by the experience that they feel like strangers in their own land. This is certainly a Christian view of the holiday, but non-Christians may just as well consider the more general phenomenon of all sorts of enlightenment, sitting between the way you have been and the way you discover you could be or already are. The magi say they would be glad of another death like that.

© 2025 Bob Schwartz


The Journey of the Magi
T.S. Eliot

‘A cold coming we had of it,
Just the worst time of the year
For a journey, and such a long journey:
The ways deep and the weather sharp,
The very dead of winter.’
And the camels galled, sorefooted, refractory,
Lying down in the melting snow.
There were times we regretted
The summer palaces on slopes, the terraces,
And the silken girls bringing sherbet.
Then the camel men cursing and grumbling
and running away, and wanting their liquor and women,
And the night-fires going out, and the lack of shelters,
And the cities hostile and the towns unfriendly
And the villages dirty and charging high prices:
A hard time we had of it.
At the end we preferred to travel all night,
Sleeping in snatches,
With the voices singing in our ears, saying
That this was all folly.

Then at dawn we came down to a temperate valley,
Wet, below the snow line, smelling of vegetation;
With a running stream and a water-mill beating the darkness,
And three trees on the low sky,
And an old white horse galloped away in the meadow.
Then we came to a tavern with vine-leaves over the lintel,
Six hands at an open door dicing for pieces of silver,
And feet kicking the empty wine-skins.
But there was no information, and so we continued
And arriving at evening, not a moment too soon
Finding the place; it was (you might say) satisfactory.

All this was a long time ago, I remember,
And I would do it again, but set down
This set down
This: were we led all that way for
Birth or Death? There was a Birth, certainly
We had evidence and no doubt. I had seen birth and death,
But had thought they were different; this Birth was
Hard and bitter agony for us, like Death, our death.
We returned to our places, these Kingdoms,
But no longer at ease here, in the old dispensation,
With an alien people clutching their gods.
I should be glad of another death.

The First Command: Let there be light.

The First Commandment in the Bible is not the First Command in the Bible. That is found in the first few lines at Genesis 1:3:

יְהִ֣י א֑וֹר
Y’hi or
Let there be light

In a sense, that is more essential than any of the later commandments, whether 10 or 613 or any number in between.

If our actions, words or thoughts are maintaining or increasing the light, we are doing well.

If our actions, words or thoughts are decreasing or putting out the light, we are not doing as well.

Even though the First Command is not literally aimed at us, as the commandments are, it is obvious that we can be charged with the responsibility.

This is a Season of Lights. Y’hi or.

Meditation: Why does the Hebrew Bible begin with the letter Bet (Bereshit—In the beginning) and not the first letter Aleph?

The Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) begins with the Hebrew word “Bereshit”, conventionally translated as “In the beginning”.

In Hebrew the word begins with the second letter of the alphabet, Bet, like the second letter B.

But it is the beginning. So why doesn’t the text start with an Aleph/A word, the first letter of the alphabet?

This is a conundrum that has challenged the rabbis for centuries. They have spoken and written insightfully at length about it.

You don’t have to know what the rabbis have said or written. You don’t have to be Jewish, you don’t have to know Hebrew. You don’t have to be a student of the Bible. You already know enough, as detailed above.

Instead, consider this like a Zen koan, something to ponder without resolving. If it helps your pondering, whether you know Hebrew or not, you might look at and contemplate the image of the letters. Is there something about the letters themselves that tells you something about why one was chosen instead of the other to start off this famous story?

American churches: No more sidelines about Trump

“We realize, hey, our churches and the people in our churches have been duped by this guy and so rather than hope someone else will clean up the problem, what we’ve seen is a lot of pastors respond with, you know what, I’m going to jump in and I’m going to be a part of the solution.”
Robb Ryerse in Arkansas, Christian pastor and former Republican, one of 30 Christian white clergy so far running as Democrats in the midterm elections.

Churches in America have taken different positions regarding Trump.

Some have vigorously supported him, going so far as to say he is an anointed savior for the nation. Trump does, after all, sell his own God Bless the USA Bible.

Some, particularly black churches, have vigorously opposed him.

Most churches have stayed on the sidelines. The main reason is that in this divided society, congregations often include supporters and opponents. In those congregations, the position is that the church serves as an elevated neutral ground, not a battlefield, interested in promoting and effectuating the highest principles of Jesus and the Gospels. Whether or not those principles are being advanced or decimated in the public sphere by the chief public executive. Whether or not the tax dollars of congregants are being used to help or hurt people. Besides, a divisive message might send some congregants running away.

From the Guardian:


‘Trump is inconsistent with Christian principles’: why the Democratic party is seeing a rise of white clergy candidates
From Texas and Iowa to Arkansas, faith leaders are wading into politics to counter the rise of Christian nationalism

David Smith
Sat 15 Nov 2025

He grew up on a farm in Indiana, the son of a factory worker and eldest of five children. He studied at Liberty, a Christian university founded by the conservative pastor and televangelist Jerry Falwell, and recalls wearing a T-shirt expressing opposition to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.

Two decades later, Justin Douglas is running for the US Congress – as a Democrat.

He is among around 30 Christian white clergy – pastors, seminary students and other faith leaders – known to be potential Democratic candidates in next year’s midterm elections, including a dozen who are already in the race. While stressing the separation of church and state, many say that on a personal level their faith is calling them into the political arena….

In Arkansas, Robb Ryerse, a Christian pastor and former Republican, is mounting a challenge to representative Steve Womack, adopting the slogan “Faith, Family & Freedom” – rhetoric more commonly found in Republican campaign literature.

Ryerse, 50, from Springdale, Arkansas, said: “I joke sometimes that the two people who have changed my life more than any others are Jesus and Donald Trump, for very different reasons. Donald Trump is absolutely inconsistent with Christian principles of love and compassion, justice, looking out for the poor, meeting the needs of the marginalized.

“But Donald Trump has also used and been used by so many evangelical leaders who want political power. He has used them to validate him to their followers and they have used him to further their agenda, which has been a Christian nationalist culture war on the United States, which I think is bad for both the church and for the country.”

White clergy are deciding to run for office, Ryerse believes, in part as a response to the rise of Christian nationalism and the reality that, according to a Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) survey, Trump won 85% of the white evangelical vote in last year’s presidential election.

Ryerse said: “We realize, hey, our churches and the people in our churches have been duped by this guy and so rather than hope someone else will clean up the problem, what we’ve seen is a lot of pastors respond with, you know what, I’m going to jump in and I’m going to be a part of the solution.

“On a more positive note, there’s also that notion we need to do something for the common good. There’s so much alignment between what I believe personally is good for my neighbor, what it means to love my neighbor, and how that aligns with what public policy ought to be.”


Two books about lying

Some don’t think they need to read a book about lying because it is succinctly and definitively covered in “The Good Book”, that is, the Bible:

  1. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
    Exodus 20:16

(Or as universally interpreted, in any circumstance to anyone. In other words, don’t lie.)

If you do want to read a good book about lying, its subtleties and its damaging effects, following are a couple.

Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life (1978) by Sissela Bok

This is the modern masterpiece on the subject. You might think, “well, it was written almost fifty years ago, and a lot has changed since then.” Of course, nothing has changed, either in lying or in the astute analysis of lying. If anything, you might observe that lying has come to play an even more important role, at least in American life—commandment or no commandment.

Chapters in Lying by Sissela Bok:

I IS THE “WHOLE TRUTH” ATTAINABLE?
II TRUTHFULNESS, DECEIT, AND TRUST
III NEVER TO LIE?
IV WEIGHING THE CONSEQUENCES
V WHITE LIES
VI EXCUSES
VII JUSTIFICATION
VIII LIES IN A CRISIS
IX LYING TO LIARS
X LYING TO ENEMIES
XI LIES PROTECTING PEERS AND CLIENTS
XII LIES FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD
XIII DECEPTIVE SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH
XIV PATERNALISTIC LIES
XV LIES TO THE SICK AND DYING

As you can see, just reading the chapter titles is enough to get you thinking.

Lying (2013) by Sam Harris

This book is much shorter (83 pages, really a long essay) and more smoothly written than Bok’s book, given Harris’ bestselling skill as a writer. Obviously not as incisive and insightful.

A suggestion is to read them both, especially because Harris’ book is such a quick read. A much bigger suggestion is to pay attention to lying and to think about what you say and what you hear from any source. If it is someone, private or public, who claims allegiance to the mentioned Good Book and its commandments, it is worth thinking about whether the lies fit into any of the exceptional circumstances, or whether the principle is just being ignored entirely.

Kafka’s Parable (No answer to all questions, no solutions to all mysteries)

Note: This is the first day of Sukkot, the Jewish harvest festival that includes reading Ecclesiastes/Kohelet, one of my favorite books of the Hebrew Bible. Before writing a new post about Ecclesiastes, I reviewed my earlier posts that referenced it. It turns out the following was drafted but never published.


Kafka’s Parable (No answer to all questions, no solutions to all mysteries)

Kafka’s parable
Is a sounding of a bell
That half sickens me.
So obvious that
All searches do not succeed
Still hopeful that
Some do
Mine will.
Why embed the futility of Ecclesiastes
In a treasure map
That might as well say
Not here
Not here
Not anywhere.
Frustration is one thing
The waste of a life another.

© 2025 Bob Schwartz


Kafka’s parable, found in his novel The Trial, “can be read as a religious allegory or as an allegory of human justice.” (see below).

The futility found in Ecclesiastes (entitled in Hebrew Kohelet) refers to a repeated theme of the biblical book, starting with its famous opening passage. While there is much disagreement about the English translation of the biblical Hebrew word hevel—air, vapor, breath, mist, smoke, futility, meaningless, absurd, pointless or useless—the line “hevel hevelim, kol hevel” it is best known in English this way:

Futility, futility, all is futility.


From Tree of Souls:The Mythology of Judaism by Howard Schwartz

BEFORE THE LAW

Before the Law stands a man guarding the door. To this doorkeeper comes a man from the country who asks to be admitted to the Law. But the doorkeeper says that he cannot grant him entry. The man thinks about it and asks if, in that case, he will be permitted to enter later. “Possibly,” says the doorkeeper, “but not now.”

As the gateway to the Law is, as always, open, and the doorkeeper steps aside, the man stoops to look within. When the doorkeeper sees this, he laughs and says, “If it tempts you that much, just try to get in. But be aware that I am mighty. And I am only the lowliest doorkeeper. From hall to hall there are doorkeepers, each mightier than the one before. Even I can no longer bear the sight of the third of these.”

The man from the country has not expected such difficulties. Surely, he thinks, the Law ought to be accessible to everybody, always, but now as he looks more carefully at the doorkeeper, with his big pointed nose and long, thin, black Tatar beard, he decides he’d rather wait for permission to enter. The doorkeeper gives him a stool and has him sit down beside the door. There he sits for days and for years. He often tries to be admitted, and wearies the doorkeeper with his pleas. The doorkeeper frequently questions him, asks him about where he comes from and many other things, but they are distant inquiries, the sort great men make, and in the end he always says that he cannot let him in yet. The man, who has equipped himself for his journey with many things, employs everything, however valuable, to bribe the doorkeeper. He takes it all, saying however, “I accept this only so you won’t think you’ve failed to do anything.”

All these long years the man watches the doorkeeper unceasingly. He forgets the other doorkeepers, and this first one seems to be the only obstacle between him and the Law. He curses his miserable luck, at first recklessly and loudly; later, as he grows old, he only grumbles to himself. He becomes childish, and since his years of scrutiny of the doorkeeper have enabled him to recognize even the fleas in his fur collar, he asks even the fleas to help change the doorkeeper’s mind. Finally his eyes grow feeble, and he doesn’t know if it’s really getting darker around him or if his eyes are only tricking him. But in the darkness he now observes an inextinguishable radiance streaming out of the door of the Law.

Now he will not live much longer. Before he dies all he has been through converges in his mind into one question that he has never yet asked the doorkeeper. He signals to him, as he can no longer raise his stiffening body. The doorkeeper has to bend down low to him, as their difference in size has altered, much to the man’s disadvantage. “What do you want to know now?” asks the doorkeeper. “There’s no satisfying you.” “Everyone struggles to reach the Law,” says the man. “How can it be that in all these years no one but me has asked to get in?” The doorkeeper recognizes that the man’s life is almost over and, because his hearing is failing, he roars at him, “No one else could be allowed in here. This entrance was intended only for you. I am now going to close it.”

* * *

This famous parable by Kafka from The Trial can be read as a religious allegory or as an allegory of human justice. Although it is generally thought of more in terms of the latter, it has the distinct elements of a religious allegory. The key image is that “of an inextinguishable radiance streaming out of the door of the Law.” This clearly suggests the eternal nature of the Law, which, of course, draws this eternal quality from God. This shifts the focus of the parable from human justice to the need for divine justice, and hints at the remoteness of God.

The doorkeeper guarding the gate to the Law is reminiscent of the angel placed at the gate of the Garden of Eden, with the flaming sword that turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life (Gen. 3:24). Also echoed is the popular Christian conception of St. Peter serving as the doorkeeper at the Gates of Heaven.

Gershom Scholem has said that there are three pillars of Jewish mystical thought: the Bible, the Zohar, and the writings of Kafka. Thus he viewed Kafka’s writings, which have been interpreted in a multitude of ways, as mystical texts. Scholem pointed out parallels between “Before the Law” and passages in the Hekhalot texts about angels guarding the gates of the palaces of heaven. For a description of these angels, see “The Entrance of the Sixth Heavenly Palace,” p. 178. Compare this description with Kafka’s description of the doorkeeper in “Before the Law.” The parallels are striking, but since this Hekhalot text was little known during Kafka’s lifetime, it is not likely that he had direct knowledge of it. Moshe Idel also identifies the quest in this tale as the remnant of a mystical one. See Kabbalah: New Perspectives, p. 271.

Another perspective is suggested by Zohar 1:7b: Open the gates of righteousness for me . . . . This is the gateway to the Lord (Ps. 68:19-20). Assuredly, without entering through that gate one will never gain access to the most high King. Imagine a king greatly exalted who screens himself from the common view behind gate upon gate, and at the end, one special gate, locked and barred. Said the king: “He who wishes to enter into my presence must first of all pass through that gate.”

Another parallel is found in Ibn Gabirol’s eleventh century treatise, The Book of the Selection of Pearls (ch. 8): “The following laconic observations are said to have been addressed to a king, by one who stood by the gate of the royal palace, but who failed to obtain access. First: Necessity and hope prompted me to approach your throne. Second: My dire distress admits of no delay. Third: My disappointment would gratify the malice of my enemies. Fourth: Your acquiescence would confer advantages, and even your refusal would relieve me from anxiety and suspense.”

Max Brod, Kafka’s close friend and biographer, comments about this parable: “Kafka’s deeply ironic legend ‘Before the Law’ is not the reminiscence or retelling of this ancient lore, as it would seem at first glance, but an original creation drawn deeply from his archaic soul. It is yet another proof of his profound roots in Judaism, whose potency and creative images rose to new activities in his unconscious.” (Johannes Reuchlin und sein Kampf, Stuttgart: 1965, pp. 274-275).

Of course, “Before the Law” can also be read as a personal statement of the kind of obstruction Kafka experienced at the hands of his father. The role of the gatekeeper can also be identified with Kafka’s mother, for Kafka gave his mother the epic letter he wrote to his father, to pass on to him, but she decided not to do so. In such a reading Kafka’s father represents the Law, the strict, godlike figure. See Kafka’s Letter to His Father.

Also, Kafka’s parable is relevant to human justice, where, on many occasions, people have been denied justice by the very ones who were supposed to provide it for them. In doing so they perform the obstructive role of the gatekeeper, who was supposed to welcome the man from the country at the gate intended only for him, but instead prevented him from entering at all.

Readers may wonder why a modern parable by Franz Kafka has been included in a book of Jewish mythology. There are several reasons for this. Kafka’s fiction possesses a strong mythic element, and scholars have become increasingly aware of the strong influence on it of Jewish tradition; Kafka’s writing in general, and this parable in particular, has taken on the qualities of a sacred text in our time; and there are strong parallels between this parable and traditional Jewish myths about the quest to reach God, but also a strong element of doubt in Kafka’s parable that reflects the modern era. Just as the evolution of Jewish mythology did not end with the canonization of the Bible or the Talmud, and continued to flourish in the kabbalistic and hasidic era, so too it can be seen to continue in the modern era in the writings of Kafka. It also can be found in other seminal Jewish authors, such as I. L. Peretz, S. Y. Agnon, Bruno Schulz, and I. B. Singer.


Passover message: “No stranger shall you oppress, for you know the stranger’s heart, having yourselves been strangers in the land of Egypt.”

גֵ֖ר לֹ֣א תִלְחָ֑ץ וְאַתֶּ֗ם יְדַעְתֶּם֙ אֶת־נֶ֣פֶשׁ הַגֵּ֔ר כִּֽי־גֵרִ֥ים הֱיִיתֶ֖ם בְּאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם׃
Exodus 23:9

One line from the Book of Exodus crystallizes our moment.

As with all biblical Hebrew, the translation is challenging and varied.


Exodus 23:9

You shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the feelings of the stranger, having yourselves been strangers in the land of Egypt. (NJPS)

You shall not oppress a resident alien; you know the heart of an alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt. (NRSV)

No sojourner shall you oppress, for you know the sojourner’s heart, since you were sojourners in the land of Egypt. (Robert Alter)


Alter addresses one of the translation challenges, the Hebrew word nefesh/נֶ֣פֶשׁ:

“The Hebrew is nefesh, “heart”, “life,” “inner nature,” “essential being,” “breath.””

Another word needing expansion is the Hebrew ger/גֵּ֔ר. Scholars Mark Allen Powell and Dennis R. Bratcher explain in the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary:


alien (ger): In the Bible, one who is not a member of a particular social group. Accordingly, Abraham was an alien (NRSV: “stranger”) among the Hittites at Hebron (Gen. 23:4), as were Moses in Midian (Exod. 2:22) and the Israelites in Egypt (Deut. 23:7; cf. Ruth 1:1). The Hebrew word is ger, and it has often been translated “sojourner” in English Bibles. The NRSV is inconsistent, translating it “alien” in some instances and “stranger” in others. After the settlement in Canaan, the term not only designated a temporary guest but also acquired the more specialized meaning of “resident alien,” one who lived permanently within Israel (Exod. 22:21; 23:9). No doubt because the Israelites were keenly aware of their own heritage as aliens without rights in a foreign land, they developed specific laws governing the treatment of aliens. Strangers or aliens were to be treated with kindness and generosity (Lev. 19:10, 33–34; 23:22; Deut. 14:29). The basic principle was, “You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Deut. 10:19). And, again, “You shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt” (Lev. 19:34)….

“Alien” or “stranger” also appears in a figurative sense, usually in appealing to the generosity and mercy of God in dealing with undeserving people (Pss. 39:12; 119:19; 1 Chron. 29:15). The idea of dwelling in a land owned by someone else is also applied theologically to the relationship of the Israelites to the land; it belonged to God and they were the strangers in it (Lev. 25:23). (emphasis added)


This Passover, we give a thought to the nefesh—heart, life, inner nature, essential being, breath—of the ger—stranger, sojourner, resident alien. As the Bible reminds us, we were strangers too.

Hag Pesach sameach.

This

This

You say this is what God wants
God told you
Or told someone who heard
And told you
Told someone
Who wrote it down
Figured out
That this is what God wants.
I am no more than Moses or others
But no less.
Here is what I read and heard
And write.
Bereshit bara elohim et hashamayim v’et ha’aretz. V’ha’aretz hatah tohu v’bohu.”*
In the beginning was tohu and bohu, a formless wasteland.
All the rest is commentary
For us not God to write create destroy.
Write we did
Create we did
Destroy we did
And do.
This is what we want.

*Genesis 1:1-2

© 2024 by Bob Schwartz

Ani Shalom – I am peace – אֲֽנִי־שָׁ֭לוֹם

Too long have I dwelt with those who hate peace.
I am all peace;
but when I speak,
they are for war.

Psalm 120:6-7

I am not a pacifist.

There are many definitions of pacifist, including:

A person who opposes war or violence as a means of settling disputes.
A person who believes that war and violence are unjustifiable.

Up until now, I hadn’t thought about whether I would classify myself as or be considered a pacifist. The short answer is ‘no”. During the wars I’ve lived through or for those I know from recent or ancient history, I can say that some of the wars and violence pursued were justified. Others were not, or were pursued in ways that were not justified, or for objectives that were not justified, or were pursued without trying other means, or were just stupid or evil.

But I am for peace. Peace should never be a secondary or tertiary objective once the other objectives have been achieved or not, once all the destructive and deadly means have been tried. Peace should have co-equal status at the top of the list.

During the ongoing war in Gaza, I’ve discovered that all the divergent thinking and rhetoric, from me and so many others, from just plain folks up to world leaders, is having little effect on the course of hostilities. Wars are about action, well-chosen or ill-chosen, and stubborn actors convinced of their rightness can be deaf.

Then I realized that if I am going to be using my words to little practical effect, I might as well use them to promote the possibility of peace.

Which is how I came to find a verse in Psalm 120. The standout Hebrew phrase is “Ani shalom”, literally the words are “I” and “peace”. Lacking a verb, it is variously translated as “I am peace”, “I am all peace”, “I am for peace”.

I am peace and I hope you are too.


רַ֭בַּת שָֽׁכְנָה־לָּ֣הּ נַפְשִׁ֑י עִ֝֗ם שׂוֹנֵ֥א שָׁלֽוֹם׃
אֲֽנִי־שָׁ֭לוֹם וְכִ֣י אֲדַבֵּ֑ר הֵ֝֗מָּה לַמִּלְחָמָֽה׃

Rabat shachna la nafshi
Ani shalom v’chi adaber hama lamilchama

Too long have I dwelt with those who hate peace.
I am all peace;
but when I speak,
they are for war.

Psalm 120:6-7

Mad Gods by the sea

Palestine Sunbird in Gaza

Mad Gods by the sea

God of Moses
God of Jesus
God of Mohammed
God of infinite names
Sitting by the desert sea
Pained and grieved.
This is madness.
These people
Every inclination
Is only evil
All the time.*
They take our names
In vile vain.**
There is the water
Let us drive them in
And start again
Just like days of old
Do better next time.
But how would they learn?
Hard hearts may soften
Dissolved in blood and tears.
We won’t abandon
We don’t approve.

*Genesis 6.5-7
**Exodus 20.6

© 2023 by Bob Schwartz