By Douglas Reed From The Controversy of Zion (1952)
The act of destruction is sometimes the subject of a bargain between God and the chosen people, on an “If” and “Then” basis; either God offers to destroy, or the chosen people ask him to destroy. In each case the act of destruction is depicted as something so meritorious that it demands a high equivalent service. Thus:
If thou shalt indeed… do all that I speak, then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies … and will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt come” (Exodus).
(In this case God is quoted as promising destruction in return for “observance”; chief among the “statutes and judgments” to be observed is,
Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served other Gods”; (Deuteronomy).
Conversely: “And Israel vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thouwilt indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities;
And the Lord hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities”(Numbers).
As will be seen, the bargain about “destruction” is conditional, in both cases, on performance of a counter-service by the people or by God.
The command, “utterly destroy”, being high among the tenets of the inflexible Law, any exercise of clemency, or other shortcoming in utter destruction, is a grave legal offence, not merely an error of judgment.
For this very crime (under this Law it is a crime, not a misdemeanour) Saul, the first and only true king of the united kingdom of Israel and Judah, was dethroned by the priests and David, the man of Judah, put in his place.
This reason for David’s elevation is significant, as the “king of the world”, yet to come, is to be of the house of David. The same lesson is repeatedly driven home in the books of The Law, particularly by the allegorical massacre of the Midianites which concludes Moses’s narrative (Numbers).
This was the basis on which all The Law, and all history of that time and later times, was built.
From the moment when Israel rejected them and they were left alone with the Levites, the Judahites were ruled by a priesthood which avowed that destruction was Jehovah’s chief command and that they were divinely chosen to destroy.
Thus they became the only people in history specifically dedicated to destruction as such. Destruction as an attendant result of war is a familiar feature of all human history.
Destruction as an avowed purpose was never before known and the only discoverable source of this unique idea is the Torah-Talmud.
The intention clearly was to organize a destructive force; therein lies the great truth of Mr. Samuel’s words in our time.
As long as any large body of people, distributed among the nations, submitted to such a Law their energies, wherever they were, were bound to be directed to a destructive end.
Out of the experience of 458-444 BC, when the Levites with Persian help clamped down their law on a weeping people, the nation was born which ever since has performed its catalytic function of changing surrounding societies while remaining itself unchanged.
The Jews became the universal catalyst, and the changes they produced were destructive. This process caused much tribulation to the Gentiles (which they brought on themselves by their servience to the ruling sect) and no true gratification to the Jews (who inherited a melancholy mission).
The Gentiles have survived and will survive; despite the Daniels and Mordecais, and their latterday successors, the “full end” of those nations “whither I have driven thee” is further off than ever. The Law specifically enjoined the chosen people to ruin other peoples among whom Jehovah “scattered” them as punishment for their own “transgressions”.
For instance, Exodus cannot be regarded as more than a legend which received a priestly re-editing in Jerusalem and Babylon many centuries after any time at which anything resembling the events described in it could have occurred. Therefore the scribes had no need to attribute to the Egyptians fear of the destructive purpose nursed by the sojourners in their midst. If they did this, in the very first chapter of Exodus. (“Come, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies and fight against us. . . “) it was evidently to fix the idea of this destructive mission in the minds of the people over whom they ruled.
Here the idea that “the people” should join with their hosts’ enemies, in order to destroy their hosts, first appears. When the story reaches a more or less verifiable event (the fall of Babylon) it is portrayed in such a way as to foster this same notion.
The Judahites are depicted as joining with the enemies of Babylon and exultantly welcoming the Persian invader. The destruction of Babylon is shown as an act of vengeance wreaked by Jehovah on behalf of the Judahites, exclusively; this vengeance is extended also to a king and the manner of his death (both apparently invented, but valid as historical precedents).
The presentation of history in the Old Testament ends with the next act of vengeance, on the Persian liberators!
Western political leaders of our century, who often were flattered to be compared by Zionist visitors to good King Cyrus of Persia, the liberator of the Judahites, may not have read “The Law” with attention or have noted what then befell the Persians.
Logically the Persians in their turn had to suffer for having Judahites among them.
For the purpose of this allegorical anecdote, a symbolic heathen “persecutor”, Haman, was created, who advised the Persian king Ahasuerus:
There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of thy kingdom and their laws are diverse from those of every people; neither keep they the king’s laws; therefore it profiteth not the king to suffer them” (Esther 3).
Thus far, Haman’s words are not much different from the opinion which any statesman might, and many statesmen through the centuries until our day did, proffer in respect of the “severed” people and their unique Law. But then, according to Esther, Haman adds,
If it please the king, let it be written that they may be destroyed “,
and king Ahasuerus gives the order. (Haman has to speak so, and king Ahasuerus to act so, in order that the ensuing Jewish vengeance may come about.) Letters go out to all provincial governors that all Jews are to be killed in one day, “even upon the thirteenth day of the twelfth month”.
The later scribes who composed the book of Esther apparently wished to vary the theme of the powerful Judahite at the court of the foreign king, and conceived the character of Esther the secret Jewess, the favourite concubine of the Persian king who was raised to be his consort.
At Esther’s intercession the king cancels the order and has Haman and his ten sons hanged on gallows which Haman had built for Mordecai the Jew (Esther’s cousin and guardian).
The king also gives Mordecai carte blanche, whereon Mordecai instructs the governors of the “hundred twenty and seven provinces” from India unto Ethiopia to have the Jews in every city “gather themselves together and to stand for their life, to destroy, to slay and to cause to perish all the power of the people … both little ones and women …”
This countermanding decree being published, “the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a good day” and (a detail of interest) “many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them”.
Then, on the appointed day, the Jews “smote all their enemies with the stroke of the sword, and slaughter, and destruction, and did what they would unto those that hated them, slaying of their foes “seventy and five thousand”. Mordecai then ordered that the fourteenth and fifteenth days of the month Adar should in future be kept as “days of feasting and joy”, and so it has been, ever since.
Apparently Haman, Mordecai and Esther were all imaginary. No “king Ahasuerus” historically exists, though one encyclopaedia (possibly from the wish to breathe life into the veins of the parables) says that Ahasuerus “has been identified with Xerxes”. In that case he was father of the king Artaxerxes who sent soldiers with Nehemiah to Jerusalem to enforce the racial “New Covenant”, and in that event, again, Artaxerxes so acted after witnessing in his own country a massacre of 75,000 Persian subjects by Jews!
No historical basis for the story can be discovered and it has all the marks of chauvinist propaganda.
The perplexing fact remains that, if it was invented, it could be true in every detail today, when The Law founded on such anecdotes has been imposed on The West.