Book of Mercy #27-28
Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:48 am
Well, here we go on the next – eighth – part of the ongoing discussion of BoM. This new thread was opened for several reasons. First, although the last thread was relatively short (#25-26), in recent weeks an interesting discussion on meditation has been going on there, and I thought some people may wish to continue that discussion without interruption by the next installment of BoM. Second, it’s an opportunity to commemorate the first full-year anniversary of our discussion, occurring today, and thank all the participants once again. And, finally, it seems appropriate to start a new thread as we move on from Part I to Part II of the book, which - perhaps in the spirit of Zen - is divided asymmetrically (Part I including #1-26, and Part II with one section fewer, #27-50). It seems that in essence Part II continues the themes and issues of the first part, but it might be worthwhile to examine, as we go along, whether there are any substantial differences between the two parts, and try to figure out, if we can, for what reason did LC divide the book into those two parts.
none of these lands is yours – This notion, mentioned first here and developed more elaborately further down, seems to be based on the biblical idea that the land is the Lord’s, and he allows people to dwell on it as long as they go His way. This is usually relevant to the Promised Land and the People of Israel, such as in Leviticus 25:23: “But the land must not be sold beyond reclaim, for the land is Mine; you are but strangers resident with Me.” However the narrator here applies this notion to all nations and all lands indiscriminately (which isn’t surprising, knowing his record). Actually, this inclusiveness may also have its seeds in the Bible. For example, Deuteronomy 32:8: “When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.” (this is the RSV translation, which includes an amendment of the text in the last phrase of the verse; the Bible in your hands may have a different version for the last words). Here too we have the idea that God allots each nation its land according to His own wishes. See also the prophecies of some of the great Hebrew prophets concerning neighboring nations, as well as Israel, such as Amos 1-2, or Ezekiel 25-36. These nations, including those who did not enter the particular covenant with the Lord, are to be punished with the loss of their land for their bloodthirstiness and lack of righteousness. This is the same spirit that we find here.
Ishmael, who was saved in the wilderness – Ishmael was the focus of #14, as we’ve seen, and there he was treated somewhat more favorably. Here he is being rebuked along with all the rest of them.
Perceived or not, there is a covenant – Here, again, the Covenant is not only between God and the Jews, but with every nation, whether they are aware of it or not. From a biblical point of view this also can be expected, since the first covenant was with all human beings after the Flood (Genesis 9:8-17). Going against the grain of this text one may argue: But did God indeed keep his side of the covenant? Well, that’s an argument for another occasion.
the remnant of Mercy – Several times in this text “Mercy” is capitalized and personified. We have discussed several times before the nature and meaning of this figure in this book by the same name, but I still don’t feel it can be given an unambiguous definition.
Because you do not wrestle with your angel… the victor does not limp – this is an obvious reference to the story of Jacob in Genesis 32:24-32. In the biblical text Jacob actually wrestles with “a man”, but that figure turned into an angel in popular memory (already in Hosea 12:5) (just as the “fruit” of Eden turned into an apple). The original story seems to say that Jacob wrestled with God himself. Some say that the reference to Jacob’s thigh is actually a euphemism, and that in fact he was castrated. In Rembrandt’s depiction of the story it looks more like a love-scene. The interpretations and possibilities are endless, but, as the message here too seems to be, the important thing is the fearless struggle, and the continuous asking of questions, even at the risk, or even the certainty, of harming yourself during the process.
The pieces in Part I were written in the spirit of the Psalms, or that of the Prayer Book; a few were written as a kind of short story, sometimes with the spirit of Zen thrown in, and always in the unique style of the author, who turned some old, familiar things into new ones. The current piece, on the other hand, was written in the spirit of the Prophets – chastening, laying blame, demanding righteousness. It is also the most political piece so far, although political themes could have been found occasionally in Part I (and one certainly recognizes here the poet who twenty years earlier wrote the “Story of Isaac”). And just like the words of the great prophets, this piece also has the quality of immediate relevancy, transcendenting time and circumstances. It’s also worthwhile to note that the narrator (or the prophet, as we may call him here) is equally skeptic about nations, revolution, and the Church, all of theme being “thieves of holiness”, distorting great ideas for their own gains.II.27
Israel, and you who call yourself Israel, the Church that calls itself Israel, and the revolt that calls itself Israel, and every nation chosen to be a nation – none of these lands is yours, all of you are thieves of holiness, all of you at war with Mercy. Who will say it? Will America say, We have stolen it, or France step down? Will Russia confess, or Poland say, We have sinned? All bloated on their scraps of destiny, all swaggering in the immunity of superstition. Ishmael, who was saved in the wilderness, and given shade in the desert, and a deadly treasure under you: has Mercy made you wise? Will Ishmael declare, We are in debt forever? Therefore the lands belong to none of you, the borders do not hold, the Law will never serve the lawless. To every people the land is given on condition. Perceived or not, there is a covenant, beyond the constitution, beyond sovereign guarantee, beyond the nation’s sweetest dreams of itself. The Covenant is broken, the condition is dishonoured, have you not noticed that the world has been taken away? You have no place, you will wander through yourselves from generation to generation without a thread. Therefore you rule over chaos, you hoist your flags with no authority, and the heart that is still alive hates you, and the remnant of Mercy is ashamed to look at you. You decompose behind your flimsy armour, your stench alarms you, your panic strikes at love. The land is not yours, the land has been taken back, your shrines fall through empty air, your tablets are quickly revised, and you bow down in hell beside your hired torturers, and still you count your battalions and crank out your marching songs. Your righteous enemy is listening. He hears your anthem full of blood and vanity, and your children singing to themselves. He has overturned the vehicle of nationhood, he has spilled the precious cargo, and every nation he has taken back. Because you are swollen with your little time. Because you do not wrestle with your angel. Because you dare to live without God. Because your cowardice has led you to believe that the victor does not limp.
none of these lands is yours – This notion, mentioned first here and developed more elaborately further down, seems to be based on the biblical idea that the land is the Lord’s, and he allows people to dwell on it as long as they go His way. This is usually relevant to the Promised Land and the People of Israel, such as in Leviticus 25:23: “But the land must not be sold beyond reclaim, for the land is Mine; you are but strangers resident with Me.” However the narrator here applies this notion to all nations and all lands indiscriminately (which isn’t surprising, knowing his record). Actually, this inclusiveness may also have its seeds in the Bible. For example, Deuteronomy 32:8: “When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.” (this is the RSV translation, which includes an amendment of the text in the last phrase of the verse; the Bible in your hands may have a different version for the last words). Here too we have the idea that God allots each nation its land according to His own wishes. See also the prophecies of some of the great Hebrew prophets concerning neighboring nations, as well as Israel, such as Amos 1-2, or Ezekiel 25-36. These nations, including those who did not enter the particular covenant with the Lord, are to be punished with the loss of their land for their bloodthirstiness and lack of righteousness. This is the same spirit that we find here.
Ishmael, who was saved in the wilderness – Ishmael was the focus of #14, as we’ve seen, and there he was treated somewhat more favorably. Here he is being rebuked along with all the rest of them.
Perceived or not, there is a covenant – Here, again, the Covenant is not only between God and the Jews, but with every nation, whether they are aware of it or not. From a biblical point of view this also can be expected, since the first covenant was with all human beings after the Flood (Genesis 9:8-17). Going against the grain of this text one may argue: But did God indeed keep his side of the covenant? Well, that’s an argument for another occasion.
the remnant of Mercy – Several times in this text “Mercy” is capitalized and personified. We have discussed several times before the nature and meaning of this figure in this book by the same name, but I still don’t feel it can be given an unambiguous definition.
Because you do not wrestle with your angel… the victor does not limp – this is an obvious reference to the story of Jacob in Genesis 32:24-32. In the biblical text Jacob actually wrestles with “a man”, but that figure turned into an angel in popular memory (already in Hosea 12:5) (just as the “fruit” of Eden turned into an apple). The original story seems to say that Jacob wrestled with God himself. Some say that the reference to Jacob’s thigh is actually a euphemism, and that in fact he was castrated. In Rembrandt’s depiction of the story it looks more like a love-scene. The interpretations and possibilities are endless, but, as the message here too seems to be, the important thing is the fearless struggle, and the continuous asking of questions, even at the risk, or even the certainty, of harming yourself during the process.
