Appearance
Excerpt
Excerpt from Theologico-Political Treatise — Part 1, by Benedictus de Spinoza
(90) It now only remains to us to answer the arguments of those who would
persuade themselves that the election of the Jews was not temporal, and
merely in respect of their commonwealth, but eternal; for, they say, we see
the Jews after the loss of their commonwealth, and after being scattered so
many years and separated from all other nations, still surviving, which is
without parallel among other peoples, and further the Scriptures seem to
teach that God has chosen for Himself the Jews for ever, so that though they
have lost their commonwealth, they still nevertheless remain God's elect.
(91) The passages which they think teach most clearly this eternal election, are chiefly:
(1.) Jer. xxxi:36, where the prophet testifies that the seed of Israel
shall for ever remain the nation of God, comparing them with the
stability of the heavens and nature;
(2.) Ezek. xx:32, where the prophet seems to intend that though the Jews
wanted after the help afforded them to turn their backs on the worship of
the Lord, that God would nevertheless gather them together again from all
the lands in which they were dispersed, and lead them to the wilderness of
the peoples - as He had led their fathers to the wilderness of the land of
Egypt - and would at length, after purging out from among them the rebels
and transgressors, bring them thence to his Holy mountain, where the whole
house of Israel should worship Him. Other passages are also cited,
especially by the Pharisees, but I think I shall satisfy everyone if I
answer these two, and this I shall easily accomplish after showing from
Scripture itself that God chose not the Hebrews for ever, but only on the
condition under which He had formerly chosen the Canaanites, for these last,
as we have shown, had priests who religiously worshipped God, and whom God
at length rejected because of their luxury, pride, and corrupt worship.
Explanation
Detailed Explanation of Spinoza’s Theologico-Political Treatise (Excerpt, Part 1, §90–91)
1. Context of the Text
Benedictus de Spinoza’s Theologico-Political Treatise (1670) is a foundational work of early modern political philosophy and biblical criticism. Written during a period of intense religious and political conflict in the Dutch Republic, Spinoza’s text challenges traditional theological interpretations of Scripture, advocating instead for a rational, historical, and philosophical approach to religion and politics.
In Part 1, Spinoza examines the nature of prophecy, divine law, and the election of the Jews—a central theological concept claiming that the Hebrew people were uniquely chosen by God for eternal favor. Spinoza, however, argues that this election was temporal and conditional, tied to the Jews' political and legal structure rather than an inherent, eternal privilege.
The excerpt under discussion (§90–91) directly engages with those who believe in the eternal election of the Jews, countering their arguments with scriptural and logical refutations.
2. Breakdown of the Excerpt
§90: The Claim of Eternal Election
Spinoza begins by summarizing the opposing view:
- Some argue that the Jews’ survival despite diaspora (scattering after the destruction of their commonwealth in 70 CE) proves their eternal election.
- They cite Scripture as evidence that God’s choice of the Jews is permanent, even after the loss of their political state.
Key Points in the Argument:
- Historical Anomaly of Jewish Survival – Unlike other ancient peoples (e.g., Babylonians, Egyptians), the Jews persisted as a distinct group despite statelessness.
- Scriptural Support – Certain biblical passages (e.g., Jeremiah 31:36, Ezekiel 20:32) are interpreted as promising permanent divine favor.
Spinoza’s rhetorical strategy:
- He acknowledges the opposing view before dismantling it, a common philosophical technique to strengthen his own argument.
- He frames the debate as one between literalist theological readings (eternal election) and rational-historical interpretation (temporal, conditional election).
§91: The Two Key Scriptural Proofs for Eternal Election
Spinoza identifies two primary biblical passages used to support eternal election:
Jeremiah 31:36
- "If this fixed order departs from before Me, declares the Lord, then the offspring of Israel also will cease from being a nation before Me forever."
- Interpretation by opponents: The stability of the heavens is compared to the permanence of Israel’s election.
- Spinoza’s counter: He will later argue that this is metaphorical and conditional, not absolute.
Ezekiel 20:32
- Describes God gathering the Jews from exile, purging rebels, and restoring them to worship Him.
- Interpretation by opponents: This implies a future restoration, suggesting eternal favor.
- Spinoza’s counter: He will argue that this is contingent on obedience, not unconditional.
Additional Notes:
- Spinoza mentions the Pharisees (a Jewish sect emphasizing strict adherence to law) as proponents of eternal election, linking their interpretation to traditionalist theology.
- He previews his refutation: God’s choice of the Hebrews was not eternal but conditional, just as He had once chosen the Canaanites (before rejecting them for corruption).
3. Spinoza’s Core Argument (Implied in the Excerpt)
While the full refutation comes later, this excerpt sets up Spinoza’s key claims:
Election Was Temporal and Political
- The Jews were chosen not for inherent superiority but because of their legal and political structure (the Mosaic Law).
- Once their commonwealth collapsed, so did the basis of their election.
Scripture Itself Shows Conditionality
- Just as God rejected the Canaanites (who once had righteous priests) for their corruption, He could reject the Jews if they failed to uphold their covenant.
- The promises in Jeremiah and Ezekiel are not absolute but depend on obedience.
Survival ≠ Divine Favor
- The Jews’ persistence is not proof of eternal election but a historical accident (or, as Spinoza might argue, a result of their cultural and legal traditions).
- Other nations (e.g., Romans, Persians) also endured without claiming divine election.
Rejection of Supernaturalism
- Spinoza demythologizes biblical narratives, treating them as historical and moral texts rather than supernatural guarantees.
- His approach is rationalist: divine election must be logically consistent with God’s nature (which, for Spinoza, is impersonal and law-governed).
4. Literary and Philosophical Devices
Spinoza employs several key techniques:
| Device | Example in the Text | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Rhetorical Concession | "It now only remains to us to answer the arguments of those who would persuade themselves..." | Acknowledges opposing views before refuting them, making his argument appear more balanced. |
| Scriptural Counter-Argument | Cites Jeremiah and Ezekiel but reinterprets them as conditional. | Uses the opponent’s own sources against them. |
| Historical Analogy | Compares Jews to Canaanites (who were once favored but later rejected). | Shows that divine election is not unique or permanent. |
| Irony | "I think I shall satisfy everyone if I answer these two..." | Suggests that his logical refutation will be obviously correct to reasonable readers. |
| Philosophical Reductionism | Reduces "eternal election" to a temporal, political arrangement. | Strips the concept of its mystical/supernatural elements. |
5. Themes in the Excerpt
Rationalism vs. Dogmatism
- Spinoza rejects blind faith in favor of reasoned interpretation of Scripture.
- He challenges traditional theology by treating biblical texts as historical documents rather than divine decrees.
Conditionality of Divine Favor
- Election is not inherent but earned through obedience.
- This aligns with Spinoza’s determinist philosophy: God’s "choices" are law-governed, not arbitrary.
Separation of Religion and Politics
- The Jews’ election was tied to their political state (the Mosaic commonwealth).
- Once that state fell, their special status ended—implying that religion should not dictate politics in the modern world.
Critique of Jewish and Christian Exceptionalism
- Spinoza denies that any group has permanent divine favor.
- This was a radical (and dangerous) claim in 17th-century Europe, where chosen-people narratives justified persecution and wars.
6. Significance of the Passage
Biblical Criticism
- Spinoza was one of the first to apply historical-critical methods to Scripture, influencing later Enlightenment thinkers (e.g., Voltaire, Hume, modern biblical scholars).
Political Philosophy
- His argument undermines theocratic claims, supporting secular governance.
- The idea that divine election is temporary weakens arguments for religious supremacy in politics.
Jewish Identity & Early Modern Debates
- Spinoza (a excommunicated Jew) challenges Rabbinic Judaism’s claim of eternal covenant.
- His work was controversial among both Jews and Christians, leading to his ban from the Amsterdam synagogue.
Influence on Secularism
- By demystifying biblical election, Spinoza paves the way for secular democracy and religious tolerance.
7. Conclusion: Spinoza’s Radical Reinterpretation
This excerpt encapsulates Spinoza’s bold reinterpretation of a core theological concept. Rather than accepting eternal election as dogma, he:
- Deconstructs scriptural claims using logic and historical context.
- Reduces divine favor to a temporal, conditional arrangement.
- Lays the groundwork for modern secular thought, where religion is subject to reason, not the other way around.
His argument is not just about the Jews—it’s a broader critique of religious exceptionalism, urging a shift from supernatural authority to rational, human-centered governance.
Would you like a deeper dive into Spinoza’s broader philosophical system (e.g., his pantheism, determinism, or political theory) as it relates to this passage?