Are you ready to meet what is coming? (Lessons from the story of Saul and Goliath II)

The typical example of those who ask for a leader to gather around, and then do not like him when that leader comes, and all the clues to their psychology, are told in the story of Talut and Calut in Surat al-Baqara.

The Children of Israel, who were awaiting a Messiah or a Prophet, not only did not accept the one who came to them, Jesus, but left nothing undone to make him suffer. Sometimes they rejected, even killed, the prophets sent to them from among themselves, on the ground that they were "too much like themselves," so much so that they walked among the people in the marketplace like ordinary people and showed no miracle and had no angels supporting them.

At other times, Jesus, who came among them as a miracle precisely in answer to these criticisms, a miracle by his very birth, a miracle by his deeds of raising the dead, healing whatever he touched, giving sight to the blind, and by his extremely effective and wise speech, they not only made a thousand excuses so as not to accept him, but attempted to kill him by crucifying him.

Even so, among the Children of Israel, and later among Christians, the expectation of a Messiah, the expectation of a leader who one day would save the world and gather good people around him, did not come to an end. When our Prophet honored this world, there was an expectation of a prophet concerning him between both religions and among the people of Mecca, who were familiar with the messages of these two religions. Indeed, when he came, "they recognized him as they recognize their own children," but this was not enough for most of them to follow him. What kept them from accepting him was that they considered themselves more worthy of this task. How could someone who was not of the line of Israel, that is, an ummi (gentile), be considered worthy of this honor?

Yet God gave knowledge and kingship to whom He willed, and nothing remained for those who truly knew God except to reflect on the wisdom in this choice of His and submit. Without regard to the responsibilities laid upon them, they had fallen into the delusion and arrogance that an everlasting privilege had been granted to them.

The Children of Israel too, who requested a leader from their prophets, refused to accept Talut, appointed over them by God, on the ground that he was not of their lineage. Yet what they wanted was a leader, someone who knew well the art of war and how to govern, with strength and abilities in place, and Talut had these qualities; he was fit and worthy of that office. But this evidently did not concern them at all. Yet when they made this request to their Prophet, should they not have been extremely open to the advice that would come from him?

This attitude would become a very important problematic in Jewish theology and later in contemporary Jewish philosophy. Openness to what will come from the Other, the limits of submission to it…

Can we establish a relationship without destroying the Other, without removing the Other's otherness, without eliminating it within our own expectations and definitions?

We need to notice that we are not speaking of a context that perceives the concept of otherness as like an enemy, and thus perceives othering as making an enemy. Here otherness is in fact a state of freedom exempt even from the effect of the relationship. The moment we begin to define the Other, the moment we project our expectations onto him and force him to behave within those expectations, we have destroyed his otherness as well. Let the Other remain other.

Jewish theology is in fact very open to this. By not pronouncing the Name of God, it tries to keep even Him exalted above its own definition, its own depiction and determination. What operates here is the very principle of Tawhid.

It is known that the famous French post-structuralist Jewish philosopher Jacques Derrida (who is, however, said also to be an atheist) began a conference of his on friendship with the words "my friends, there is no such thing as a friend." What he means here is that those known as friends have been destroyed by being all too much predetermined by our expectations. By not calling a friend a friend until we have put him into the mold we want, we destroy the friend.

Let us get into this subject some time.

However, when the Children of Israel, with this theological background and these ethical measures, asked their prophet for a leader, they showed that they had expected not someone they would follow, but someone who would follow them. Their "whims and desires" were ready to turn even the prophet into a possession for themselves and to subject him to their "will to power." When this leader was ordered, their prophet saw this and understood that the leader they wanted had been eliminated in their hearts before he had even come to them. "You will not fight; in this state of yours you will run back away from the war," he was saying.

Because he knew that the leader they wanted would not come in accordance with their expectations. Their expectations had already killed the one who was coming by making him resemble themselves. Yet the one who would come would first of all call them to change themselves, to go beyond the state they were in.

Talut, of course, was very different from the person they made resemble themselves while waiting. Therefore, when he came, it was inevitable that they would put forward reasons for not accepting him. "Their prophet said to them, 'God has sent Talut to you as king.' They said, 'How can he be king over us, when we are more deserving of kingship than he, and he has not even been given any wealth?' (Their prophet) said: 'Surely God has chosen him over you, and has increased him in knowledge and in body.' God gives kingship to whom He wills. God is all-encompassing, all-knowing."

And what are we waiting for today in order to struggle in earnest?

Are we waiting for something?

When what we are waiting for comes, are we ready to receive it?

Are we open to accepting it as it is, or are we quickly moving away even from recognizing what is coming?

What if, in the air and mood of our expectation, we are eliminating in advance the very possibility of the coming of all that is to come?

What if this expectation itself distances us from adequate responsibility for the state we are in?

We will keep asking and questioning.