Messianic Jewish Perspectives

---

Pilgrims in the Land of Hope – Reuven-Rubin-Landscape-of-Galilee

Do Not Miss Out on G_D’s Blessing in Your Life

Toldot: Generations:

Genesis 25.19-28.9, Malachi 1.1-2.7 & Romans 9.1-13

Jacob & Esau

The Struggles and Reconciliation of Jacob & Esau

Introduction

1/It is important to state from the outset that when dealing with these verses from Romans 9 we must keep in mind the issue concerning the question of the gospel and the fact that the relationship between Yeshua and Israel is inseparable.

The Jews are God’s special people. Despite their stubbornness and at times rebellious attitude, this unique relationship will never change. This promised gospel of the Messiah’s advent, foretold in the Hebrew Scriptures, and its message become explicit in the words, ‘both for the Jew first and for the Greek (gentiles) later’ (cf. Romans 2.9-10).

It is plain that when thinking of God’s faithfulness, then the question of Jewish involvement cannot be ignored of glossed over. It became incumbent upon Paul to discuss this subject in some length in Romans chapters 9-11.

Apostle Paul Contending for the Truth

Damaged Icon of Paul by Andrej Rublev, 1407

The Apostle Paul/ Rav Shaul in his letter to the believers in Roman wrote to them concerning their new life in the Messiah. The congregation in Rome was made up of Jews and Gentiles and Paul wanted to help establish their faith and clarify a number of issues that were causing confusion and needed clearing up.

Because of the rejection of Yeshua by the Judaea Temple leadership centred around the High Priest and his ruling council, as a consequence the believers were being persecuted.

The darkest hour had dawned with Israel’s failure to embrace Yeshua as Messiah and Lord.

What hope was left for the Jewish people? What was the consequences of this for Judaism that had chosen another path other than acknowledging Yeshua as Messiah and Lord? In Romans 9 Paul outlines some of his thinking about their destiny. Painful as it is, all hope was not lost.

A refreshing translation gives new insights: this‘magnificent prospect’ – missed by those who he came for…’their special privileges and their high destiny’ – a cause of great sorrow to Paul & he was willing to sacrifice his dearest hopes…

2/ Our story begins much earlier and takes us back to the beginning of this formation of the Nation of Israel.

There is a good story worthy of our consideration concerning the Generations [Toldot]of Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac and Jacob and Esau and it is full of twits and turns. In this Parasha (portion) TOLDOT: Genesis 25.19-28.9 we are given the account of the struggle between Jacob and Esau. It began inside Rebecca’s womb and it continues down till this day as Jews and Arabs, the descendants of Isaac and Ishmael and Jacob and Esau are still locked in conflict about birthright and land.

The Birth and Youth of Esau and Jacob

^{Genesis 25.19} These are the descendants of Isaac, Abraham’s son: Abraham was the father of Isaac, ²⁰ and Isaac was forty years old when he married Rebekah, daughter of Bethuel the Aramean of Paddan-aram, sister of Laban the Aramean. ²¹ Isaac prayed to the Lord for his wife, because she was barren; and the Lord granted his prayer, and his wife Rebekah conceived. ²² The children struggled together within her; and she said, “If it is to be this way, why do I live?”^[c] So she went to inquire of the Lord. ²³ And the Lord said to her,

“Two nations are in your womb,
    and two peoples born of you shall be divided;
the one shall be stronger than the other,
    the elder shall serve the younger.”

²⁴ When her time to give birth was at hand, there were twins in her womb. ²⁵ The first came out red, all his body like a hairy mantle; so they named him Esau. ²⁶ Afterward his brother came out, with his hand gripping Esau’s heel; so he was named Jacob.^[d] Isaac was sixty years old when she bore them.

²⁷ When the boys grew up, Esau was a skillful hunter, a man of the field, while Jacob was a quiet man, living in tents. ²⁸ Isaac loved Esau, because he was fond of game; but Rebekah loved Jacob.

Esau Sells His Birthright

²⁹ Once when Jacob was cooking a stew, Esau came in from the field, and he was famished. ³⁰ Esau said to Jacob, “Let me eat some of that red stuff, for I am famished!” (Therefore he was called Edom.^[e]) ³¹ Jacob said, “First sell me your birthright.” ³² Esau said, “I am about to die; of what use is a birthright to me?” ³³ Jacob said, “Swear to me first.”^[f] So he swore to him, and sold his birthright to Jacob. ³⁴ Then Jacob gave Esau bread and lentil stew, and he ate and drank, and rose and went his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright.

This conflict is no where more apparent than in modern day Israel and its impact is felt by all. Messianic believers from both Jewish and Arab backgrounds share in this struggle of land and of identity and also how to square this up with their faith. The historic and present reality of life in Israel and the Middle-East in particular is a constant challenge.  Some may even say, ‘it is an existential challenge’ with those of Israel’s enemies threatening to annihilate her.

Many Arab and Middle-Eastern Christians may well have descended from the Jewish believers of the early first two centuries of the Common Era. The notion has both historic validity as-well-as a strong tradition held by numbers of Arab, Kudish and Iranian believers that I have met over the year. This claim is often partly based on their family names.

Returning to our story of the Generations of Abraham, some may want to sanitise their ancestry, while others delight in discovery all kinds of juicy bits about whom they descended from: Brigands on the high sea, Popes, Cohenim, Levites, the other tribes of Israel, a long line of rabbis, etc.

The problem of infertility on the part of both the patriarchs wive’s, Sarah and Rebecca was followed by prayers and holding onto the promises of God, (if at times falteringly). This led to the birth of Isaac after Abraham’s failure to trust God with the birth of Ismael to Hagar, and with Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Esau were conceived and born.

Isaac’s life was pretty uneventful, except for the intrigue that resulted from the birth of the twins to his beloved Rebecca. They struggled in the womb and at birth Jacob came out of the womb following Esau grasping onto his brother’s heal – Jacob means he who grasps the heal or he who supplants.

Scoundrel or cheat are possible synonyms for one who supplants. And Jacob with his mother’s encouragement conspired to get Esau’s birth right and patriarchal blessing just before Isaac’s death. Yet despite it all G_D chose to bless him and make him the father of the 12 tribes of Israel.

Does God favour cheats and cheating? In this case it would appear so! Look at what Malachi 1^2-3 says,

The Lord’s love for Israel: ^2 a“I have loved you,” says the Lord. ^bBut you say, “How have you loved us?” “Is not Esau ^cJacob’s brother?” declares the Lord. “Yet ^dI have loved Jacob ³ but Esau I have hated. ^eI have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert.”

This is repeated by Paul/ Rav Shaul,‘¹³ As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”’

3/ Why, why?

It is a Jewish tradition to ask many questions and these include the difficult ones, and some of the issues appear to be contradictions and even out of character with that of a holy God. So, “Why, why?”

(A useful Jewish resource: THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED BY MOSES MAIMONIDES) – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guide_for_the_Preplexed

This has to do with  God’s election of Israel to fulfil his purpose for Israel and the nations. Jacob and Esau, the twin sons of Isaac and Rebecca had the same parents, and at birth Esau came out first. The purpose of God was to demonstrate his free choice and by selecting Jacob over Esau shows the Divine call. This choice was not based on merit or human convention of the first born being the favoured son. Before they were born neither had done good of evil, however, a selection was made by God.

In Genesis 25²³ Rebecca was told that two nations were in her womb, and that the elder should serve the younger. God is not bound by human convention.

A word from Lord Sacks (the former Chief Rabbi of Great Britain), is helpful concerning the descendants of Ishmael and Esau, the Arabs: Just because God chose Isaac and not Ishmael and Jacob and not Esau, that does not mean that their descendants, the Arab people are under a curse and do not have a blessing from God.  We see that Isaac though unable to give Esau the blessing reserved for the first born, non-the-less, he did give him a blessing too.

Isaac and Ishmael buried their father  Abraham in the Machpela cave at Hebron. Both Isaac and Ishmael laid their father Abraham to rest at this site (Genesis 25:9).

Their diverging lines of descendants share a common lineage to Abraham —but today they struggle to share even the same site that commemorates him. As a result the unpredictable—and even volatile—tensions between the Muslims and Jews who share this holy site does flare up sporadically.

A Lesson From Abraham’s Act

When thinking of Hebron, and reflect on Abraham’s willingness to walk away from everything comfortable and familiar and to trust God for an unknown future. When Abraham acquired the small piece of land in which to bury Sarah, he demonstrated his faith in the Lord’s covenant to give him all the land one day.

Abraham’s purchase at Machpelah showed that we lose nothing of God’s promises in death, because those promises extend beyond the grave.

4/ This hardening that came up Israel is only partial and nor is it permanent – In every age there are those Jewish people that have come to faith through Messiah Yeshua and this once again has to do God’s divine purpose.

A breakdown in the relationship between Israel and her God is not final or irrevocable – Paul’s sigh over the fall is sign of deep personal anguish, yet the fall is not so absolute as to imply a nullification of God’s purpose for Israel.

The promises made to Israel, though they have been severely disrupted does not mean that there is no way back or hope of restoration.

Divine sovereignty in the Hebrew Scriptures makes it clear that God is not unjust when he selects one person or group to fulfil his plan and purpose. One may be chosen for a high purpose, while another for a lowly one.

God’s sovereignty allows him to respond to human initiative as he chooses: “[Humankind]/ man proposes and God disposes!”

Therefore in the Jewish response to Yeshua, God does what he wants, while a hardening came upon Israel in part, so that the Gentiles may be included in the family of God – the natural branches were cut off and the wild ones were grafted in! (See Romans 11.11-24).

However, both Jews and Gentiles are personally held accountable for their response to God’s initiative in his plan of salvation.

Examples of God’s choice are displayed, he chose Israel and not Edom; Moses to display his mercy and Pharaoh his anger; he will select some Jews and some Gentiles of being members of his Messianic Kingdom.

Let us be clear, while God’s choice of some for his favour, it does not imply that therefore he has chosen to damn some. Paul does not say this here. Nothing is said in chapter 9 about eternal life or death. God uses his judgement and compassionate mercy as he sees fit to fulfil is divine plan.

God is not unjust – he is both righteous and a just judge and always responds with fairness.

5/ Our Response What are we to say then about the purposes of God? What is your calling? Are you called to lead or follow? Are you a Jew or Gentile? Have you been included in Messiah Yeshua?

Have you let the challenges of life lift you up or put you down?

The choice is up to you as to hope as you respond to the grace and light of God that you have received.

 A Prayer: Aba, Father, thank you for the light I have received, give me greater light and clarity, so that I may recognise that in Yeshua’s name there is salvation and deliverance, AMEN.

The Hospitality of Abraham

Shalom Radio UK

Sponsored by

MTMI – Messianic Teaching Ministry International

http://www.hotrodronisblog.com

Shalom Radio UK – http://www.hotrodronisblog.com

Listen Below>

Due to the great significance of the artistic work of Reuven Rubin in the development of the visual arts and painting in particular in the Land of Israel, it is my intention to continue to look at his work, that he contributed..

Part 3B: Behold the Man:…and the Zionist Messiah*

*[AMATAI MENDELSOHN, BEHOLD THE MAN: JESUS IN ISRAELI ART, MAGNES PRESS, JERUSALEM, 2017,                                                                  ISBN 978 965 278 465 0].

Rubin’s engagement with the luminous figure of Jesus in three of his paintings and in particular, will be considered: The Madonna of the Vagabonds; Self-Portrait with a Flower; and The Prophet in the Desert.

“The God-Seekers” – A woodcut of Jesus with stigmata in his hands

The Prophet in the Desert

Rubin’s spiritual quest was tied up with his interest in the Jewish Scriptural heritage of his people. From a series of woodcut prints that Rubin produced that he entitled,“The God-Seekers,” he interprets the theme that Jesus is a symbol of the regenerated Jew who is destined to take his place and therefore heals the suffering of the Diaspora (p 105). This picture of Jesus (The Prophet in the Desert) bearing stigmata in the outstretched palms of his hands in a gesture of blessing that gave expression to that sentiment.

First Fruits

Prophet

Elijah the Prophet

There is considerable similarity between Rubin’s two painting  Jesus and the Last Apostle  and The Encounter.

 Jesus and the Last Apostle  is a large canvas (1 – 1.10 meters) that he painted shortly before his immigration to the Land of Israel (British Mandated Palestine). On inspection the similarity between the between the two pantings is apparent (p 106).

In 1922 Rubin wrote to his friend Bernard Weinberg:

“[I am working] in agony with my very lifeblood, my own and no one else’s,” …”In this last work, I have put all my anguish of my soul, with no understanding from any side and without a ray of light. The nails in the hand and feet of Jesus are burning me, and no one can grasp my suffering” (p 106, Behold).

We recall the words and painting that Marc Chagall did:

These are but a few examples of the catalogue of paintings on the theme of Crucifixion that Chagall painted in which he identifies himself with Jesus’ suffering:

“I awake in pain / Of a new day with hopes / Not yet painted / Not yet daubed with paint / I run upstairs to my dry brushes / And I am crucified with Christ / With nails pounded in the easel” – A poem by Chagall and illustrated with his profound painting The Painter Crucified (1941-42); (p 56, Behold the Man).

The Painter Crucified – Marc Chagall

Chagall expressed similar anguish to what Rubin had experienced, some twenty years earlier. Like many creative people, these two Jewish artists gave expression to their sense of anguish, foreboding and even its manifestation in personal physical pain. That deep emotional turmoil is often induced by the suffering that they witness around them. Rubin’s sense of pain is related to the plight of his fellow Jews in Eastern Europe and Chagall in 1942 must have had some knowledge of the huge catastrophe that was engulfing European Jewry during WWII.

The Meaning of Jesus and the Last Apostle

What is the hidden meaning behind Rubin’s painting of Jesus and the Last Apostle?

In this painting, Rubin has not depicted a known scene from the life of Jesus such as his Temptation in the Desert (Matthew 4:1-11), but this is a piece of fiction bearing a powerful message that needs to be examined.

Like other artists and intellectuals of the late 19th and early 20th century, a number of Jewish thinkers began to focus upon the person of Jesus as a Jew. This should not come as a surprise, for according to his human nature Jesus is  Jewish. However, if we consider that for two millennia the persecution and suffering heaped upon the hapless Jew in the name of Christ, then it is a surprise and all the more amazing that such a change was taking place despite the bad history of Jews and Jesus.

Bob Dylan’s song, The Times They Are A Changing, adequately gives expression to this change that was happening. Jesus became a symbol of Jewish suffering. We have explored this on numerous occasion in previous Shalom Radio UK, programmes. This Jewish action was a response to hostile attitudes adopted by the Church though engaged in worshipping Jesus, persecuted and showed hatred toward Jews (p 106, Behold).

From the Encounter to the painting of Jesus and the Last Apostle, it appears that Jesus underwent a metamorphosis. For in the Encounter, Jesus sits upright, head held high, displaying his wounds for all to see, with face showing pride and pain.

However, in Jesus and the Last Apostle, the situation to that of Jesus and the Wandering Jew are reversed: Jesus is seated on the left, where the Jew previously sat, his head is bowed with his face completely hidden.

What is the message that Rubin wants to communicate to his viewers?

The key to our understanding is held by the second figure of the Last Apostle! Who is he? For just as Jesus had communicated with his listeners in parables, so Rubin too had a deeper meaning to the imagery that he painted in this compositions.

Gala Galaction

In his letter to  Bernard Weinberg, Rubin named a well-known individual called Gala Galaction, a Romanian Orthodox priest as the person upon whom the figure of the Last Apostle is based. Galaction sincere love of the Jewish people of Romania, and he helped mediate between Christians and Jews in a very hostile environment that was anti-Semitic and dangerous for Jews. In addition, this philo-Semitic priest encouraged Zionism and he saw that Jewish immigration to the Land of Israel would be a solution to their plight in Europe.

Because of Galaction’s love of Jewish people, Rubin placed this figure of him as the Last Apostle at the side of Jesus, with Jesus showing his wounds to the Last Apostle. “Jesus seems to be expressing his grief [or] perhaps remorse, at the suffering endured by the Jewish people on his account” (p 106, Behold).

By his depicting Galaction as the Last Apostle, Rubin may have intended to convey a historic reconciliation and a reversal of roles. “Jesus has been transformed: no longer the long-suffering victim for which the Jews are blamed. He hangs his head and asks to be forgiven for the persecution of the Jews [that took place in his name]. The conciliatory figure of Galaction portrays a new kind of apostle, the Last Apostle, who will inspire mutual understanding between the two religions” (p 106, Behold).

Alas, this message of reconciling love expressed by this philo-Semite, Galaction proved to be among an isolated few voices in a Europe that were to carry out its greatest outrage against the Jewish people ever witnessed. With the rise of National Socialism (Nazism) in Germany that began its rise to power in 1933, resulting in the mass murder of 6,000,000 Jews during WWII.

On July 18th, 1925 Adolf Hitler wrote his pernicious book of hate, Mein Kampf  (My Struggle) in which he formulated his ideas that resulted in Nazi Germany carrying out the Final Solution resulting in the extermination of two-thirds of the Jews of Europe. Hitler describes his pathological hatred and loathing of the Jews in his book.

Romania, despite the wonderful work of Galaction, also became a killing field of its Jews under the direction of the occupying Nazi’s. A third of its Jewish population perished under Nazi persecution.

As we have seen other Jewish artists such as Anotokolsky, and Marc Chagall shared a similar desire to Rubin, using Jesus’ image in their work as a bridge between Christians and Jews, as was Gottlieb’s intention. Additionally to the message of religious reconciliation, Jesus and the Last Apostle, Rubin to his friend Weinberg expressed his personal identification of his own anguish with that of Jesus the man. This was particularly the case in his painting The Temptation in the Desert, where this Jesus seeks to heal the suffering the Jewish people and he also embodies the artist’s own pain (p 106 & 109, Behold).

In 1922 Rubin exhibited a number of his painting in New York, USA. This included the picture The Suffering of Christ and a sculpture and sketch as Christ Homesick. The record of these “lost and undocumented works offer additional evidence of Rubin’s great interest in the figure of Jesus, and perhaps (in the case of Christ Homesick) in linking him to Zionism” (p 109, Behold). The Meal of the Poor painted by Rubin in Bucharest and on display at the New York exhibition in 1922, has strong Christian overtones: “Seven despondent, lowly people sit at the foreshortened oval table. At the head of the table is an elderly Rabbi-like figure, (dressed in a coat resembling a kapote worn by traditional Eastern European Jews) breaks the bread. Everyone present is enveloped in a halo-like aura this especially visible around the rabbi and the man seated at the right. On the table are foods are eaten by the poor, slices of watermelon, bread and a solitary fish on a plate – and a glass carafe holding a white lily, the attribute of the Virgin Mary found in many depictions of the Annunciation. Rubin’s works from this period contain the flower motif as a symbol of rebirth, and a white lily features prominently in his well-known work soon after his arrival in Ertez Israel” (p 109)

.

Mariotto di Nardo’s Last Supper

The Madonna and the Vagabonds

The Madonna and the Vagabonds exhibited at the exhibition of Rubin’s work in Bucharest. Like the Encounter painting, with New Testament referencing Jesus is shown as an infant. This use of an infant Jesus symbolises “a pioneer reborn in the Land of Israel” (p 111, Behold).

A number of significant changes should be noted, namely Rubin’s palette is brighter and his new Eretz Israel style witnesses a change from a suffering Jesus to a newborn baby. This change was brought about by his new optimism linked to his immigration to the Land of Israel (p 111, Behold).

The Nursing Madonna was a popular theme with European artist from the Middle-Ages,  with Rubin’s conflation (to fuse into one entity; merge) of this image taken from Christian iconography. The example of the Madonna and Adoring Child first appeared in the 13th century. Sometimes Mary is alone shown worshipping the infant, while other times Joseph is also depicted alongside her.

Rubin may well have been exposed to some of these paintings in his native Romanic or some of the neighbouring countries such as Moldova, where painted images of the Madonna and Adoring Child. These paintings were rendered in a Neo-Byzantine style, like this painting by Jean Fourquet’s Madonna Surrounded by Cherubim and Seraphim (1452).

Jean Fourquet’s Madonna Surrounded by Cherubim and Seraphim (1452).

The Meaning of the Madonna and the Vagabonds

Rubin’s interpretation of the Madonna and the Vagabonds may well represent four apostles in this very unusual representation, with the four figures that surround the Madonna together with the infant Jesus all lying on the ground.

What was behind his thinking in doing this portrayal like that?

In this picture by Rubin, the day is dawning, with signifies an expression of hope on the threshold of a new era. As discussed previously, the work and style of Ferdinand Holder profoundly influenced Rubin’s work. The image of the young child in a symbolic sense is an image of regeneration. This image of the young child has been used in two of Holder’s paintings, namely, Adoration (1893), and The Consecrated One (1893-1894).

Adoration

The Consecrated One

A clear link to Madonna and Child is evident in Holder’s work and Rubin’s portrayal of the Madonna. In the painting Day (1899), Holder painted five nude female figures  seated on the ground in a semi-circle, warmed by the pale light that welcomes the new day, with the central figure with upraised hands.

  Ferdinand Holder

This issue of a nude female with raised hands in the picture the Orant                                    (a representation of a female figure, with outstretched arms and palms up in a gesture of prayer, is an image in ancient and early Christian art). This image of the woman with upraised hands is also seen in Holder’s picture, Truth II (1903). The hands of Rubin’s Madonna are seen in a similar pose. But Rubin’s Madonna,  the woman she holds flowers as a sign of the future suffering of the new-born Messiah (p 112, Behold).

We are reminded of Simeon’s prayer the Nunc Dimittis [from the opening words (Vulgate Latin Bible ): now let depart] :

Luke 2:29-12:42 (NRSV)

“Master, now you are dismissing your servant (now let depart) in peace, according to your word; for my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the presence of all peoples, a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel.” And the child’s father and mother were amazed at what was being said about him.  Then Simeon blessed them and said to his mother Mary, “This child is destined for the falling and the rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be opposed so that the inner thoughts of many will be revealed–and a sword will pierce your own soul too.”

The words, “…and a sword will pierce your own soul too.” anticipated the fact that the infant Jesus was destined to suffer and die and this would affect Mary profoundly.

Purvis de Chavannes’ masterpiece, The Poor Fisherman (1881), that was exhibited at the Louvre while Rubin was in Paris, France. There is also a connection between this painting and Rubin’s Madonna and the Vagabonds. The image of an infant on the ground and a fishing boat are significant as they recall the words of Jesus to the Apostles Peter and Andrew as they were casting their nets, “Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men” (Mark 1.17).

Purvis de Chavannes’ masterpiece, The Poor Fisherman

In the background of Rubin’s of the painting the Sea of Galilee can be seen, is the setting of The Madonna of the Vagabonds, and many other scriptural scenes take place.

The Sea of Galilee is also the place where Jesus walked on the water and he is the fisher of souls. The three empty boats in the water, belonging to the fishermen asleep on the shore viewed in this picture. Are they waiting to be summoned by the Redeemer that has been born? (p 112, Behold).

Rubin’s early works that he did in the Land of Israel, have been compared to Gauguin’s portrayals of Tahiti, both wishing to visually portray that which is primodal and pure. It is very likely that Rubin had seen ‘s work on show in New York, USA, while he was there. The figure of Mary has been regarded as the second ‘Eve’, an untainted and noble savage like the women of Tahiti, who were untainted in contrast to the women of Europe who were considered to be decadent and seductive. This was the type of figure shown in the Madonna of the Vagabonds.

Unlike many portrayals of Madonna and Child the woman is not engaged in adoring the baby, but represents a figure with bared breast as a symbol of fertility, with her being seated conveying the message of simplicity and rootedness, rather than a traditional Christian portrayal of her seated on a throne attended by heavenly beings as in Jean Fourquet’s Madonna Surrounded by Cherubim and Seraphim (1452).

The men asleep behind her, the vagabonds are pioneers who have come to build the Land. However, having said that it is still imbued with Christian symbolism. This is not about suffering and death, but hope and renewal, though this is not without pain, hinted by the red flower in the woman’s palm that can just be seen. In it Rubin relates to Jesus in a different guise, as the child will bring redemption and vanquish death, through his resurrection (p 112, Behold).

Some Observations

Though there is a similarity of the composition of the two painting by Rubin, The Madonna of the Vagabonds is diametrically opposed to the Temptation in the Desert.

The tortured figure of Jesus in the Temptation, is replaced by the smiling figure of the Madonna, for she is the antithesis of the Temptation’s  femme fatale. The Madonna’s bared breast suggests health and fecundity (the ability to produce young in great numbers), where as the temptress in the Temptation has very different connotations.

“Jesus as a representative of Zionism’s New Jew in the Encounter reappears more powerfully The Madonna of the Vagabonds. The baby Jesus symbolises rebirth in the homeland as well as resurrection after the death of exile” (p 113, Behold). In some ways it can be viewed as a self-portrait of the artist, Rubin, who was about to begin a new life in the Land of Israel.

Reuven Rubin in Jerusalem

In April, 1923 Rubin realised his dream of moving to the Land of Israel, and this move brought mixed emotions. Though he was glad to be in the sunshine under clear blue skies, yet he was particularly saddened by the state of art in the country at the time.

He penned these words in his autobiography:

“Now I am in Jerusalem, I tread on the same stones that I first touched eleven years ago, and I roam in the very places where so many God-seekers cried out their anguish and affliction. I came here to spend Tisha Be-Av, the day of sadness over our destruction [the destruction of the Temple], in order to experience it to the full. I should like to stand, quaking, before this immense destruction etched on our backs through the generations, in order to leave here a stronger man, so that I many convince. Whom? Of what? How can I convince? Nonsense, nonsense…

No one has the courage to get up and sweep away all the merchants and pedlars from within the Temple. The Temple must be cleansed! I promise you the day will come when I will pluck up courage and my fist will be strong and my voice reverberate, and then the time will come for me to be the man who will sweep away. But in that case better I should decide to die[?] young. Other wise it won’t work” (p 113, Behold).

Rubin clearly associated himself with Jesus in his cleansing of the Temple, viewing himself as one who had a new message to share, even as a prophet of the Messiah had. His mission was to cleanse the temple of the art world from all that was rotten and old. One the one hand he is excited and enthusiastic by a sense of the spirit  of renewal, but on the other hand he feels deeply frustrated and troubled. With this in mind it is easy to understand why he identified with the prophets and Jesus.

Rubin’s Self-Portrait with a Flower

In the painting of Rubin’s Self-Portrait with a Flower, he is wearing the white shirt of a chalutz (pioneer), against a background of sand dunes, tents and houses and a boat is also visible in the corner by the sea. He self-confidently gazes at the viewer out of the corner of his eyes that seem to penetrate one’s eyes. In the one hand he holds a glass with a white flower in it, while in the other, he clutches a number of his artist’s paint brushes.

The most striking feature is the picture is the white lily in the glass, which is a symbol of the Annunciation given to the Virgin Mary concerning the Holy Child that she will bear. Once again this message of renewal in the homeland is stressed. These hands unlike another self-portrait done by Rubin, communicate the importance of the Annunciation  to the viewer, and do not bear stigmata as was the case in other paintings (p 113-114).

Albert Durer’s – Self-Portrait: Man of Sorrows

In Albert Durer’s – Self-Portrait: Man of Sorrows in both hands he is holding the instruments of torture, a Birch and Scouge (1522), and as Rubin so often spoke and also portrayed himself as a tortured man, there are echos of Durer’s picture. While there is no evidence that Rubin knew of the work, very interesting parallels exist, the unhappy man with a possible accusatory look from the corner of the eyes of both, and in the left hand Durer’s Jesus holds a reed-scepter, while Rubin holds a hand full of paintbrushes.

These two paintings show victims of two different kinds. Durer’s Jesus sacrificing himself for the sake of humanity, while Rubin’s sacrifices himself as a artist-pioneer for the sake of the Jewish nation. The hand holding the paintbrushes may be equated to Rubin’s instruments of torture and suffering and the while the white lily the hope of redemption (p 115, Behold).

Once more in a letter to his friend Bernard Weinberg, Rubin wrote, “Today I passed through the valley [The Jezreel Valley] and this day I saw our crucified of the present time” (p 116, Behold).

Our final painting that we consider in this programme is Rubin’s First Seder in Jerusalem (1949).

Rubin’s First Seder in Jerusalem (1949).

Nearly 30 years after Rubin painted, the painting Meal of the Poor and The Madonna of the Vagabonds, and nearly two years after the founding of the State of Israel, Jesus takes his place at the Passover table in Jerusalem. This ritual meal celebrating deliverance and redemption (p 118, Behold)

A Description of the First Seder in Jerusalem

Seated and standing around the table are people from various ethnic and cultural backgrounds, The one thing they all have is common is that they are all in the Land of Israel, no longer British Mandated Palestine, but the new sovereign nation of Israel. These are Jews who have gathered from many nations.

There are Six figures that we should note in particular: a Yemenite looking elderly Jewish man (who could be a rabbi) holding the Passover cup that is raised in one hand and a Seder plate in the other; next to the rabbi is a good looking dark complexioned  couple: the man with his wife and she is holding a baby boy (wearing a scull cap) that she is nursing (an echo of a Madonna and Child) and the child’s father is gently touching the babies head, symbolising blessing and also according to Rubi’s imagery, fertitlty; then there is a self-portrait of  a seated older grey haired Reuven Rubin with his arm around the shoulder of a young boy who is standing next to him (this could be his son, a native born first generation child born in the Land of Israel who may now be correctly called an Israeli).

The final figure that I wish to consider is at the other end of the table: Jesus

It is the seated figure of Jesus wearing a white robe, with his open hands bearing the stigmata and placed on the table and with his bowed in prayer. His image in the First Seder in Jerusalem suggests one who is resting in a peaceful state of composure. There are no signs of conflict as viewed in some of Rubin’s other depictions of Jesus, thinking particularly of the Encounter and Jesus and the Last Apostle, in which both portrayals are full of contrition, pain and sorrow. This painting  is in some measure the crowning glory of Rubin’s work dealing with the person of Jesus and may be considered a masterpiece!

Traditionally on a Seder night, those living in the Diaspora say: “Next year in Jerusalem,” which is filled with the hope of return to the Land of Israel! But this group at this the First Seder in Jerusalem may proclaim: “This year in Jerusalem,” and I wish to add the words, “Hallelujah!” [Praise the L_rd], because Jesus (Yeshua) is with them too.

Detail of the Figure of Jesus at the First Seder in Jerusalem 

“And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced,* they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn (Zechariah 12.10 – ESV).

*This relates to the crucifixion of Jesus, and to his being pierced by the Roman soldier’s spear, and this interpretation agrees with the opinion of some ancient Jewish sources, who interpret it as to referring to Messiah the Son of David.

Encounter and Jesus and the Last Apostle

What Kind of Messiah?

There are two doctrines of the Messiah held within the Judaism of Jesus time. In two millennia this view of the Messiah of Judaism has not drastically altered.

Firstly, a political Messiah, and secondly, the suffering spiritual Messiah:

Initially Rubin’s Messiah that he featured in his early paintings was the Suffering Messiah. However, Rubin also held to a Political Messiah who as liberator sets the Jews of the Diaspora free from persecution, suffering and exile. He heals and regenerates them in their return to the Land of Israel.

This reminds us that Jesus is a changed multivalent  figure (having various meanings) and links to the revival of the Jewish people in their homeland, in Reuven Rubin’s work (p 118, Behold).

Our final two programmes in this series from Behold the Man: Jesus in Israeli Art is entitled: From Personal Experience to National Identity. This will also be a two part programme (Part A and Part B).

Shalom Radio UK is an independent audio-visual blog site that promotes Good News.

Sponsored by Messianic Teaching Ministry International – MTMI

http://www.hotrodronisblog.com

Source: *Behold the Man: Man of Sorrows and Zionist Messiah (Part A)

*[AMATAI MENDELSOHN, BEHOLD THE MAN: JESUS IN ISRAELI ART, MAGNES PRESS, JERUSALEM, 2017 – ISBN 978 965 278 465 0]

http://www.hotrodronisblog.com

Shalom Radio UK – This month’s programme:

Behold the Man: Man of Sorrows and Zionist Messiah

(Song: Man of Sorrows: Man of Sorrows, what a name).

1 “Man of Sorrows,” what a name
For the Son of God who came
Ruined sinners to reclaim!                                                                                                      Hallelujah! what a Saviour!

2 Bearing shame and scoffing rude,                                                                                                In my place condemned He stood;                                                                                             Sealed my pardon with His blood;                                                                                        Hallelujah! what a Saviour!

3  Guilty, vile, and helpless, we,
Spotless Lamb of God was He;
Full redemption—can it be?                                                                                                    Hallelujah! what a Saviour!

4  Lifted up was He to die,
“It is finished!” was His cry;
Now in heaven exalted high;
Hallelujah! what a Saviour!

5  When He comes, our glorious King,
To His kingdom us to bring,
Then anew this song we’ll sing,                                                                                            Hallelujah! what a Saviour!

Man of Sorrows – Suffering Jesus

In the continued development of our theme of Behold the Man, this programme focuses upon how Jewish and Israeli artists give expression to the Man of Sorrows and how this motif expresses the personality of the Zionist Messiah.

In the hymn “Man of Sorrows, what a man…” we are given the classic Christian interpretation of the rejection and crucifixion of Jesus, however, the Jewish and Israeli approach while using this image of Jesus as that man of sorrows, he becomes a symbol of Jewish suffering both individually and corporately. This will become apparent as we consider this portrayal by Jewish and Israeli artists.

Reuven Rubin (ראובן רובין‎‎, 1893 – 1974) was a Romanian-born Israeli painter and Israel’s first ambassador to Romania.

Rubin Zelicovici (later Reuven Rubin) came from a poor Romanian Jewish Chasidic family. In 1912, he left for Ottoman-ruled Palestine to study art at Bezalel Academy of Art and Design in Jerusalem. Finding himself at odds with the artistic views of the Academy’s teachers, he left for Paris, France in 1913 to pursue his studies at the École Nationale Supérieure des Beaux-Arts. At the outbreak of World War I, he was returned to Romania, where he spent the war years.

In 1923, Rubin emigrated to Mandate Palestine.

The history of Israeli art began at a very specific moment in the history of international art, at a time of Cezannian rebellion against the conventions of the past, a time typified by rapid stylistic changes. Thus Jewish national art had no fixed history, no canon to obey. Rubin began his career at a fortunate time.

He rejected the neo-classical style of the late 19^th and early 20^th century fully embracing the impressionistic style of painting and is sometimes referred to as the father of modern art.

In Palestine, Rubin became one of the founders of the new Eretz-Yisrael style. Recurring themes in his work were the biblical landscape, folklore and people, including Yemonite and Chasidic Jews as well as Arabs. Many of his paintings are sun-bathed depictions of Jerusalem and the Galilee.

Other Jewish painters together with Rubin depicted the country’s landscapes in the 1920s rebelled against Bezalel school’s style. They sought current styles in Europe that would help portray their own country’s landscape, in keeping with the spirit of the time. Rubin’s Cezannesque landscapes from the 1920s were defined as both modern and a naive, portraying the landscape and inhabitants of Israel in a sensitive fashion. His landscape paintings in particular paid special detail to a spiritual, translucent light.

Myself Portrait ¨C Landscape Painting by Henri Rousseau; Myself Portrait ¨C Landscape Art Print for sa

Rubin might have been influenced by the work of Henri Rousseau whose style combined with Eastern nuances, as well as with the neo-Byzantine art to which Rubin had been exposed in his native Romania. In accordance with his integrative style, he signed his works with his first name in Hebrew and his surname in Roman letters. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuven_Rubin].

In his early years he was still searching for an artistic voice and the influence of Eugene Delacroix, Paul de Chavannes a symbolist and together with Jewish artists such as Hirzenberg, Lilien and Schatz is apparent in his early work as a painter as well as the Romanian artist Lucian Grigoreseu (p 96, Beold the Man).

For the purpose of this programme we will focus upon the portrayal of Jesus and other related scenes of suffering involving Israelites and Jews.

Rubin’s painting – By the River of Babylon

By the River of Babylon is a complex allegorical portrayal of Jewish suffering in exile, as was the case of the depiction by Eduard Bendemann, E M Lilien in his illustration for the Lutheran Bible. Rubin would have been aware of these two works, but his painting makes a departure from most works on this subject.

An analysis of the picture by Rubin shows the group of human figures against the background of a massive rock and surrounded by water. This group of five people are gathered, with the centrepiece of a seated woman feeding an infant. Her breasts are bared and she gazes down at the infant with a sad expression. Of the five figures only one is fully clad and including the infant the four are completely naked. The standing image of a naked bearded man is clutched by an elderly man who is wearing a cloak. What may be the reason for this depiction of figures in the way that Rubin painted them?

An explanation of the figures is that each represents a stage in the cycle of life and has a symbolic meaning. Alongside the obvious biblical Jewish theme of those who look downcast due to their exile by the River of Babylon, the painting relates to Christian iconography. The core of the scene is the nursing mother with infant child from a traditional representation of Madonna and child. An example of this classic portrayal by Gerard David’s painting The Rest on the Flight into Egypt. The naked by with sling shot alludes to David, forefather of the messianic dynasty in Christianity as well as Judaism. “This is the most active figure in the picture: in the struggle for self-preservation, he takes destiny into his own hands” (p 97). Also the baby is a symbol of hope for the future and the rider on the camel points East to some place across the water, that is beyond the frame of the painting. The focusing upon the mother and infant is reminiscent of Gerard David’s The Rest on the Flight into Egypt. This may allude to the Jewish people’s enduring exile that began in Babylon millennia ago and the hoped return to their ancient homeland. We should note that the mother and child motif reoccurs in Rubin’s work in a number of paintings (p 97).

From 1919 Rubin’s paintings found its voice with a new expression that acquired a destructive religious overtone. He depicted prophets and ascetics as well as na intriguing preoccupation with the figure of Jesus (p 97).

He drew inspiration from such artists as El Greco, Schiele, Picasso (in his Blue Period), and particularly Ferdinand Holder who Rubin met in 1915.

Rubin’s Temptation in the Desert

Holder’s style influenced Rubin’s style

Rubin’s painting Temptation in the Desert which he did in 1921 is a key work. It is a complex painting of personal identification with the figure of Jesus (p 98). An analysis of the picture reveals five figures in various poses on the parched desert sand dunes at dawn. In the centre is an emaciated kneeling man with his upper torso naked clutching  himself. A faint white halo can be seen surrounding the head of the figure. He is in profound concentration with eyes closed.

“The New Testament story of the temptation in the desert (or wilderness) relates that Jesus spent forty days in the desert, steadfastly affirming his faith when he was challenged in various ways by Satan (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13) – (p 99).

St. Anthony (ca. 251-356), viewed as the one who established Christian monasticism, was subjected to a long series of tortures by Satan. These included temptations of the flesh during his time as a hermit living in the desert. The story of St. Anthony inspired many European Masters to do portrayals of his temptations.

Rubin’s encounters with these paintings of the late nineteenth century during his studies in Paris, France, “…[W]hen the destructive femme fatale* became a prevalent literary and artistic motif, female temptresses and erotic imagery featured strongly in depictions of St. Anthony” (p 99).

*A femme fatale (French: [fam fatal]) is a stock character of a mysterious and seductive woman whose charms ensnare her lovers, often leading them into compromising, dangerous, and deadly situations. She is an archetype of literature and art. Her ability to entrance and hypnotise her victim with a spell was in the earliest stories seen as being literally supernatural; hence, the femme fatale today is still often described as having a power akin to an enchantress, seductress, vampire, witch, or demon, having power over men (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/French).

Returning to the Temptation in the Desert, Rubin comments, “That the figure in the middle is myself…it is I resisting temptation, continuing on my way of suffering in spite of the hands that reach out to grasp me…she [the woman] is trying to hold me back, but i am going on. I shall go on!” It is as if Rubin is telling the woman in the foreground o the painting, not to impede his artistic mission (p 101).

The fervent supplication of a self-sacrificing holy man, while around him sleep, and the idea of resisting earthly temptation come together in the Temptation in the Desert to identify Rubin with Jesus. On analysing this painting the viewer is presented with an depth of understanding that Romantics felt that their devotion to art entailed suffering and abstinence, joining their lot to Jesus, saints and other ascetics (p 101).

Rubin was profoundly influenced by his brother Baruch’s death, who died from an epidemic during WWI while they were living in Romania. While Baruch died through disease, Rubin regarded his death as a casualty of war. This led to a period of deep depression and Rubin recounts of his brother, that he was “closest to me in age and sympathy” (p 102). In this way Rubin fussed his brother and himself into a single figure who he directly linked to the figure of Jesus.

Rubin joins the ranks of his contemporary artists such as Max Beckman and the sculptor Jacob Epstein, who both depicted Jesus in the context of the horrors of the WWI as an indictment of human evil and in humanity.

The Suffering Jesus

Jewish writers, poets and artists have a clear insight and understanding of the suffering Jesus, however, there is much more to the person and work of Jesus that needs to be grasped. Thomas F. Torrance in his book, Atonement, the Person and Work of Christ, explains,

Jesus is firstly, a Prophet, i.e. [the foretelling of the] Word made flesh, the advocate, corresponds to the incarnation or goel aspect of redemption.

Jesus is secondly, Priest, i.e. this corresponds to the cultic-forensic or kipper aspect of redemption.

Jesus is thirdly, King, this corresponds to Christus Victor, Christ the victor, or the padah aspect of redemption, salvation through the mighty act of God (p 59).

To make sense of this we need to explore the meaning of the three Hebrew theological terms, goel, kipper, and padah.

Goel [Prophet/Go-Between-G_D] (stress on the nature of the redeemer), indicate that Jesus is a Kinsman-redeemer. By his incarnation and becoming a human being, he fully identifies with our humanity, and as Son of God. As if that was not enough, he establishes a New Covenant by laying down his life in atoning sacrifice.

He became the Kipper (expiatory and substitutionary) covering for sin by the shedding of his life blood on the cruel Roman execution stake (cross) or to use Jewish Biblical terminology he was hanged on the Cursed Tree. This fulfils the Day of Atonement sacrifices, with the death of the sacrificial goat’s blood that is sprinkled upon the altar and the scape goat (akidah), that carries away the sin of the people of God into the wilderness and dies outside the camp. Jesus was crucified outside the city walls of Jerusalem.

He was hanged on the Cursed Tree

Padah (the dramatic act), this signifies that this act of redemption is accomplished by the Mighty hand of God. It is a sheer act of grace setting free not only Israel, but all humanity. This was accomplished by Jesus obedience unto death, that he freely did because of God’s great love for all (p 48-51).

In the Hagaddah (The Telling of the Passover Story) Jewish people every year hold a Seder Meal at which the story of Israels’ redemption from the land of Egypt is retold. How did this deliverance take place? A Padah: It was wrought through a dramatic act the Mighty hand of G_D, and with signs and wonders and his judgment upon Pharaoh and all of Egypt, because of their refusal to let the Israelites leave the land of bondage!

Falling into a Trap

We, as the reader and listener, must beware least we fall into the trap of reducing Jesus into a mere symbol of Jewish, Black, Hispanic, Native American Indians (First Nation), Asian, Kurdish, Gypsy, Armenian, Arab, Rohingya people, and human suffering  in general, with whom we can identify. We need to stress that he is much more than an exemplar, role model  or symbol of a Man of Sorrows.

Artists, beginning with Vincent van Gogh and Paul Gauguin onwards have used the image of the Suffering Jesus as a symbol and motif of their own personal suffering; Marc Chagall as a symbol of Jewish persecution and suffering and Reuven Rubin exemplifies an artist that identifies with the Suffering Jesus, seeing him as a symbol of his own personal suffering as in the painting the Temptation in the Desert.

It is not my intention to diminish the profundity of Rubin’s work in which he depicts Jesus, but I am motivated by a strong desire to show the fuller implication of the person and work of the Suffering Jesus.

Zionist Messiah

Reuven Rubin like other European Jewish artists was struck by the appalling circumstances that faced the Jews of Eastern Europe at the turn of the 19th century and early 20th century.

“After returning to Romania in early 1922, on the eve of his move to Palestine, Rubin began to associate Jesus with the Jewish plight in the Diaspora and with Zionism. That year he produced three important paintings while living in Bucharest: The Encounter (Jesus and the Jew), Jesus and the Last Apostle and the Madonna of the Vagabonds. The Encounter is one of the most fascinating and enigmatic of Rubin’s early works”       (p 103).

To comprehend what Rubin wishes to portray to his viewers in the painting The Encounter, we need to explore the identity of the elderly Jewish man, with head bowed, sitting at one end of the bench? Encountering Jesus, he evokes the legendary figure of *the Wandering Jew, sometimes referred to as Ashver.

*The Wandering Jew is a mythical immortal man whose legend began to spread in Europe in the 13th century. The original legend concerns a Jew who taunted Jesus on the way to the Crucifixion and was then cursed to walk the earth until the Second Coming. The exact nature of the wanderer’s indiscretion varies in different versions of the tale, as do aspects of his character; sometimes he is said to be a shoemaker, other tradesman, while sometimes he is the doorman at Pontius Pilate‘s estate.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wandering_Jew].

Not only was this pitiful character depicted in Christian literature and art, but also some Jewish artist have portrayed him such as Maurycy Gottlieb, Samuel Hirszenberg, E.M. Lilien, and Marc Chagall.

Ashver is generally depicted as being constantly on the move. This is the cardinal feature of his punishment, haunted by the crucified figure of Jesus, reminding him of his sin of taunting Jesus during his Passion. If however, the old man in Rubin’s picture is the Wandering Jew, then it takes on a different meaning departing from the norm.

The frontal position of the seated figure on the bench, recalls Holder’s pictures of misery that he depicts, as well as poverty stricken figures of Jews in Rubin’s earlier works. Richard I. Cohen suggests that he painting represents a finale in an exhausted truce in which there are no victors. Carmela Rubin describes the painting as an encounter between two people, each fixed in his own world. This suffering isolated Jew represents the plight of Eastern European Jewry, representing Rubin’s protest against their dire situation. This led him to embrace Zionism and immigration to the Land of Israel in 1923 and he saw this as the solution to their plight (p 103).

In 1929 the Yiddish poet Itzik Manger, from Czernowitz, Romania where Rubin had lived published his first collection of poems (1922-1929). A important poem fitting for our theme of Man of Sorrows and Zionist Messiah. The poem is titled: “The Ballad of the Crucified and Verminous Man”: (p 104).

“This poem describes how a rejected, louse-ridden Jewish vagabond tells the crucified Jesus why his suffering is greater than Christ’s. In the end Jesus admits that the Jews’s pain in holier, and the wretched Jews, heartened by Jesus’ solidarity, makes his way to the village in search of bread and wine. The poem displays Manger’s characteristic wit, but also shares his indignation shared by Jewish thinkers and artists of the time, at the way Jesus’ name is invoked against the Jews. The admission by “the Crucified” indicts the Church for distorting his message in order to justify persecution and anti-Semitism…[I]t is interesting to think that Rubin might have been familiar with it. In any event, Manger’s poem reflects an engagement with the figure of Jesus that was characteristic of his generation of Yiddish poets and that was part of the Zeitgeist [from German: meaning ‘the general intellectual, moral, and cultural climate of an era’] in Jewish cultural centres such as Czernowitz” (p 104).

Take Note

We must take note of the reason for Manger’s anger at the Church and the way that he portrays it in his poem. For the Church was all to often guilty of persecuting the Jews and of being one of the main sources of Christian anti-Semitism and hatred of them. Jesus’ message to Israel and all humanity is a message of universal love and forgiveness and that is God’s intention. Any deviation from that theme is a betrayal of the Man of Sorrows.

Returning to Rubin’s painting The Encounter, another interpretation may be offered. The painting contains an important detail that may be glossed over, namely the two trees:

The tree next to the figure of the straight backed seated Jesus is supported by a stick that grows up ward, while the tree next to the drooping Jew has its branches growing downwards.

What may the significance of these two images mean? An important example of the contrast of the Jew in the Diaspora being in exile, while the image of the fertile growth of the tree is associated with the upright Jew of Zionism. As we saw in E.M. Lilien’s image on his postcard of the Fifth Zionist Congress, shows on the left hand side an elderly bearded Jew with bowed head, seated among rolls of barbed wire, with his head leaning on his walking stick. At the right in contrast the image of a Jewish pioneer plowing a field in the direction of the rising sun. We should also note that there are stalks of wheat that symbolise the fruitfulness of the Land of Israel (p 104).

Rubin in his painting The Encounter, he may well have used similar imagery to that of E.M. Lilien, that the Zionist movement that sought to bring Jews back to life, an Jesus resurrected after his suffering on the cross, evidenced by the stigmata on his hands.

It would appear that Rubin had altered the relationship of the Jew and Jesus as portrayed in Manger’s poem. The figure of Jesus who encounters the miserable old Jew who is desperate to have his pain acknowledged in none other than Jesus who here symbolises the regenerated Jew destined to take his place and thereby heal the suffering of the Diaspora! (p 105).

We should be aware of the shift in Jewish perception of the Man of Sorrows, who is being transformed from one whose suffering is a symbols of Jewish suffering, to one of hope and healing. The significance of the return from exile in the Diaspora to the Land of Israel opened the way for a fresh appraisal of the person and work of Jesus.

In our next programme, Part B: we will continue to look at the work of Reuven Rubin and how this relates to the theme of the Zionist Messiah. The work of other Jewish and Israeli artist will also be considered.

Shalom Radio UK

Sponsored by

MTMI – Messianic Teaching Ministry International

Source: Behold the Man: Between Judaism, Zionism, and Christianity

At the Israel Museum, Jerusalem, December 2016 – April 2017 an exhibition was staged called: Behold the Man: Jesus in Israeli Art.

To quote from the foreword of the companion book – “For two millennia, the figure of Jesus has been such a fundamental part of Western culture – in the visual arts, in literature, and in music – that it is almost impossible to relate to cultural history without citing the story of his life and death. The progenitor of what become the world’s largest religion was a Jew who lived during the Second Temple period and was put to death by the Roman rulers of Judea. Jesus came to Jerusalem to preach the Kingdom of Heaven, and it was in Jerusalem that he was crucified, so that over the years the Via Dolorosa, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and other sites in the Holy City have become a world focus of Christian pilgrimage.”

You may recall the programme that I produced called The Different Faces of Jesus that I posted on Shalom Radio UK in November 8 2016.

Christians must beware of falling into the trap of thinking that they can separate anti-Zionism from anti-Semitism. Many Jewish and Christian leaders alike realise that the modern phenomena of anti-Zionism is just anti-Semitism repackaged. While Israel is not without fault in the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict and while it is perfectly valid to criticise Israel for its violation of the human rights of Palestinians, it is quite another thing to seek to delegitimise Israel’s right to exist.

———————————–

Jesus came to serve as a symbol for suffering of the Jewish people, which reached its darkest hour during the Holocaust.

The Jewish Jesus

Artistic portrayals of Jesus date back to the 3rd century of the common era (CE), and these became prevalent particularly after the Roman Empire adapted Christianity as its religion in the 4th century.

For Judaism the use of art was primarily for decorative purposes to intended to beautify texts and ritual paraphilia such as mezuzahs, the covers of torah scrolls, candelabras, etc., while for Christians artists images and portrayals of Jesus and the Saints, became and integral part of their religion. The incarnation of God in the person of Christ (Messiah), became incarnated in sculpture, painting, murals, mosaics and more recently in photographs as well. These portrayals exemplify what Paul calls “the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1.15). And as a testimony of incarnation, art plays an important part depicting the word becoming flesh.

John of Damascus the great iconographer of the 8th century wrote:

“Because the one who by excellency of nature transcends all quantity and size and magnitude, who has his being in the form of God, has now, by taking upon himself the form of a slave, contracted himself into a quantity and size and has acquired a physical identity, do not hesitate any longer to draw pictures and to set forth, for all to see, him who has chosen to let himself be seen” (p 37).

Though there was great controversy and opposition to the portrayal of the image of Jesus by the iconoclastic controversy of the 8th-9th century, the icon ultimately prevailed. Once more the Protestant Reformation challenged the excessive devotion that the Catholic Church gave to the portrayal of the figure of Jesus and the Saints, including a vast array of depictions of the Virgin Mary and Modonna and Child.

The image of Christ on the Cross became the centre piece of the Western worlds Christian artistic expression together with many other aspects of the life and ministry of Jesus. This figure of Christ did not disappear from Modernist art, with Impressionist art being influenced by daily secular thinking, with many of its practitioners dealing with Christian themes and particularly the the figure of Christ.

As I previously said in The Different Faces of Jesus programme, Marc Chagall drew his portrayal of Jesus in his numerous painting of the crucified Christ, from his awareness of Russian icons that he had seen in during his formative years as well as other paintings of Jesus done by Gentile artist. While Chagall’s use of the figure of the crucifixion of Christ, became an image of Jewish persecution and suffering, it was Paul Gauguin saw Vincent van Gogh’s use of the Crucified Christ, as a paradigm of martyrdom, a man truly created in Jesus’ image (p 39). Gauguin himself was one of the first artists to apply religious themes to the depiction of his own personal situation. He cultivated the image of a suffering artist.

Numerous other European artist followed this trend of using Christ’s suffering as way of giving expression to their own rejection and suffering and that of others. “World War I provoked many European artists to portray Jesus as a victim of war, symbolising their vehement opposition to the slaughter and anguish it caused” (p 41).

In England the Jewish sculptor, Jacob Epstein frequently invoked Jesus as a symbol and protest against the war. Jesus has not lost his importance of bring to people’s awareness of the society’s failure and this saw evident from the contemporary sculptor Mark Wallinger whose figure of Jesus called Ecce Homo (Behold the Man) that was originally displayed on the 4^th plinth on Trafalgar Square, London in 1999, demonstrating this point.

But how relevant is the image of Jesus to European Jewish and Israeli artist?

Jewish artist continue to display considerable interest in the figure of Jesus inspiring their work in a number of ways. “The European Jewish artist’ engagement with Jesus had a number of motivations:

The struggle for cultural integration; the need to combat entrenched religious ant-Semitism; the desire to present the Christian Saviour as an exceptional human being of Jewish origin, who did not set out to create a new religion; the introduction of a particularly pointed symbol of Jewish suffering; and the wish to show that the universal values had their roots in Judaism” (p 45).

The Haskalah (Enlightenment) movement specific goal of its depiction of Jesus was one of the elements to help Judaism of the European Enlightenment was to help modern Judaism to full integrate into a new European environment, modern, objective and enlightened (p 45). An example of a Russian Jewish sculptor, Mark (Mordechai) Antokolsky of Vilna born in 1843. His figures ranged from Jesus, John the Baptist to Socrates and Mephistopheles. He also depicted figures of Jewish artisans and other historical figures including the controversial Jewish philosopher Spinoza.

He became the first Jew to become a full member of the Imperial Academy of Arts and on two occasions he won the prestigious first prize at the Exposition Universalle in Paris in 1878 and 1900. His work Ivan the Terrible commissioned by Czar Alexander II for the Heritage collection in St Petersburg. He was not immune to anti-Semitic attack and suffered tension between his identity as a Jew and his desire to make his way as a Russian artist – especially in the field of sculpture, which until then was closed to Jews. The nationalist and anti-Semitic press called him an “insolent Yid,” unworthy to portray the heroes of Russian history and their Christian spirit, but his overwhelming success – in a period characterized by waves of anti-Semitism – overcame these attacks.

One of his most important pieces form our point of view is the sculpture Christ before the People’s Court made in 1873 (later copies were made by the artist). Jesus is portrayed as completely Jewish with skullcap and sidelocks, wearing a robe that suggests a prayer shawl. It was his desire to redress the injury done to the Jews by the church by portraying this Jewish Jesus. He believed in an ethical Jesus whose role model should inspire all (p 46).

Jesus “lived and died as a Jew for the truth and brotherhood, this is why I like to portray Jesus and a pure Jewish type and to represent him with a covered head (p 47). In a letter to a friend, he wrote, In the title… I mean also to refer to the present, I truly believe that if Christ would rise again and see how his ideas have been twisted and exploited by the Fathers of the Inquisition and others, he would rebel against them as he rebelled against the Pharisees and would agree to be crucified ten more times for his beliefs.”

He wrote to Stasov in 1873, while working on the sculpture, “Although Jews renounce and still renounce [Jesus], I solemnly believe that he was and died a Jew for truth and brotherhood. This is why I want to make of him a purely Jewish type… I imagine how Jews and Christians will rise against me. Jews will probably say, ‘How is it that you made Christ?’ and Christians will say, ‘What kind of Christ did he make?’ but I do not care for this” After he completed the sculpture , he wrote “I have finished ‘Christ’ yesterday… I myself am not able to evaluate my work because I expressed everything in my soul in this statue, and now I am tired and grow dull” (p 47).

Many praised the sculpture and acclaimed it as a masterpiece, while others criticized the sculpture when it was put on display in Paris in 1878. Vladimir Stastov’s anti-Semitic comments, “To these people, to imagine Christ as a Roman or an academic model was fine, but as a Jew – never!” (p 50).

A young Polish Jewish Artist, Mauryey Gottlieb (1856-1879) in his short life who died at the age of 23, made an outstanding contribution as a painter, he managed to create a remarkable body of work that united Polish Christian culture, the artist’s Jewish identity, and a universal message of reconciliation between the two religions. Jesus was the central character in two monumental and highly complex paintings that Gottlieb was still working on when he died: Christ before his Judges and Christ teaching in Capernaum. Both incorporate self-portraits, a further indication of how important these two ambitious works were to Gottlieb. They convey his personal, artistic, and political manifesto concerning Jesus the Jew and Jewish-Christian relations. Like his contemporaries, these paintings reflect the prevailing scholarly focus on the historical Jesus, which achieved artistic expression by such means as realistic depictions that were faithful to the period and the locale, an emphasis on Jesus’ humanity (p 50).

Gottlieb challenged the traditional Catholic iconography, and concentrated on the genre of history painting, depicting selected religious and literary themes in an academic orientalist style that he learned chiefly from his teacher Jan Matejko, the most important Polish artist of the time.

Shalom Radio UK

http://www.hotrodronisblog.com

“A Celebration of Unity and Diversity is the space between Judaism and Christianity”

– Roots & Shoots –

The Martyrs of Kischinew by E M Lilien

Jews fleeing from persecution in Eastern Europe sought places that were less hostile and more secure, with a number turning towards their ancient Biblical homeland as an option to settle. This led to the establishment of growing numbers of Jews moving to Ottoman occupied Palestine

(In the 3 part series of programmes on Joseph Rabinowitz we considered some of the issues surrounding the pogroms that were instigated against the Jews of the realm).

 This is from the Archive:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

______________________________________________

This is the current programme – click below to listen:

Part 2

Behold the Man: Between Judaism, Zionism, and Christianity

These new European Jewish arrivals in Ottoman Palestine during the latter part of the 19th and early 20th centuries, were motivated by the Zionist ideal of the ingathering of the Jews from the diaspora to their ancient Jewish homeland and this idealism finds expression in artists among the new arrivals and is depicted in sculptures, pictures and paintings by them.

Zionism – what it is not and what it is!

It is my desire to seek to clear up some misconceptions regarding what Zionism is and what Zionists believe.

The mere mention of the word “Zionist” or “Zionism” has taken on a negative meaning in the minds of many and this is due to a number of factors – the anti-Israel campaigners and lobbyists who pursue their propaganda war against modern Israel and the BDS (cultural, academic & economic boycotts) which questions Israel’s very right to exist as a sovereign nation state, and continues to be a challenge that needs to be countered. 

Therefore, in the present anti-Semitic/anti-Zionist/anti-Israel/anti-Jewish climate, open and frank conversations are needed in an increasingly dangerous world in which we live, with its growing hostility to those who hold differing views to our own and this is particularly the case for Jews in general and Israel in particular.

Say, “NO!” to hate speech and hate crimes

Contrary to the UN Resolution 3379 – ZIONISM IS NOT RACISM –

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, adopted on November 10, 1975 by a vote of 72 to 35 (with 32 abstentions), “determine[d] that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination”. The vote took place approximately one year after UNGA 3237 granted the PLO “observer status”, following PLO president Yasser Arafat‘s “olive branch” speech to the General Assembly in November 1974. The resolution was passed with the support of the Soviet bloc and other then Soviet-aligned nations, in addition to the Arab and Muslim majority countries.

The determination that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination”, contained in the resolution, was revoked in 1991 with UN General Assembly Resolution 

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_3379).

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

While Arab nationalism is not considered racist, Jewish nationalism (Zionism) is called racist. Many Arab and Moslem nations discriminate and severely restrict religious freedom targeting Jews, Kurds, and Armenians, Christians, Druze, Baha’i, Ahmadiyyas, Yazidi, Zoroastrian and this includes either Shia or Sunni minorities depending on the particular country, yet the one democratic country, Israel, that allows religious freedom, is singled out as racist.

The prime reason for this accusation is the fact that the PLO, Hamas and Hezbollah have not succeeded in destroying Israel and replacing it with a Palestinian state that will be Judenrein (Jew-free) from which Jews are excluded – (originally with reference to organizations in Nazi Germany). For just as “the Nazis sought to make Germany ‘judenrein’” (Jew-free), so Israel’s enemies seek to do likewise.

While the PLO have in principal agreed to a two-state solution to solving the Arab-Israeli conflict, neither Hamas or Hezbollah with its Iranian backers, have agreed to any kind of peace accord or territorial accommodation, but continue to call for Israel’s destruction.

Zionism is nothing more than Jewish nationalism and stands for her right to exist as a sovereign national state like all other states.

Zionist Artists

Ephriam Moses Lilien, the first Zionist artist, helped Boris Schatz, to establish the Jerusalem Bezalel School of Art. Subsequently Ze’ev Raban (1890-1970) helped Boris Schatz to create the Bezalel style. However, it was Lilien who was responsible for creating the Zionist visual representation in those early years.

Ze’ev Raban (1890-1970) –

He was a leading painter, decorative artist and industrial designer and made a major contribution to the Bezalel style of Israeli art.

Encouraging Aliyah

_________________________________________________________

The eclectic East-West style was named Judenstil

Lilien’s particular style of portrayal was in the Art Nouveau / Jugendstil school, with its combination of eroticism and fantasy with Zionist idealism. He created a unique fusion of the two, expressing the pathos of Jewish longing for Zion. His style of depiction achieved a harmonious partnership with Zionist imagery, Jewish and Christian symbols, Orientalism, Japanese art with influences of Egyptian and Assyrian together with a Renaissance influence. This eclectic East-West style was named Judenstil and this became Lilien’s hallmark (p 63).*

*[Amatai Mendelsohn, Behold the Man: Jesus in Israeli Art, Magnes Press, Jerusalem, 2017 –

ISBN 978 965 278 465 0]

Lilien was born into a traditional Eastern European Jewish family and his artistic expression flourished in Austrian and German cultural centres.  His art shows subtle Christian influences and the interaction between Zionism and the Christian world at the turn of the century. In those formative years of  Zionism there was a keen Christian interest that influenced Theodore Herzl. The Christians saw the Jewish peoples’ return to its ancestral home in the Holy Land as the herald of the Second Coming of Christ.

Theodore Herzl

Old Jewish man’s head entangled in thorns, looking up at the rising sun in the East

In 1902 Songs of the Ghetto by New York Yiddish poet, Morris Rosenfeld appeared in German translation with Lilien’s image the Jewish May showing an old man with his head entangled in thorns.

In 1905 Lilien together with Boris Schatz went on their first trip to Palestine, where they set up the Bezalel School of Arts and Crafts in Jerusalem. Lilien taught and worked as Schatz’s assistant in 1906 when the school opened. He spent 6 months at the school, but he and Schatz parted company after this period and Lilien subsequently no longer  associated with the school. During this trip he also took many photographs in preparation for illustrations of a German Lutheran Bible commissioned by the Lutheran Church and its first volume was published in 1906. He made other trips to the Holy Land in 1910, 1914 and 1917 taking more photos to enable him to make further drawings and etchings to continue his work as an illustrator of religious subjects. He died in 1925 having made a considerable contribution to the early Zionist movement and saw his art as having a mission. (p 64-65).

The Influence of Christians on the fledgling Zionist Movement

A considerable time before the Jewish Zionist movement began to formulate its plans and desires to effect the return of the Jews to Palestine,  a not insignificant number of Christians were showing an interest in the Holy Land. This was not just as a place of Christian pilgrimage,but these Christians in Britain, USA, Germany and other places, turned their attention to the subject of the return of the Jews to their ancient homeland. This also culminated with the first Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland in 1897,*

*( There was no secret Jewish cabal convened at Basel at which the Jews conspired for world domination and it was purported that they formulated a document that became known as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion – it is a horrid fabricated anti-Semitic lie that was concocted by the Russian secret police in 1903 and it perpetuates the myth that the Jews control the world and are behind every bad thing that happens – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion).

By the mid-nineteenth century, the Ottoman Empire was in severe decline, approaching its downfall. Britain in particular, showed a vital interest in the fate of the Empire, and Palestine together with the other Bible Lands was of great significance. With a growing Jewish awareness, a strategic alliance dawned.

Lord Palmerston, British Foreign Secretary, wrote to the British Ambassador in Constantinople, the Sultan’s seat:

“There exists at the present time among the Jews dispersed over Europe, a strong notion that the time is approaching when their nation is to return to Palestine…It would be of manifest importance to the Sultan to encourage the Jews to return and to settle in Palestine because the wealth which they would bring with them would increase the resources of the Sultan’s dominions; and the Jewish people if returning under the sanction and protection and at the invitation of the Sultan, would be a check upon any future evil designs of Mehemet Ali (of Egypt) or his successor…I have to instruct Your Excellency strongly to recommend (to the Turkish Government) to hold out every just encouragement to the Jews of Europe to return to Palestine” (p 43-44 – Faith & Fulfilment).*

On August 17, 1840, the London Times published an editorial entitled, “A plan to plant the Jewish people in the land of their fathers.” This plan was then under serious political consideration and people of significance like Lord Shaftsbury, a deeply committed Christian, joined forces with Lord Palmerston who was called “the sword” in a plan of active support for such a return by the Jews. The men studied the Scriptures earnestly giving special attention to those prophetic portions that pertained to the return of the Jews to their ancient Biblical homeland.

This strong Biblical conviction led them in the aiding of “God’s ancient people” and they felt that this would lead to the fulfilment of those Biblical prophecies that they had noted. Ashley (Lord Shafstsbury) never doubted that the Jews would return to their own land and he daily prayed, “Oh, pray for the peace of Jerusalem” and these words were engraved on a ring that he wore on his right hand (p 45).

We should add names like Oliphant and Blackstone to the list of those who actively promoted a Jewish return to Palestine. These two men responded to reports of pogroms against the Jews in Eastern Europe under Tsarist persecutions, and they added their advocacy on behalf of the Jews with pleas for their return. This concern continued unabated and Blackstone appealed to President Wilson of the USA sending him a memorandum in which he expressed his ideas on behalf of a Jewish return.

In 1885, William Hechler became Chaplain to the British Embassy in Vienna. He held his post until 1901 and witnessed the beginnings of the Zionist Movement. He personally befriended Theodore Herzl, who as a Jewish reporter at the Dreyfus affair. Herzl turned his attentions to solving the “Jewish Question.” He authored the book Das Judenstat (The Jewish State) published in 1896 in which he advocated the return of the Jews to Palestine.

Hechler was tireless in his efforts and penned these words,

“The Return of the Jews would become a great blessing to Europe, and put an end to the anti-Semitic spirit of hatred, which is most detrimental to the welfare of all our nations” (p 59).

Hechler went to great lengths to persuade the German Emperor to recognise the Zionist Movement. Finally his efforts produced fruit when in 1898 the Kaiser declared:

“I have been able to notice that the emigration to the land of Palestine of those Jews who are ready for it is being prepared extremely well and is even financially sound in every respect. Therefore I have replied to an enquiry by the Zionists as to whether I wish to receive a delegation from them in audience that I would be glad to receive a deputation on the occasion of our presence there (in Jerusalem). I am convinced that the settlement of the Holy Land by financially strong and diligent people of Israel will soon bring undreamt-of-prosperity and blessing to the land’’ (p 60).

(* Faith and Fulfilment,

Christians and the Return to the Promised Land,

Michael J Pragai, Mitchell, England, 1985 – ISBN 0-85303-210-6)

To return to E M Lilien and his importance – “From the start, Christian motifs were woven into many of Lilien’s illustrations. His implicit allusions to Jesus demonstrated his engagement with a figure whose existence and significance he was unable to ignore. His use of Christian iconography played a clear role in the Zionist message that would be central to his oeuvre” ( i.e. the body of work of a painter, composer, or author) (p 65, Behold the Man).

His work related to the image of Jesus as early as his days in Cracow and the final illustration in a book The Tax Collectors of Kluasen by Johann van Wildenradt, that deals with a peasant uprising of the 15^th and 16^th century and is about their struggle for freedom. The final illustration shows a nude woman crucified and the traditional inscription of INRI over the head of the crucified Christ, is replaced with the word FREIHEIT (freedom).

Considering that Lilien was only 18 years old when he did this illustration and several decades before Chagall’s Jewish Jesus on a cross, it is all the more amazing because Jewish artists did not depict the crucifixion. The fact that the figure was not of Jesus, but of a nude female, may reduce the theological problem from a Jewish perspective, but her liberated sexuality was no less a departure from usual Jewish art themes This illustration is clearly in the Art Nouveau / Jugendstil style that largely characterised his work. A nude women symbolised national freedom in numerous paintings and sculptures, the best example being that of Eugene Delacroix’s Liberty Leading the People.

Pesah (Passover), E M Lilien, illustration to Juda

As Lilien’s work matured with his move to Germany, he came under the influence of Borries von Munchhausen. He was an advant-garde poet who showed Lilien his unpublished poems on Biblical themes. Lilien was so impressed that he decided to illustrate the poems and publish them. The joint project in 1901 was called Juda. This transformed Lilien into the dominant Zionist artist of his day. In Juda, ancient Jewish biblical history became relevant and vividly graphic.

Lilien gave dignity to Jewish themes instead of the Christian trope of Synagoga and Ecclesia which represents the Church’s triumph over Judaism. Now in Lilien’s work Judaism is depicted as a dignified and beautiful woman holding the Tablets of the Law or Torah Scroll, combining Christian iconography and Jewish symbols.

Sabbath Queen by E M Lilien

Another book of illustrations showing Christian motifs is Lilien’s well known cover of the Jewish cultural monthly Ost and West (East and West) from 1901 – 1906. It features the Daughter of Zion – a young woman with a star of David and a menorah, surrounded by a circle. Her skirt is also embellished with stars of David and her hand has a loop of thorns, resting on an altar and in her hand she is holding a flower called the Rose of Jericho. This plant belongs to the genus known as the “resurrection plants” because of their ability to come back to life after being shrivelled and dried up for months or even years.

For Christians the Rose of Jericho symbolises the resurrection of Jesus and also the Virgin Mary’s pregnancy with Jesus. This flower was a prized memento brought back by pilgrims from visits to the Holy Land.

Like the Rose of Jericho, “so will Israel bloom in youthful splendour…” Lilien was the first to represent this plant artistically with a powerful Zionist message of the hope of Jewish restoration to their ancient homeland (p 74-75).

Ost and West is accompanied by Christian motifs that represent the Passion and Resurrection.  Lilien has combined Christian and Jewish symbolism that has at the heart of it is a Christian concept of resurrection.

Lilien’s 1901 postcard from the Fifth Zionist Congress is one of his best known illustrations, and remains a central image on Zionist history.

At the right, the distant figure of the Jewish farmer plowing the land signifies national rebirth; at the left, a Jewish man with bowed head is caught in a tangle of thorns, symbolising the Jew trapped in the tangle of exile. Once again his work is infused with Christian iconography as in his Pesah with crown of thorns as well as the Art Nouveau / Jugendstil influence clearly evident. This use of such symbolism was used to create a Zionist message of revival and resurrection (p 76).

Pesah (Passover) detail

(see full image above)

Another important image that may well have influenced E M Lilien’s Moses was William Holman Hunt’s The Light of the World.  This image of Jesus is a distinctly Protestant portrayal of him. Firmly based on Scripture, “Behold I stand at the door and knock…” (Revelation 3.20) Holman shows a regal full length figure of Jesus and this bears a resemblance to Lilien’s Moses. As in Hunt’s painting, so Moses has a halo of light with the Eastern sun from Zion shining behind him.

William Holman Hunt’s The Light of the World

E M Lilien’s Moses

While Lilien was happy to use Christian iconography, his depictions of Jesus were primarily used to relate to the Jewish experience of suffering as was the case with other Jewish artists.  His strong Zionist use of Christian themes such as resurrection and rebirth was to signify the hope of restoration and renewal of Jewish hope in their return to Zion.

Other Jewish Artists express Jewish hope and renewal

Boris Schatz with whom E M Lilien collaborated in his early work in Palestine, is considered the father of Israeli art. He was born in Vilna (1867), in the Pale of Settlement, in Lithuania. He founded the Bezalel School of Arts and Crafts, Jerusalem in 1906 with the aim of what he called “Hebrew” art. He was a sculptor and his style was essentially academic. Like Atokolsky, Schatz was strongly affected by the tension between Judaism and Christian culture and felt the need to mediate between them.

Schatz directed the energy of his work towards the Zionist cause and like Lilien, he made use of Christian iconography that included allusions to Jesus. This was to continue to play a role in his national art. He dedicated himself to creating a uniquely Jewish iconography that would promulgate a new Hebrew culture. (p 86).

No longer was this the Jew of the dispersion and exile, but a new liberated Jew was emerging out of the bondage of the ghetto throwing off the shackles of the centuries. The basis of this “religion” consisted of set characters and motifs – some of which he derived from Renaissance Christian iconography (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Schatz).

His masterpiece was Mattathias Maccabee (1894). The reason he chose to portray this figure of Jewish history had great significance because they rose up against the Seleucid Greeks in the second century BCE.  He portrayed the man who shook off the yoke of pagan oppression. It reflects the spirit of the Zionist ideal in their auto-emancipation as a form of self- realisation and liberation, at the rebirth of a nation that was yet to be fully realised.

“Arise, Judah, come, let us go!”

Auto-Emancipation was the title of the book by Leon Pinsker.

As a Zionist thinker –  he reflects,

“What a miserable role for a nation that descends from the Maccabees!”

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-Emancipation)

This longing to be free from oppression and at the whims of the European nations, that at times carried out severe persecution of the Jews in their realm, they needed to strive for a return to Zion where they could enact Auto-Emancipation, a form of self-liberation.       Pinsker together with Herzl and others Zionist thinkers gave birth to the modern Zionist movement.

A possible influence for the Maccabee sculpture was the maquette of a triumphant Christ by Mark Antokolsky (we considered his work in Part 1). Though this figure of Christ as a charismatic, spiritually powerful figure, is within the Christian tradition, it was not concerned with Jewish-Christian relations, whereas Christ before the People’s Court was clearly within the realm of inter-faith dialogue.

Christ before the People’s Court

Schatz’s statue of Mattithias Maccabee, portrayed a militant message, and is  a befitting symbol of Jewish nationalism and rebellion (p 87). Schatz referring to his statue, said that he modled the figure after his grandfather’s likeness, who though physically weak, was spiritually strong.

Annibale Carracci – Christ Appearing to St Peter on the Appian Way

In Carracci’s Christ Jesus is pointing to Jerusalem indicating that he is to die by crucifixion. In contrast Mattathias is holding a sword pointing towards the Land of Israel, the focal point of Zionist redemption.

In conclusion, a figure of a Jewish hero raising the banner against the Greeks – Mattathias Maccabee with sword in hand, has combined a number of different elements. We see a fusion of mythological and Christian elements, directly and clearly connected to Jesus. Schatz and other Zionist visionaries show the Jew’s victory over anti-Semitic persecutors and resurrection in a Jewish homeland. (p 88-89).

Shalom Radio UK is an independent internet based radio station sponsored

by

MTMI – Messianic Teaching Ministry International

Enjoy listening to this programme:

(RNS1-jan16) Marc Chagall, Descent from the Cross, 1941, ink and gouache on paper, 19 1/2 x 12 7/8 in. Collection of the Rastegar Family, California. © 2013 Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York / ADAGP, Paris. For use with RNS-CHAGALL-PAINT, transmitted on January 16, 2014, Photo courtesy of The Jewish Museum.

About 20 of the paintings done by Chagall in the show depict Jesus

At the Israel Museum, Jerusalem, December 2016 – April 2017 an exhibition was staged called: Behold the Man: Jesus in Israeli Art.*

*[Amatai Mendelsohn, Behold the Man: Jesus in Israeli Art, Magnes Press, Jerusalem, 2017 –  

ISBN 978 965 278 465 0]

To quote from the foreword of the companion book –

“For two millennia, the figure of Jesus has been such a fundamental part of Western culture – in the visual arts, in literature, and in music – that it is almost impossible to relate to cultural history without citing the story of his life and death. The progenitor of what become the world’s largest religion [Christianity] was a Jew who lived during the Second Temple period and was put to death by the Roman rulers of Judea. Jesus came to Jerusalem to preach the Kingdom of Heaven, and it was in Jerusalem that he was crucified, so that over the years the Via Dolorosa, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and other sites in the Holy City have become a world focus of Christian pilgrimage.”

You may recall the programme that I produced called The Different Faces of Jesus and I posted on Shalom Radio UK in November 8 2016:

In the programme I dealt with the exhibition of Marc Chagall: Love, War, and Exile that the Curator Susan Tumarkin Goodman did , Senior Curator Emerita, together with Bella Meyer, granddaughter of Marc Chagall produced – explore this at NYC-ARTS! And see it here: http://www.nyc-arts.org/showclips/show/id/87423

_____________________________________________________________

This new show Behold The Man: Jesus in Israel Art by Amitai Mendelsohn has a far broader scope and is equally challenging to its viewers, all the more as it was on display recently for 4 months at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem.

“Behold the Man: Jesus in Israeli Art approaches the figure of Jesus and related Christian themes from a different perspective, entering the complex realm of the relationship between Judaism and Christianity to examine for the first time the significance of Jesus through European Jewish and Israeli art.”

Part 1. 

In this first section by way of introduction I deal with the changing attitude of post-Enlightenment/ Haskalah European Jews and how their willingness to embrace the portrayal of Jesus in Painting and Sculpture occurred:

The work of some 40 artists dating from the late 19th century to the present time are considered. There is powerful symbolic imagery played by such subjects as the crucifixion and resurrection, sometimes reflecting the personal perspective of the artist and other times that of a collective national identity.

The inspiration behind this exhibition in Jesusalem is based upon the doctoral research of Amitai Mendelsohn, Senior Curator of the Museum’s David Orgler Department of Israeli Art.

Christians come to the depiction of Jesus in European art through the lens of their shared faith and history, and European and  Israeli Jews bring a different perspective to their view of Jesus. Rather than him being viewed as their Saviour and Lord, alas he has all too often been viewed as the one who has caused their suffering and death. A collective punishment visited upon them by Christians who blamed them for rejecting him and causing his death by crucifixion.

All the more surprising and refreshing is this exhibition of European Jewish and Israeli views of Jesus. The image changes and develops as European Jewish and Israeli artists give expression to the multifaceted aspects of their encounters with Jesus, from one of Jewish suffering in the diaspora at the hands of Christians, to one of hope reborn due to their return to the land of Israel.

Despite all that Jews have gone through, they are able to look at Jesus through Jewish eyes. The viewer will be delighted and given a window into the outlook of Jews who dare to look at Jesus for themselves.

“In the 19th century a change in attitude affected a small but significant number of European Jewry towards Jesus, this included thinkers, writers, and eventually artists began to draw attention of the historical Jesus and sought to reclaim him. This approach aimed at reconciliation and at enhancing the position of Judaism in the Christian world – but at the same time it underscored the injustice of anti-Semitism “ (p 15).

Christians must beware of falling into the trap of thinking that they can separate anti-Zionism from anti-Semitism. Many Jewish and Christian leaders alike realise that the modern phenomena of anti-Zionism is just anti-Semitism repackaged. While Israel is not without fault in the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict and while it is perfectly valid to criticise Israel for its violation of the human rights of Palestinians, it is quite another thing to seek to delegitimise Israel’s right to exist.

Jesus came to serve as a symbol for suffering of the Jewish people, which reached its darkest hour during the Holocaust.

Jewish artists have been influenced by iconography of the surrounding cultures and this can be seen in the work of certain painters and sculptors of the 19th century. As the Jewish source of visual images is rather sparse due to the 2nd Commandment that forbids the making of graven images, Jewish artist naturally turned to Christian sources for inspiration and reference concerning the depiction of the person of Jesus and other Biblical themes. Though there is still a strong taboo for many Jews concerning the figure of Jesus, his presence is there at a deep veiled level.

The figure of Jesus in Hebrew literature has flourished in recent years. Also in the visual arts, Ziva Amishai-Maisels has pursued the most important research into his presence in modern Jewish art.

A major fault line that influences and divides the Jewish and Christian visual rendering of the subject of Jesus is the fact that none of the normal Jewish interpretations believe in his divinity. Jesus who Christians worship as the God made flesh, the figure of supreme importance in Christian art, displays a fundamental tension between his divinity and humanity. At the Council of Chalcedon in 451 Jesus was pronounced as “truly divine and truly human” – his human identity as the suffering Man of Sorrows exists alongside his identity as God almighty. It is this duality that informs the history of Christian visual art (p 17).

This belief in the two-fold identity from the 3rd century to the present continues to define Christian portrayals of Jesus. “While Israeli Jewish artists focus on the human figure of Jesus. For Israeli artists, identification with Jesus’ humanity overcame their lack of belief in his divinity. The figure of Jesus – Other but also brother – touched them as a way to express a host of thoughts, experiences, emotions, and aspirations” (p 17).

The Jewish Jesus

Artistic portrayals of Jesus date back to the 3rd century of the common era (CE), and these became prevalent particularly after the Roman Empire adapted Christianity as its religion in the 4th century.

For Judaism the use of art was primarily for decorative purposes to beautify texts and ritual paraphilia such as mezuzahs, the covers of torah scrolls, candelabras, etc., while for Christian artists images and portrayals of Jesus and the Saints, became and integral part of their religion. The incarnation of God in the person of Christ (Messiah), became incarnated in sculpture, painting, murals, mosaics and more recently in photographs as well. These portrayals exemplify what Paul calls “the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1.15). And as a testimony of incarnation, art plays an important part depicting the word becoming flesh.

John of Damascus the great iconographer of the 8th century wrote:

“Because the one who by excellency of nature transcends all quantity and size and magnitude, who has his being in the form of God, has now, by taking upon himself the form of a slave, contracted himself into a quantity and size and has acquired a physical identity, do not hesitate any longer to draw pictures and to set forth, for all to see, him who has chosen to let himself be seen” (p 37).

Though there was great controversy and opposition to the portrayal of the image of Jesus by the iconoclastic controversy of the 8th-9th century, the icon ultimately prevailed. Once more the Protestant Reformation (1517-1685) in the Western Christian realm challenged the excessive devotion that the Catholic Church gave to the portrayal of the figure of Jesus and the Saints, including a vast array of depictions of the Virgin Mary and Madonna and Child. The Eastern branch of the Christian faith as represented by the Russian and Greek Orthodox tradition was largely unaffected by the iconoclastic revolt in the West.

The image of Christ on the Cross became the centre piece of the Western worlds Christian artistic expression together with many other aspects of the life and ministry of Jesus. This figure of Christ did not disappear from Modernist art, though Impressionist art was influenced by daily secular thinking, many of its practitioners did deal with Christian themes and particularly the the figure of Christ.

As I previously said in The Different Faces of Jesus programme, Marc Chagall drew his portrayal of Jesus in his numerous painting of the crucified Christ, from his awareness of Russian icons that he had seen during his formative years in Russia, as well as other paintings of Jesus done by Gentile artist. While Chagall’s use of the figure of the crucifixion of Christ, became an image of Jewish persecution and suffering, it was Paul Gauguin who saw Vincent van Gogh’s use of the Crucified Christ, as a paradigm of martyrdom, a man truly created in Jesus’ image (p 39). Gauguin himself was one of the first artists to apply religious themes to the depiction of his own personal situation. He cultivated the image of a suffering artist.

Van Gogh – Peita

Gauguin – Yellow Cricifixion

Numerous other European artist followed this trend of using Christ’s suffering as way of giving expression to their own rejection and suffering and that of others. “World War I provoked many European artists to portray Jesus as a victim of war, symbolising their vehement opposition to the slaughter and anguish it caused” (p 41).

Epstein’s Christ in wood

Epstein’s Madonna & Child

In England the Jewish sculptor, Jacob Epstein frequently invoked Jesus as a symbol and protest against the war. Jesus has not lost his importance of bringing to people’s awareness of society’s failure and this is evident from the contemporary sculptor Mark Wallinger, whose figure of Jesus called Ecce Homo (Behold the Man) that was originally displayed on the 4th plinth on Trafalgar Square, London in 1999, demonstrates this point.

Crown of Thorns – Gilded Barbed Wire

Ecce Homo

But how relevant is the image of Jesus to European Jewish and Israeli artists?

Jewish artists continue to display considerable interest in the figure of Jesus inspiring their work in a number of ways. “The European Jewish artist’ engagement with Jesus had a number of motivations:

The struggle for cultural integration; the need to combat entrenched religious ant-Semitism; the desire to present the Christian Saviour as an exceptional human being of Jewish origin, who did not set out to create a new religion; the introduction of a particularly pointed symbol of Jewish suffering; and the wish to show that the universal values had their roots in Judaism” (p 45).

The Haskalah (Enlightenment) movement specific goal of its depiction of Jesus was one of the elements to help Judaism of the European Enlightenment period to help modern Judaism to fully integrate into a new European environment, with its modern objectives and progressive outlook.

An example of a Lithuanian Jewish sculptor, Mark (Mordechai) Antokolsky of Vilna born in 1843. His figures ranged from Jesus, John the Baptist to Socrates and Mephistopheles. He also depicted figures of Jewish artisans and other historical figures including the controversial Jewish philosopher Spinoza (p 45).

Christ before the People’s Court

He became the first Jew to become a full member of the Imperial Academy of Arts and on two occasions he won the prestigious first prize at the Exposition Universalle in Paris in 1878 and 1900. His work Ivan the Terrible commissioned by Czar Alexander II for the Heritage Collection in St Petersburg. He was not immune to anti-Semitic attack and suffered tension between his identity as a Jew and his desire to make his way as a Russian artist – especially in the field of sculpture, which until then was closed to Jews.

The nationalist and anti-Semitic press called him an “insolent Yid,” unworthy to portray the heroes of Russian history and their Christian spirit, but his overwhelming success – in a period characterized by waves of anti-Semitism – overcame these attacks.

One of his most important pieces form our point of view is the sculpture Christ before the People’s Court made in 1873 (later copies were made by the artist). Jesus is portrayed as completely Jewish with skullcap and sidelocks, wearing a robe that suggests a prayer shawl. It was his desire to redress the injury done to the Jews by the church by portraying this Jewish Jesus. He believed in an ethical Jesus whose role model should inspire all (p 46).

Jesus “lived and died as a Jew for the truth and brotherhood, this is why I like to portray Jesus and a pure Jewish type and to represent him with a covered head (p 47). In a letter to a friend, he wrote, In the title… I mean also to refer to the present, I truly believe that if Christ would rise again and see how his ideas have been twisted and exploited by the Fathers of the Inquisition and others, he would rebel against them as he rebelled against the Pharisees and would agree to be crucified ten more times for his beliefs.”

He wrote to Stasov in 1873, while working on the sculpture, “Although Jews renounce and still renounce [Jesus], I solemnly believe that he was and died a Jew for truth and brotherhood. This is why I want to make of him a purely Jewish type… I imagine how Jews and Christians will rise against me. Jews will probably say, ‘How is it that you made Christ?’ and Christians will say, ‘What kind of Christ did he make?’ but I do not care for this” After he completed the sculpture , he wrote “I have finished ‘Christ’ yesterday… I myself am not able to evaluate my work because I expressed everything in my soul in this statue, and now I am tired and grow dull” (p 47).

Many praised the sculpture and acclaimed it as a masterpiece, while others criticized the sculpture when it was put on display in Paris in 1878. Vladimir Stastov’s anti-Semitic comments, “To these people, to imagine Christ as a Roman or an academic model was fine, but as a Jew – never!” (p 50).

A young Polish Jewish Artist, Maurycy Gottlieb (1856-1879) in his short life (died at the age of 23), made an outstanding contribution as a painter, he managed to create a remarkable body of work that united Polish Christian culture, the artist’s Jewish identity, and a universal message of reconciliation between the two religions. Jesus was the central character in two monumental and highly complex paintings that Gottlieb was still working on when he died: Christ before his Judges and Christ teaching in Capernaum. Both incorporate self-portraits, a further indication of how important these two ambitious works were to Gottlieb. They convey his personal, artistic, and political manifesto concerning Jesus the Jew and Jewish-Christian relations. Like his contemporaries, these paintings reflect the prevailing scholarly focus on the historical Jesus, which achieved artistic expression by such means as realistic depictions that were faithful to the period and the locale, an emphasis on Jesus’ humanity (p 50).

Gottlieb challenged the traditional Catholic iconography, and concentrated on the genre of history painting, depicting selected religious and literary themes in an academic orientalist style that he learned chiefly from his teacher Jan Matejko, the most important Polish artist of the time.

Jan Matejko – Reception of Jews in Poland

In a letter not long after painting the two works and just prior to his death Gottlieb wrote: “How deeply I wish to eradicate all prejudice against my people! How vividly I wish to uproot the hatred enveloping the oppressed and tormented nation and to bring peace between the Poles and the Jews, for the history of both people is a chronicle of grief and anguish!” (p 52). He left a legacy of a plea for tolerance and reconciliation.

Maurycy Gottlieb – Christ preaching at Capernaum

Christ before his Judges

Max Liebermann (1847-19350) – is one of the most important German Impressionists and the most celebrated Jewish painters of the late 19th-early 20th century. He painted  The-Twelve-Old Jesus in the Temple and it was displayed at the 1879 International Art Exhibition in Munich’s Crystal Palace (Glaspalast), and the scandal it provoked demonstrates the unresolved conflict between Judaism and Christianity – and the power of Jesus even when depicted as a child, to inspire a crisis in Jewish-Christian relations, even during a period of relative calm (p 53).

The controversy centred around the depiction of the boy Jesus with his uncombed hair, bare feet, disheveled clothes, with him debating self-confidently with the sages who surrounded him. The amount of anger that this rendering of Jesus garnered was unexpected and surprised Liebermann who was forced to repaint the figure of Jesus in the face of the storm of anti-Semitic outrage that pervaded German culture. In response he gave the boy more conventional features, dressing him in smarter clothes and with brushed hair.

The-Twelve-Old Jesus in the Temple

Detail of The Twelve Year Old Boy Jesus

Our final artist that I wish to cover in this Part 1, is Marc Chagall (1887-1985) as discussed in the introduction of this programme created the best known and most numerous depiction of Jesus of any other modern Jewish artist, particularly focussing upon the crucifixion of Jesus. This, he converted into an explicitly Jewish symbol; and subsequently a great many other Jewish artist were inspired to use this image of the crucifixion of Jesus, expressing the Jewish suffering during the Holocaust.

Calvary – The Crucifixion of Jesus as a Young Child

(RNS1-jan16) Marc Chagall, Descent from the Cross, 1941, ink and gouache on paper, 19 1/2 x 12 7/8 in. Collection of the Rastegar Family, California. © 2013 Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York / ADAGP, Paris. For use with RNS-CHAGALL-PAINT, transmitted on January 16, 2014, Photo courtesy of The Jewish Museum.

Chagall combined personal autobiographical, collective Jewish, and universal themes in his representation of Jesus, with over a 100 times using this symbolism of Jesus in his work.

To mention a few of his better known works, Calvary 1912 – he painted this shortly after his arrival in Paris and is the first of his crucifixion paintings in which Jesus is portrayed as a child, with Mary and John lamenting his death, with mary and John represented in the style of a Russian icon, the depiction is are based on his own parents, stressing the human side of the crucifixion, rather than the redemptive theme with its Christian implications.

The motivation an desire to bring the painting down to the more human aspect of the crucifixion was prompted by a blood libel case brought against Menahem Mendel Beilis of Kiev in 1911. He was accused of ritually murdering a Christian child, a two year drama unfolded culminating in a court case and the acquittal of Beilis. None-the-less anti-Semitic ferment was stirred on the one hand and international protest on the other.

White Crucifixion (1938) which he painted just prior to the outbreak of WWII – this painting by Chagall symbolises Jewish suffering. The are images of Jews being attacked, a synagogue burning and Jews fleeing as inspired by the Munich and Nuremberg Nazi inspired persecution of Jews and their expelling of thousands of Polish Jews living in Germany in October, 1938 and finally the Kristsllnacht (Night of the Broken Glass) pogrom and foreshadowing what would happen through occupied Europe during the war.

These are but a few examples of the catalogue of paintings on the theme of Crucifixion that Chagall painted in which he identifies himself with Jesus’ suffering:

“I awake in pain / Of a new day with hopes / Not yet painted / Not yet daubed with paint / I run up stairs to my dry brushes / And I am crucified with Christ / With nails pounded in the easel” – A poem by Chagall and illustrated with his profound painting The Painter Crucified (1941-42).

This theme of the Jewish Jesus, living, ministering, rejected and crucified all reflect a common Jewish desire to claim Jesus as their own. The use of his image to challenge their viewers to realise that Jews, while the majority on the whole do not recognise his divinity and therefore embrace him as Messiah and Lord, never-the-less do see him as their brother and friend.

While the powerful symbolism of his crucifixion has become a image of Jewish personal and collective suffering and rejection, yet as we consider in Part 2: Jesus in Israeli Art, a shift in perception with a movement beyond the cross to other aspects of the life and person of the historic Jesus and his relevance for contemporary Israeli life today, not only effecting Jews, but Arabs too

In the late part of the 19th century and early 20th century, due to the continued political turmoil in Eastern Europe and resultant waves of anti-Semitic persecution with pogroms breaking out sporadically, an increasing number of Jews migrated to Western Europe, the United States and with some establishing a growing Jewish presence in Ottoman Occupied Palestine. These new arrivals included some Jewish artist that gave expression to their desire to live in their ancient Biblical homeland with visual images that continued to draw inspiration from the historical Jesus. Some of the work of these artists I will explore in the next programme of Behold the Man: Jesus in Jewish and Israeli Art .

Ruth Nessim

During April 2017, while I was visiting Ruth Nessim of Nahariyah, Israel, together with her house guest, Betty (Betina) from Germany, a pastor friend Ralf also visiting from Germany called around and Ruth tells her story of how she came to faith. She relates of how she met Albert “her Jewish husband” and the amazing ministry that they shared in Israel together since the 1970’s.

Following Albert’s death nearly a decade ago, Ruth continues to share her faith, with Jews and Arabs in her beloved Israel. She actively promotes fellowship among the diverse communities in the land and this demonstrates how the dividing wall of hostility can be broken down through the sharing of the Good News. This is surely the basis of how a lasting peace may be achieved in not only Israel, but throughout the world?

Ruth’s example of how as a Jewish believer she heard the call of God, to following him, but  also listen to how her life made a difference. She tells of the consequence of yielding to that call, and how many others experience God’s life-giving, life-changing power in their lives through her testimony.

Like Ruth and Albert you too can discover God’s LOVE for you personally whoever you are!

Shalom Radio UK is sponsored by MTMI

It is an independent internet based radio programme

If you would like further help in your desire to discover G-D’s love, please send me a message and I would love to be of assistance.