What Hath Jerusalem to do with Washington?

Josiah Hasbrouck on June 2, 2023

In our increasingly secular society, some hope the answer to the question posed in the title of this post is “very little.” Is the Hebrew Bible not largely irrelevant to a country with no established religion? An examination of Founding-era American political theory, however, indicates the contrary.

On May 24, the Jack Miller Center and the Hudson Institute cosponsored a panel discussion titled “Promised Lands: The Torah and the American Founding” at Hudson’s headquarters in Washington, DC. The panel included Meir Soloveichik of Yeshiva University, Robert P. George of Princeton University, Justin Dyer of the University of Texas at Austin, Michael Doran of the Center for Peace and Security in the Middle East, and moderator Samuel Goldman of George Washington University.

In his introductory remarks, Goldman noted that “one of the quirks of American culture… is a tendency on the part of almost every minority group to claim credit for the whole thing.” While many of these claims are far-fetched, some have merit, he said, like claims that Hebrew scripture was influential in the American Founding.

Though “it was conventional to describe the American founding as a product of rationalist, naturalist, and optimistic tendencies associated with the European Enlightenment,” Goldman noted that “the philosophy of the Enlightenment was only one of many influences that contributed to justifying the cause of independence or the conception of a constitutional republic.” According to Goldman, “the Hebrew Bible was prominent among these influences.”

Soloveichik, a Rabbi, highlighted a letter President George Washington wrote to a Jewish congregation in Savannah, Georgia. In this letter, Washington attributed the American Founding to God’s “providential agency,” and stated his hope that “the same wonder-working Deity, who long since delivering the Hebrews from their Egyptian Oppressors planted them in the promised land” would “still continue to water them with the dews of Heaven.” 

Soloveichik summarized: “[Washington is] saying ‘we want to share in the blessings of the biblical Israel because we see a parallel between you and us.” Soloveichik contrasted this with supersessionism, which seeks to replace the status of Israel as God’s chosen people with either the Church or another nation like America. Soloveichik suggested that “America and Israel, ancient and modern, are the two countries that were founded in pursuit of an idea,” and also suggested that instead of articulating a supersessionist position, Washington wished to draw parallels between the two.

Soloveichik also highlighted Lincoln’s characterization of “America as an almost chosen people” in his Second Inaugural Address, proposing that Lincoln viewed America as a nation in covenant with God. The Civil War, according to Lincoln, was a covenantal judgment of the United States. Soloveichik later suggested that covenants can apply to multiple generations, providing a stabler foundation for governments than social contract theory.

George continued Soloveichik’s discussion of Lincoln, noting Lincoln’s classically American support of republican government by the people. Underlying this support, George suggested, was a fundamental belief in the equality of all mankind. “This basic idea is not cooked up in the Enlightenment,” he emphasized, “it’s rooted in a fundamental insight that we get in the very first chapter of the very first book of the Hebrew Bible.” That is, “that human beings, though mere material fashioned from the dust of the earth, are nevertheless made in the very image and likeness of the divine Creator and Ruler of all.”

“If that’s true,” George posited,” all the great teachings, the great ethical teachings of the Judeo-Christian tradition follow.” George noted that this should be a point of agreement for Christians and Jews, as a belief in the image of God is “transmitted through Christianity, via Christianity, but it’s not transformed by Christianity.

Dyer noted that Deuteronomy was the book most cited by American Founders, “and the Bible altogether encompassed more citations than any of the Enlightenment sources put together.” The Founders, he said, were “engaging with the Bible and [were] shaped by biblical ideas.”

Dyer also suggested that though “the God of nature” often referenced by the Founders is “not exactly the same thing” as the God of the Founders, the two understandings of God are overall similar. Dyer, echoing George’s emphasis on God as the source of human equality,  noted that “if you go through the Declaration of Independence and you think about the categories of thought that shape the ideas, there are references to the Creator who creates us equally who endows us with certain rights.”

Doran focused less on the American Founding in his comments, instead arguing that current foreign policy issues related to Israel are rooted in different interpretations of Scripture. Those who interpret the Bible literally are more likely to support Zionism, Doran proposed. On the other hand, mainline Protestant modernists who do not interpret Scripture literally are more likely to oppose Zionism.

At the prompting of the Jack Miller Center’s founder and namesake, who was present for the event, Soloveichik and George also discussed governmental structure and balance of powers in ancient Israel. Soloveichik suggested that Israel was federalistic like the United States, and George noted that prophets like Nathan provided a check on the power of kings like David.

It would seem, based on the arguments of the panelists, that the Hebrew Bible is not so irrelevant to America after all. Instead of merely dismissing the writings held so dear by Jews and Christians alike, Americans would do well to familiarize themselves with both Scripture and the Founders’ reception of it.

No comments yet

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.