Post-Holocaust Thinkers: Richard Rubenstein and Emil Fackenheim 2

Post-Holocaust Thinkers: Richard Rubenstein and Emil Fackenheim
The overwhelming nature of the Nazi atrocities in the Holocaust sparked immense
theological discourse, commonly referred to as the Holocaust theology. Among the Jewish
thinkers, Emil Fackenheim and Richard Rubenstein ardently explore faith in God and man after
Auschwitz. Rubenstein’s (1966) original response on the Holocaust, After Auschwitz, presents an
intellectually logical argument of non-existence of God. Ideally, Rubenstein’s (1966) projects on
the notion about God’s existence are inherently meaningless since it was clear that the Holocaust
would have been the greatest opportunity for God to reveal His will to mankind. Although
Rubenstein’s (1966) views were largely rejected by Jews of varying denominations, his thoughts
were widely read post-Holocaust. Contrary to Rubenstein’s (1966) stance, Fackenheim (1994)
asserts that the Holocaust is God’s revelation to man. Both Rubenstein’s and Fackenheim’s
notable responses and reactions to evil during the Holocaust question the element of faith and
whether God really exists. An analysis of both accounts shows that Fackenheim’s (1994)
response conveys a more convincing account because he explores the widely-taught
transcendental position espoused in Judaism commandments in pre-Holocaust to demonstrate
that the Nazi genocide was a challenge to Jewish faith.
To start with, Fackenheim’s (1994) and Rubenstein’s (1966) responses portray how the
Holocaust has become an inheritance to Jewish generations, informing consciousness not just for
Jews but for the world at large. To adequately understand the relationship of these happenings to
the Jewish identity, one should answer more precise questions from which every other aspect of
post-Holocaust identity can be defined. For instance, Rubenstein (1966) strives to answer the
question “What does it mean to be a Jew after the Holocaust?” and develops a seemingly logical
account of God’s relationship to man. Morgan and Pollock (2009) note that Fackenheim (1994)

Post-Holocaust Thinkers: Richard Rubenstein and Emil Fackenheim 3
attempts to demonstrate how such a likeliness to “epoch-making events” transcends all possible
classical constructions of suffering and evil (p.70). Ultimately, such enormity can only be seen
through the lens of God being the history Himself, rather than Rubenstein’s perception that God
does not exist (Rubenstein 1966). On the other hand, Fackenheim (1994) argues that events
beyond mankind’s power present the very reason for mankind to understand the value of events
that challenge traditional Jewish teachings.
One of the most notable perspectives in Fackenheim’s (1994) account is his belief that
the Holocaust should be perceived as divine revelation, reminding Jews to deny Hitler’s victory
through the death of Judaism. His Jewish theological framework of the Holocaust deconstructs
the suffering of innocent victims in relation to the suffering endured by Israelites to fulfill God’s
wish to draw Gentiles close to him. In his philosophical discourse concerning the Holocaust,
Fackenheim (1994) is known for his most famous phrase – the 614 th commandment. In one of his
most famous works, To Mend the World, he notes that “my first response was to formulate a
“614 th commandment,” to the effect that Jews are forbidden to give Hitler posthumous victories”
(Fackenheim 1994, p. xix). Furthermore, he notes that Holocaust is a unique historical event that
represents a major theological challenge to the Jewish faith. On one side, Rubenstein (1966) uses
a historical reference to significant events that have demonstrated the culpability of mankind to a
blind faith; on the other side, Fackenheim (1994) affirms that mankind must first acknowledge
the transcendental capacity of one’s consciousness to understand such phenomena. The illogical
contrast of traditional Jewish beliefs pre-Holocaust and post-Holocaust is the main reason why
mankind must be willing to abandon the common rational pattern for interpretation presented by
man.

Post-Holocaust Thinkers: Richard Rubenstein and Emil Fackenheim 4
Contrary to Fackenheim (1994), Rubenstein (1966) disengages God from the atrocities of
the Holocaust due to one important reason: the fact that the Holocaust happened. According to
Rubenstein (1966), the horrors of the Holocaust are staunch evidence against the existence of
God (p. 14). From this perspective, the goodness of God and the evil witnessed in the Holocaust
cannot be simply reconciled. Rubenstein (1966) notes that “To see any purpose in the death
camps, the traditional believer is forced to regard the most demonic, anti-human explosion of all
history as a meaningful expression of God’s purposes” (p. 13). With such an event in the
equation, Jews should acknowledge that a belief in God is not sustainable. Although
Rubenstein’s (1966) argument could be sensible in the original conceptualization of the
presentation of God’s mercifulness in the scriptures, Jews have constantly struggled with the
connection of good and evil (Braiterman 1998). Rubenstein (1966) notes that God is
unmistakably good and wants mankind believe in it albeit the suffering is undeniably
nonredemptive. In such a case, the concept of a loving and benevolent God in Rubenstein’s
(1966) view does not align with the fact that he permitted an evil. Although some Jewish
theologists have likened the Nazis to Assyria as a tool of chastity to Israel (Isaiah 10:5),
Rubenstein (1966) finds it impossible to reconcile the horrendous deaths of millions of innocent
people with a higher purpose that is meant to exalt God’s goodness and integrity.
Notably, both Fackenheim’s (1994) and Rubenstein’s (1966) responses present relative
arguments from various perspectives based on Judaist teachings. Although there is no simple set
of facts that can be manipulated to espouse the most reasonable argument, I find Fackenheim’s
(1994) response more convincing than Rubenstein’s (1966). The existentialist supernaturalism
perspective supported by Fackenheim’s (1994) analysis of the Holocaust in relation to important
facets of Judaism conveys the message that it would be wrong to abandon pre-Holocaust

Post-Holocaust Thinkers: Richard Rubenstein and Emil Fackenheim 5
understanding of God and His relationship to man due to an event that affirms God’s acting in
history. This staunch revelation of such an unimaginable and unthinkable event can only be
linked to a supernatural power, which points to the ultimate Supreme Being. Most importantly,
according to Fackenheim (1994), the Holocaust resulted from Jews’ sin and contends that Jews
are not allowed to despair of redemption (p. 119). Choosing to remain triumphant over evil
means that the transcendental significance of keeping the Jewish faith does not only affect Jews
but also saves the world from Nazism.
The main aspect of critical inquiry into Fackenheim’s (1994) response centers on the
traditional idea of commandment and Divine revelation. In this case, theological elements of
Judaism that would evoke such a position in a thinker who was a Holocaust survivor, present
important insights. It is universally known that Judaism consists of 613 commandments, which
were spoken to the people of Israel through Moses (Cohen & Rozin 2001, p. 637). A detailed
discussion on the history of the Jewish faith shows that the Jews kept faith even in other
unimaginable events in their history guided by the 613 commandments for all situations (Cohn-
Sherbok 2002, p. 107). Due to the fact that these traditional commandments did not anticipate
Hitler, Fackenheim (1994) feels compelled to analyze the Holocaust from a position best aligned
with Jewish faith-commandments. By attacking Jews, the Nazis sought an assault of not just the
European Jewry but the God of Israel as well. It was a unique event since the onslaught was not
founded on a political realm but on a Gnostic agenda.
The Holocaust resulted in different Jewish religious responses, which can be broadly
categorized to historical and religious analysis. For such thinkers as Rubenstein (1966), historical
analysis is insufficient to explain the horror of the Nazi genocide, while other thinkers, such as
Fackenheim (1994), draw the conclusion that it is one the ways that God has revealed his

Post-Holocaust Thinkers: Richard Rubenstein and Emil Fackenheim 6
existence to mankind. Fackenheim (1994) believes that Judaism is unchanged despite the
unnatural connection of God’s goodness to evil. Similar to many arguments in the Holocaust
theology, Rubenstein’s (1966) and Fackenheim’s (1994) accounts of the Nazi genocide
demonstrate that there is no simple way for mankind to explain why the event happened.
However, major arguments rest on the notion of Jewish faith and the historical relation of the
place of Jews on earth. Therefore, Fackenheim’s argument that God’s intended purpose for Jews
is not altered by the Holocaust confirms that it was the epitome of Jewish belief and role in the
world. Fackenheim (1994) presents a more convincing account of the Holocaust due to a logical
analysis of God’s revelation through the Jewish history pre-Holocaust, noting that Jews should
consider such an event a challenge to strengthen their faith in God.

Post-Holocaust Thinkers: Richard Rubenstein and Emil Fackenheim 7

Reference List

Braiterman, Z, 1998, (God) after Auschwitz: tradition and change in post-Holocaust Jewish
thought, New Jersey, Princeton University Press.
Cohen, AB & Rozin, P 2001, ‘Religion and the morality of mentality.’ Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, vol. 81, no. 4, p.697.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.697
Cohn-Sherbok, D ed., 2002, Holocaust Theology: A Reader, New York, NYU Press.
Fackenheim, EL 1994, To mend the world: Foundations of post-Holocaust Jewish thought,
Bloomington, Indiana University Press.
Morgan, ML & Pollock, B, eds 2009, Philosopher as Witness, The: Fackenheim and Responses
to the Holocaust, New York, SUNY Press.
Rubenstein, RL 1966, After Auschwitz: Radical Theology and Contemporary Judaism.
Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill.