The True Front | 43and the spiritual, was sundered, conceding the political realm to earthly kings
and leaving the spiritual to God in heaven. Previously, “the idea of God as the
sole owner of all land” had prevailed. This “corresponds to the idea, in the politi-
cal sphere... of God as the sole sovereign of the community,” with God as really
present in his rule over daily political and economic life.^158 Now, his sovereignty is
confined to “inner,” “spiritual” matters, with no involvement in the independent
political and economic spheres. Previously, the leaders of the people had been
exceptional individuals called to specific tasks (the judges); once dynastic rule
emerges, though, the rulers no longer have to prove themselves by deeds. To be
sure, the prophets “do not fight the state as state,” even though it dislodges the
true community; they endeavor instead “to permeate it with spirit.” Nevertheless,
they “do not even shrink from sacrificing the independence of their state, if the
sacrifice rescues a remnant of the people from utter destruction and preserves it
as a nucleus for a future new community.” Messianism, which looks forward to
this future community, is thus the “creative expression of [prophetic] despair.”^159
This is the core of the argument that Buber will make in Kingship of God
in 1932 and continue in his subsequent biblical works. In 1918, Buber writes: “I
am not concerned here with the question of whether the written account of this
event and its presuppositions are historical fact, or whether they bear the imprint
of a later period and point of view; their inner truth is unmistakable.”^160 By 1932,
however, he has moved on to a richly textured scholarly account that does argue
for historicity, rooted in a decade of biblical studies and reflecting his collabora-
tion with Rosenzweig. Although Buber does not yet use the word, 1918 may be
conceived as a “theopolitical” turn, to which he will devote himself throughout
the course of the 1920s. Placing this emphasis on The Holy Way helps us to see
these years as something other than a mere prelude to I and Thou, and to imagine
a different arc for Buber’s Weimar career.
The Unspeakable Jewish Tragedy: The Revolution
Buber did not remain in Munich in December 1918 but returned to his home in
Heppenheim, while Landauer continued his efforts on behalf of Kurt Eisner and
the Bavarian Revolution. Buber next visited Munich in February 1919; in his de-
tailed reflections on that visit he found himself again disagreeing with his friend,
although with less bitterness than in their quarrel over the war.^161 Buber now
senses that Landauer, by taking part in an ostensibly ordinary political revolu-
tion, is the one not living up to his own ideals, such that Buber has become more
Landauerian than Landauer himself. However, although Buber thinks Landauer
is wrong, he does not accuse him of moral failure; to the contrary, Landauer’s
involvement in the revolution provokes worry rather than anger. Buber would
later say that “no man has ever erred out of purer motives.”^162