Gen. 24:48 — ואברך את יהוה אלהי אברהם אשר הנחני בדרך אמת
Deut. 6:6-7 — והיו הדברים האלה אשר אנכי מצוך היום על לבבך ודברת בם בלכתך בדרך
Acts 24:14 — אני מודה כי אני בדרך ההיא אשר יקבוה מפלגה בה אני עובד את אלהי אבותינו וכי אני מאמין בכל הכתוב בתורה ובנביאים

_____________________________________________

13.5.10

עשרת הדברים

Yesterday I decided to read about לוחות הברית (the tablets of the covenants) to see how one might come to the interpretation that מלאך יהוה (the Angel of the LORD) wrote them. As a side note, there are some that claim that the Angel of the LORD is a pre-incarnated Yeshua, which is another topic altogether.

This brief investigation brought me to some interesting thoughts, not necessarily related to the Angel of the LORD.

First of all, the account of giving the tablets appears in Exodus 31:18 and Deuteronomy 9:10. In both places the same phrase is used that they were written באצבע אלהים (the finger of God). This seems to be the primary basis for this argument. To be fair I've never heard the argument developed fully, only references as if it is widely understood and accepted. Why are believers so uncomfortable with anthropomorphisms? Why does every reference, for example, to God's right hand have to be Yeshua?

As I looked at the passages I noticed some other things. The "Ten Commandments" are listed in Exodus 20, but the description of giving the tablets, referred to as לוחות הברית או לוחות העדות (the tablets of the covenant or of the testimony), isn't until chapter 31. In Deuteronomy the "Ten Commandments" are in chapter 5, but the tablets are given in chapter 9. What's interesting is that there are other commandments given in the chapters in between, in both books. My first thought was why then are the "Ten Commandments" thought of being the ones written on the tablets. Then as I read more I realized that it is indeed explicit in the text.
ויגד לכם את בריתו אשר צוה אתכם לעשות עשרת הדברים ויכתבם על שני לחות אבנים (Deut. 4:13; cf. Ex. 34:28, Deut 10:4)

Clearly it is significant that God commanded to write these particular ten utterances on tablets of stone. But did He intend such a huge separation of understanding between these ten things (note that they are not all commandments) and the rest of His commandments? What I mean by this is the way some state that the Ten Commandments are what we must all keep for all time, but the rest of the Torah has passed away.

Maybe we get this division from Yeshua?
The only reference Yeshua makes to the Ten Commandments, that I am aware of, is the well-known story of the "rich young man" (Matt 19; Mark 10).
When asked what one must do to inherit eternal life Yeshua responded, "Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself". (Matt. 19:18)
I only count 5 out of the ten, and he adds this thing about loving your neighbor (Lev. 19:18). Was his memory that bad?

When asked what is the greatest commandment, he forgot the "Ten Commandments" completely . He responded with love God (Duet 6:5) and love your neighbor (Lev. 19:18). All of the Torah and the Prophets hang on these two.

3 comments:

  1. Todah rabah for the thought-provoking post. I think you are correct: clearly "the 10" are indeed special, but not intended to be viewed as separate from the rest of God's Torah (instruction). Consider, e.g.: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev. 19:18); or "You shall not oppress/mistreat a foreign resident" (Exod. 22:20H/21E, 23:9). Certainly these and many other mitzvot flow together seamlessly with עשרת הדברים / עשרת הדיברות.

    As for the question of "angels," previously you had mentioned Gal. 3:19, which states that the Torah was "arranged through messengers by the hand of a mediator" [διαταγεὶς δι᾿ ἀγγέλων ἐν χειρὶ μεσίτου / וזאת התורה ערוכה על-פי המלאכים ונתונה ביד איש הבניים]. The "mediator" or "intermediary," as you also pointed out, was Moshe.

    Apparently the idea of one or more מלאכים (messengers or angels) participating in the giving of the Torah was current in the first century C.E. Here are some other verses:

    Acts 7:38 [speaking of Moses]
    οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ γενόμενος ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ μετὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου τοῦ λαλοῦντος αὐτῷ ἐν τῷ ὄρει Σινᾶ καὶ τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν, ὃς ἐδέξατο λόγια ζῶντα δοῦναι ἡμῖν
    This is he who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the messenger who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and (with) our fathers, the one who received the living oracles to give to us
    הוא אשר היה בקהל במדבר עם המלאך הדובר אליו בהר סיני ו(עם) אבותינו והוא קיבל תורת חיים לתת לנו

    Acts 7:53
    ἐλάβετε τὸν νόμον εἰς διαταγὰς ἀγγέλων
    you received the Torah as [?] a decree of messengers
    [The Grk. text is not entirely clear. Zalkinson borrows from Deut. 33:2 to translate as: קיבלתם את התורה מלפני רבבת קדש]

    Heb. 2:2 [apparently speaking of Torah]
    εἰ γὰρ ὁ δι᾿ ἀγγέλων λαληθεὶς λόγος ἐγένετο βέβαιος καὶ πᾶσα παράβασις καὶ παρακοὴ ἔλαβεν ἔνδικον μισθαποδοσίαν
    For if the word spoken through angels was certain, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense
    כי אם הדבר דבור על-פי מלאכים עמד בתקפו וכל עון ופשע נפקד בשבט משפט

    Thus, although I was skeptical at first, there may be something to the idea of מלאך יהוה writing the tablets. This seems to have arisen as a later interpretation, based on extrapolation from the descriptions in the Pentateuch. What do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  2. My first question would be how have previous generations understood מלאך יהוה. Specifically, is he a specific messenger? Grammatically we can not tell.

    Compare this phrase to עבד יהוה, which could be translated a "the servant of the LORD" or "a servant of the LORD". In the majority of cases this is referring to Moses, but Joshua and David are also called it. I would tend to go with the translation "the servant of the LORD", but it doesn't mean that he is the only one. In the particular context he is THE servant.

    Therefore, I would not assume that מלאך יהוה means "THE Messenger of the LORD" in the sense that he is a specific messenger. Perhaps the ancients did see him as a specific being. I haven't investigated the subject.

    Secondly, most of the above passages refer to multiple messengers. If מלאך יהוה is indeed a specific messenger he could be included, but this is complete and utter speculation.

    Thirdly, and more important for the overall discussion, I see no indication in the scriptures connecting מלאך יהוה to Yeshua. I think some of this interpretation comes from anthropomorphisms, such as "the finger of God".
    On the contrary, the writer to the Hebrews contrasts Yeshua to the messengers.

    "In many parts, and many ways, God of old having spoken to the fathers in the prophets, in these last days did speak to us in a Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He did make the ages; who being the brightness of the glory, and the impress of His subsistence, bearing up also the all things by the saying of his might -- through himself having made a cleansing of our sins, sat down at the right hand of the greatness in the highest,
    having become so much better than the messengers, as he did inherit a more excellent name than they.

    For to which of the messengers said He ever, `My Son thou art -- I to-day have begotten thee?' and again, `I will be to him for a father, and he shall be to Me for a son?' and when again He may bring in the first-born to the world, He saith, `And let them bow before him -- all messengers of God;'and unto the messengers, indeed, He saith, `Who is making His messengers spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire;'and unto the Son: `Thy throne, O God, [is] to the age of the age; a scepter of righteousness [is] the scepter of thy reign;'"
    [Hebrews 1:1-8, Young's Literal]

    ReplyDelete
  3. First, I think that you should share your ideas about מלאך יי (the messenger of YHWH) not being equivalent to ישוע (Yeshua). That idea is a spreading fad, and yet there are many strong arguments against it.

    Second, I want to propose a possible explanation of what מלאך יי is meant to signify in the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible). At the dedication of the Temple, Shlomo (Solomon) said:

    כי האמנם ישב אלהים על הארץ הנה השמים ושמי השמים לא יכלכלוך אף כי הבית הזה אשר בניתי - מלכים א, ח, כז

    For does God really dwell upon the earth? Look, the heavens -- and the heavens of the heavens -- do not contain you! How then this house that I have built? [1 Kings 8:27]

    In their book The Holographic Universe, Michael Talbot and David Bohm concluded on the basis of current scientific theory: "In other words, despite its apparent materiality and enormous size, the universe does not exist in and of itself, but is the stepchild of something far vaster and more ineffable. More than that, it is not even a major production of this vaster something, but is only a passing shadow, a mere hiccup in the greater scheme of things."

    This understanding is very close to the view expressed in Tanakh of the relationship between God and the created universe.

    Now, both these understandings suggest that God (or the greater Reality of which the universe is only a 'passing shadow') cannot 'fit' into our universe.

    What then if God wants to 'appear' within our universe, as Tanakh mentions him doing in several places?

    Speculatively, we might conclude that he would then send a 'part' of himself, described as a 'messenger' (מלאך), who could 'fit' into this universe. Such an interpretation is also supported by such passages as Gen. 18-19.

    Of course there is no way that any human can claim to have a perfect understanding of these matters! I am simply trying to understand what the text may be describing when speaking of מלאך יי.

    Moreover, there may of course be more than one type of מלאך יי. I.e., that phrase may not always refer to exactly the same being or reality. As you mentioned above, it is grammatically ambiguous. It could mean "the messenger of YHWH" or simply "a messenger of YHWH."

    But the idea of God taking a 'part' of himself and sending that as a 'messenger' into this universe may have some relevance for considering both these questions: who or what is מלאך יי? who or what is ישוע?

    ReplyDelete