As a male, I find it both a source of frustration and delight that women can think along completely different trajectories at the exact same time. Currently, I am in the delight mode. So I just wanted to take a moment to glory in the feminine mind.
We males think in certain ways about certain things. And in order to change the way we are thinking, we either have to abandon the one way of thinking for the other, or we have to smash another up against it until the winner takes precedence (hey, just because I’m non-violent doesn’t mean my mind works that way!). It is difficult for us to work at a discipline amorphously and it becomes bothersome when hard-fought boundaries are softened or, perhaps, bent into areas they don’t belong according to our classifying, organizing, and compartmentalizing way of thinking. And that is exactly the point at which the female mind shines so radiant.
At the moment, I am reading a short little book called The New Historicism by Gina Hens-Piazza. I knew I was in for a treat the moment I began reading. Here is a biblical criticism which defies normal boundaries between practices and threatens to unite seemingly disparate and differentiated concepts. At least, that is the male reaction. And it is humorous to read that she experienced that reaction as well when she first stumbled into the field. Although, perhaps first
and stumbled
don’t do her justice. She did, after all, spend a great deal of time previous to this book working in Rhetorical Criticism, ANOTHER discipline that moves freely between usually oppositional methods, concepts, and practices.
The past several centuries of modern biblical study were ruled and presided over by men and their male ways of thinking. And, suddenly, in the fourth quarter of the 20st Century (at least for biblical studies), women have stormed into the arena and upset the balance of the whole system. What wonderfully masculine terms and concepts balance
and system
are. And yet what a wonderful turn of events to have the feminine mind finally released from the male structures (another good masculine term) that governed her. In a way, it is alarming. The male can seem to think that the ship on which he has sailed so long on such a proud journey is suddenly under attack. And by unseen assailants! But that is exactly what we men need. If the male can only work within and withstand the forms that male minds present him, what good is he? The rocking and perhaps overturning of our boats is what enables us to build better ships with which to sail and conquer the seas of our discovery. For too long we have considered women unable to lend a hand either to critical scholastic or religious and theological peregrinations, and it has only been to the frustration of our own goals: the acquisition and employment of truer and better knowledge. It is a glory of the woman that she thinks different than the man, just as it is a glory of the man that he thinks differently than the woman. Together, we may serve as checks and balances to our own self-serving interests and perspectives. Together, the sum of two different dimensions of sight can become three-dimensional. I am pleased that such progress is being made in the house of academia, but disheartened that the house of God is lagging so far behind. Not until scripture is taught and interpreted in our churches by as many women as men will a truly holistic picture of what us religious folk call the word of God
be open and available to all. Hey, yo, sista! Bring it!
Behold, beloved reader, I admonish and advise you, if you seek God with all your heart, and do not wish to be deceived; depend not upon men and their doctrine, no matter however old, holy and excellent they may be esteemed; for the divines, both ancient and modern are opposed to each other; but put your trust, alone in Christ and his word, in the sure instruction and practice of his holy apostles, and you will through the grace of God, be perfectly safe from all false doctrines and the power of the devil; and may walk with a free and pious mind before God.
As a Mennonite, I think Menno Simons had some very important—nay, necessary things to say. And while I appreciate the way Menno focuses faith around the words and ways of Yeshua, including the praxis of the apostles and disciples of the early church, I am deeply concerned with his reliance upon Sola Scriptura evident in the phrase above. Whom among us will say, looking at history, that he spoke truly? That after people turned away from outside instruction and sought wisdom, understanding, doctrine, and faith simply and solely through reading the scriptures, that this caused false doctrines to fall away and that it led to better and clearer understanding? Dear reader, whether you are a follower of Yeshua or otherwise, can you honestly say that the mass of Protestants in the world today have found more common ground and drawn closer together in common truth on account of their free
reading of biblical texts than otherwise? Has not Menno’s sincere belief in the illumination provided by scriptural reading birthed a myriad of conflicting interpretations, gave rise to multitudes of contrasting beliefs, splintered those who would follow Yeshua into a plethora of factions, spawned hordes of mystery sects and end-time cults, and cast a great many into what seems to be impenetrable darkness?
One of Menno’s favorite words to describe scripture is plain.
The plain meaning. The plain reading. The plain understanding. What is stated plainly. We Anabaptists like to use the word plain,
but what we mean is a turning away/separation from worldly things like materialism, fashion, luxury, hedonism, or dependence on tyrannical and oppressive systems that take away our self-governance or endanger the outworking of our faith by making it subservient to other interests and powers. For Menno, however, plain
was how one approached or understood scripture. Truth was available to all if only we would turn away from the hardness of our hearts, listen, and accept what scripture says. One could take one of Anabaptism’s fundamental criticisms as an opposing example:
Remember also how the early writers contended about infant baptism. Had it been apostolic, and found in the gospel, why should they have thus wrangled?
If such were a true criteria, it would invalidate a great many things Menno himself took to be self-evident. As an example, for some time, the number of Christians who believed in Arianism may actually have been greater than those who believed in Trinitarianism. It took an ecclesiastical debate, whose conclusion was backed up by the excommunication and banishment of any Christian who believed differently through the power of the Emperor, in order to make Trinitarianism the orthodox and valid scriptural interpretation for the church. Trinitarianism is no more contained in scripture or defined by the apostles than infant baptism. Yet Menno would hardly abandon the first.
What Menno overlooked (and what many other Modernists continue to overlook) is the part that one’s own perception, culture, time, experience, language, world-views, etc, play in the formation of meaning. We are, in a very real sense, prisoners of culture and history. Plain
the scriptures may have been to a Palestinian Jew in the First Century. Plain
they are no longer—either to a Radical Dutch Reformer or to us. It is a fanciful delusion, I think, to say that YHWH will bypass our own cultural, historical, and mental structures of thinking and understanding in order to reveal divine truth to us. If that were the case—if YHWH did reveal truth to us which came from outside our own perceptive lens, how could we possibly know it unless we changed and warped it to make it subservient to that lens? The way to true understanding does not come by denying the existence and influence of one’s perceptive lens, but by allowing new ways of thinking and understanding (at least to us) to change our lens. If we want to understand what texts written by Jews in Palestine in the First Century meant, we need to think like a First Century Palestinian Jew. And that will, by no means, involve turning away from outside instruction to simply and naively read the text and see it as we see it.
This is, indeed, a disparagement of Sola Scriptura. Apart from the traditions and doctrines of humanity, no divine meaning or understanding can exist. It may sound pious to say you have rejected worthless human traditions in order to follow, unadulterated, only that which is revealed in the biblical texts, but all you have really done is replaced one human tradition or doctrine with another and pretended to eliminate it from consideration. While I respect Menno on account of many significant insights and the fruits of a faith that was real, I must at the same time gainsay the naively impressionistic method he advocated. It does not befit the one who calls themself a child of YHWH or follower of Yeshua to take scripture so lightly as to think it requires nothing from us other than an honest and open heart in order to yield up its treasures.
I recently attended a church meeting in which a biblical professor and Christian believer gave a lecture intending to address several issues that we (and many other churches) are currently struggling with. One of the main arguments that this professor presented was that there really is no such thing as outer defilement. Defilement only comes from within. This was based primarily on a pericope concerning hand washing in Mark, especially chapter 7, verse 15, where Yeshua says there is nothing outside a person that defiles, but what comes out of them. I have two objections to this, which follow below.
First, Yeshua does not seem to me to be a Greek Stoic or Hellenistic philosopher elucidating moral verities or stating absolute truths. I think Yeshua was a Jew from an Israelite community. As a Jew and not a Hellenistic philosopher, his words should not be taken as an absolute truism meaning literally nothing outside a person defiles because defilement only comes from within. Rather, Yeshua is probably speaking within and according to the ancient Judaic concept of water purification. This concept is, roughly, that when you have purifying water, which is flowing or running (sometimes called living
) and a defiled person or object, the defiled person or object does not contaminate the pure water by coming in contact with it. Rather, the defiled person or object is cleansed when it comes in contact with purifying water. The thing that makes water purifying, and thus not susceptible to outside defilement, is the fact that it is running or connected to a some great source beyond it. So, for instance, if you have a bucket of pure water and something defiled falls into it, the water becomes defiled (Lev 11:33). But if you pour the pure water out of the bucket onto something defiled, the defilement does not travel up the stream of water into the bucket and defile the source from whence it came. Instead, the defiled thing is cleansed. I believe this is the particular conception and idea that Yeshua had in mind when he said nothing outside defiles. Instead of meaning that there is literally nothing outside a person that can defile them, Yeshua was saying that he and his disciples were conduits of living
water. As such, when defilement touched them, they cleansed it instead of becoming defiled by it. If, however, they were to corrupt themselves and cease to be conduits of living water, they could certainly be contaminated by outside defilement. So it wasn’t as if outer defilement suddenly ceased to exist, and it wasn’t that outer, physical defilement was an outdated or silly religious belief replaced by the higher or better inner, spiritual focus of Yeshua and Christianity. It was that Yeshua had drunk of a Source, offered that Source to his disciples, and they became springs of living water that cleansed others instead of being defiled by them.
Second, when a Jew wanted to cleanse or purify themselves of defilement, whether inwardly or outwardly, they would enter a place where there was running water and submerge themselves within it. This is exactly what Yeshua did when he was baptised in the Jordan river and his actions would communicate to every Jew who saw him that he was purifying himself from defilement. If Yeshua was not purifying himself from defilement, then what was he doing performing a ritual that meant that to everyone around him and in the culture in which he existed? Unless we are willing to say Yeshua was deceiving both us and them or participated in the baptism ritual for no reason, we must say that he was cleansing himself from defilement. And if so, where was that defilement? If Yeshua was sinless, he had no inner defilement to be cleansed of. If Yeshua was without sin, he was inwardly pure. He could not, therefore, be repenting and cleansing himself of inner defilement. That only leaves outer defilement. But if Yeshua is pure inwardly and is cleansing himself of outward defilement, it proves that his words in Mark cannot mean, literally or Hellenistically, that nothing outside a person defiles. How then could it be that Yeshua, who is a conduit of living water in Mark 7, would be outwardly defiled at his baptism? Simple enough. He hadn’t yet been connected to the Source of the living water. This happened after he was baptised and the Spirit descended upon him. Only after Yeshua was cleansed of his outer defilement could he be fully joined to YHWH and offer those who were defiled a drink from his cleansing cup.
If any man has uttered the [Most] Venerable Name even though frivolously, or as a result of shock or for any other reason whatsoever, while reading the Book or blessing, he shall be dismissed and shall return to the Council of the Community no more.
The Community Rule, 1QS, 6:27-7:2
It is ironic that the Dead Sea sect, which held such high regard for Torah and the Prophets, should go so far as to exclude and banish all who would utter the Most Venerable Name
even though the very texts that defined who they were and around which they ordered their entire lives speak the Name with almost reckless abandon. Had Moses or Isaiah lived in their day, the Dead Sea sect would have ostracised them for blasphemy whilst quoting from their texts as the foundation of their existence. As it stands, however, it is likely that the Dead Sea sect’s strict, non-biblical tradition will be satisfied, since it is probably the case that no one knows how the tetragrammaton was originally pronounced—assuming, of course, that it is the tetragrammaton that was meant. The name revealed to Moses in Exodus is actually אהיה אשׁר אהיה. Whatever the name may or may not be, however, misses the point anyway because in the ancient world, the meaning of one’s name didn’t have much to do with the sounds of consonants and vowels, but referred to a person’s character, being, and role in society. A deity’s name
often referred specifically to their creative force and power and giving things names served to take part in the process of creation. That is why many ancient near eastern creation accounts–including Genesis–refer to the gods as giving form and existence to matter and being by naming them. When Adam named
the animals, this wasn’t significant because he was calling them something vocally, but because he was ordaining what they were and in a very real sense defining their existence. Perhaps the most ironic thing about not speaking the name of YHWH is that, in terms of the ancient world, to fail to speak the name of a deity is to deny that god’s existence. Surely that is the greater blasphemy. Then again, one could always be on the safe side and just say Jehovah.
Rethink Afghanistan: Christianity and the Global War on Terror
featuring Jake Diliberto and Glen Stassen
Thursday, Oct 22, 7:00-9:00 PM, Fuller Theological Seminary, Travis Auditorium
In light of the recent escalation of the US presence in Afghanistan, and the 8th year anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan, the conversation has often evaded Christians. What are we supposed to think about the global war in light of our faith?
Jake is a Fuller student, and a decorated marine veteran of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Africa. His is a unique story of transformation from a maker of violence to a just-peace peacemaker. He now questions US military policy and the US presence in the Middle East. Jake has testified before congress, and is the founder of Veterans for Rethink Afghanistan,
an organization which has mobilized 20 million peace
activists. Come to hear his story, and why we need to rethink Afghanistan.
Peace and Justice Advocates will show a portion of the poignant documentary created by Rethink Afghanistan. Fuller’s Christian Ethics Professor Dr. Glen Stassen will offer a theological and ethical reflection on the situation.
It is always exciting to stand among a group of Christians who are seriously seeking a way to achieve a good end through nonviolent means instead of supporting violence as a means to that end or even simply accepting it as a necessary evil. More often than not, I stand alone. Even Anabaptists and Mennonites like myself (we who are the historical Peace Church of Protestantism) are divided on the issue. There are large numbers of Anabaptists who have chosen to follow Luther’s two kingdom
dichotomy in which YHWH has willed two different kingdoms to exist side-by-side (the church and the world), providentially ordaining that one should operate one way (do no violence or evil = the church) and one the other (do violence and what would be considered evil of a Christian in order to maintain justice and peace = the world).
On the other hand, even among a group of Christians seeking an end to war and violence like the one meeting this Thursday in Pasadena, there will be some who are there for reasons that I do not share, like, for instance, because they are leftist, liberal Democrats who are pushing their political party’s propaganda and/or agenda, or because they have false notions of social, religious, and political realities, or even, perhaps, because they are stirred more by emotions, guilt, and even false guilt, than they are by reason. Last time I attended one of these meetings, it seemed to me that frightening statistics concerning the escalation in major international terrorist attacks were being fallaciously shoehorned into a polemic against the U.S.’s support and use of torture instead of acknowledging the many other things that have contributed significantly to the dumbfounding rise in terrorist violence that we have seen in the West over the past decade. Hopefully, those attending the meeting this time around will be more willing to struggle with the truths of the matter and not what those in the group wish those truths would be.
The separation of personal from social salvation made it possible for Bible-believing slave traders to conduct daily devotions on ships carrying human cargo like cattle.
Dale Brown, Biblical Pacifism: A Peace Church Perspective, p. 141
As a Mennonite, I really resonate with the message of this quote. It reminds me that the gospel message can be narrowed down into something that is only inner, personal, and individual, at which point it tends to focus on a kind of salvation from or out of the world, forgetting that the gospel is also about salvation within or for the world. We reclaim this aspect of the gospel when we remember that Yeshua’s salvation was social just as much as it was personal. That he didn’t come only to save us from our sins, from our guilt, or from the influence of sin in our lives, but to free those who were captives to physical and social ills or evils, to bring healing and restoration to heart, mind, and body, and to challenge and overthrow authorities, powers, and structures through self-sacrifice, peace, love, mercy, and by returning evil with good. The Christ who died on a cross for our sins is the same Christ who said the greatest among us will be the servant of all, who told us to give what we had to the poor, who said whatever we did (or by contrast did not do) to the very least of those among us is what we did (or did not do) to him, who reached out to bring healing, restoration, and redemption to those on the boundaries of or even outside the accepted order: women, children, immigrants, untouchables, national and ethnic enemies. YHWH is at work reconciling not just ourselves, but all creation, to himself through Yeshua.
And it was ordained that a man should salute his fellow with [the use of] the Name [of God]; for it is written, And, Behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem, and said unto the reapers, The Lord be with you.
And they answered him, The Lord bless thee.
(Ruth 2:4) And it is written, The Lord is with thee, thou mighty man of valour.
(Judges 6:12)
m. Berakoth 9:5, scripture references added
Later Jewish tradition holds that the name of YHWH is ineffable and therefore offers various other substitutes in its place such as Adonai (meaning My Lord
) or Ha Shem (literally meaning The Name
). In fact, the very texts that underly the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament do not give us the correct pronunciation, substituting instead the vowels for words like Adonai or Elohim (which can make things complicated and difficult for translations that refuse to use the Tetragrammaton). All this, however, is a very late concept and practice in ancient Israel. Throughout most of their history, Israelites were quite open and willing to speak the actual name of YHWH as this quote from the Mishnah attests. In fact, when we read the actual Hebrew texts, we see that the name itself was spoken quite frequently. The psalms themselves, which were used liturgically by the priests and people in the Temple and synagogues, made use of the name extensively. What the actual pronunciation of the name is, however, may be lost to us. A general consensus of scholarship makes the name to be pronounced Yahweh.
However, this is mere conjecture based primarily on an assumption of the linguistic root of the name and its supposed form for which we have no evidence.
And it is written, It is time to work for the Lord: they have made void thy Law (Psa 119:126). R. Nathan says: They have made void thy Law because it was a time to work for the Lord.
m. Berakoth 9:5, scripture references added
This is a fun quote because it puts things into better perspective. Some people can focus almost entirely on the problem of breaking Torah or can make the avoidance of breaking Torah a primary concern. But this was only one concern of ancient Israelites. Sometimes, it was necessary to break Torah in order to do what YHWH wanted or required! For instance, an incredible event occurs in the Chronicler’s history of Israel in which the people return to YHWH with their whole hearts after having turned away for so long. They threw down the altars, cleansed their city of idolatry and evil, then determined to re-instigate the ceremony of Passover, which had not been kept in a long time. Unfortunately, they are unable to keep it on the day (or its alternate) commanded by Torah. Additionally, they are forced to break other portions of Torah related to cleanliness and purification. Great multitudes, including four of the twelve tribes, take the Passover defiled in disobedience to the direct commandments of YHWH. Despite doing the rituals defiled and unclean and on a day forbidden to its practice, YHWH forgave Israel, returned to her, and blessed her. Instead of celebrating for one week, the people extended Passover to two weeks and it became one of the most celebrated Passovers in Israel’s history. (See 2 Chronicles 30:17-20, 23, 26-27)
The tension between keeping Torah because that’s what YHWH wanted or required and breaking Torah in order to meed the wants or requirements of YHWH is something the Jews struggled with throughout their history. To give a realistic example of this tension: what do you do if you have been commanded by YHWH to keep the Sabbath by doing no work, it is the Sabbath, you are worshiping in the Temple, and hordes of gentiles come swarming down over Jerusalem ready to slaughter everyone? If you fight, then you break the Sabbath that YHWH commanded you to keep. If you don’t fight, then you are slaughtered, the holy Temple that YHWH commanded to keep clean and holy is defiled and becomes an abomination, and the daily sacrifices that were commanded by YHWH to be kept by you are no longer offered. It’s not an easy question to answer. Various Israelites themselves came up with different answers throughout their history.
The answer Yeshua gave is that the Sabbath was made for humanity–humanity wasn’t made for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27), meaning the Sabbath is supposed to serve humanity, not the other way around. If the Sabbath ceases to serve humanity, then there is nothing wrong with breaking it. Indeed, it is better to break it! It might even be a sin to NOT break Sabbath! If Sabbath cease to serve humanity, to then turn around and serve the Sabbath would be to make it into an idol. So it is with the rest of Torah. Torah is not absolute and universal. It is not meant to be kept regardless of anything. On the contrary, it was Israel’s relationship with YHWH that made Torah significant. Destroy or change that relationship and Torah ceases to be much of anything.
The Mishnaic Musings are a periodic series of posts where I reflect on one thing or another in the compendium of the Oral Law (the Mishnah) as I read through it for the first time. Quoted portions are taken from Hebert Danby’s eminent single-volume edition, The Mishnah, published by Oxford University Press.
He [a man] may not enter into the Temple Mount with his staff or his sandal or his wallet, or with the dust upon his feet, nor may he make of it a short by-path; still less may he spit there.
m. Berakoth 9:5
Those familiar with the gospel texts of the New Testament should have heard an echo of one of Yeshua’s statements to his disciples in this quote. I have explored the parallels between Yeshua’s statement and the old Temple Mount traditions in a series of posts entitled Shake The Dust Off Your Feet Part I, Part II, and Part III.
At the close of every Benediction in the Temple they used to say, For everlasting
; but after the heretics [Sadducees] had taught corruptly and said that there is but one world, it was ordained that they should say, From everlasting to everlasting.
m. Berakoth 9:5
We are, of course, getting this information from a source with its own biases, agendas, and perspectives. It may be the case that certain groups or sects wanted to change the closing of the Benediction to from everlasting to everlasting
and even taught those who followed their particular traditions to do so, but this doesn’t mean it was actually done that way officially in the Temple. It may have been the case that whoever closed the Benediction did so according to their particular tradition. But it is certainly interesting to discover where this particular saying had its impetus.
The Mishnaic Musings are a periodic series of posts where I reflect on one thing or another in the compendium of the Oral Law (the Mishnah) as I read through it for the first time. Quoted portions are taken from Hebert Danby’s eminent single-volume edition, The Mishnah, published by Oxford University Press.
Man is bound to bless [God] for the evil even as he blesses [God] for the good, for it is written, And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy might (Deut 6:5). With all thy heart—with both thine impulses, thy good impulse and thine evil impulse; and with all thy soul—even if he take away thy soul; and with all thy might—with all thy wealth.
m. Berakoth 9:5
The first part reminds me of Job’s response to his wife:
Shall we receive the good at the hand of God, and not receive the bad?
Job 2:10b, NRSV
This is a question that demands an answer. And here is mine. If God is a good and just God according to any definition of good and just that we could comprehend and count on, then yes. If, however, God is capricious, if his goodness is beyond our comprehension or his justice cannot be counted on or measured by any human definition, then no. In drawing this conclusion, I stand in direct conflict with the message of the scroll of Job, which outlines the second situation and replies to the question in the affirmative. For more on this, see Rejecting Job Part 1 and Part 2.
The second part of the quote represents a classic interpretation that would surface again and again in Jewish understanding for many centuries to come. It was made particularly famous by the school of Rabbi Akiva, whose unique understandings would eventually come to dominate Jewish perspective. Akiva stressed suffering and evils against God’s people as something that was part of the plan of God. He actually rejoiced in receiving suffering and evil from the world. When asked why, he turned to this verse and this interpretation. The word translated soul
is more accurately translated life.
Akiva believed that loving the Lord your God with all your life had its ultimate fulfillment in a willingness to give one’s entire life up to destruction because of obedience to God. For Akiva, this present world was of little importance—he set his heart, eyes, and mind on the world to come—and so he was more than willing to have his soul
taken from this world so that he could fulfill this great commandment.
Anabaptists stand near to this tradition in their radical love ethic. Our understanding of Christianity is that of Nachfolge Christi–following after Christ
with one’s entire life, even to the point of death. And, indeed, because Anabaptists knew that the way of Christ was in drastic opposition to the way of the world, they knew their following of Christ would cause them to come into sharp conflict with the world, thus resulting in their suffering, persecution, and even death. Anabaptists, however, embraced this suffering, persecution, and death because it proved that they were following Christ—for Christ himself suffered, was persecuted, and received death at the hands of the world. This all stemmed from the radical Anabaptist belief that true Christianity was not merely an inward acceptance or experience of grace and faith as Luther believed it, but also an outward expression of a fully committed life in all its aspects to the way of Christ. Anabaptists looked for and demanded the fruits of the Spirit in outward living to such an extent and with such consistency that Lutherans, Catholics, and Calvinists began hunting down and persecuting non-Anabaptists as of they were Anabaptists simply because such believers’ outward lives were irreproachable!
I am being maligned, by both preachers and others, with the charge of being Anabaptist, even as all others who lead a true, pious Christian life are now almost everywhere given this name.
Caspar Schwenckfeld, Epistolar (1564), 1, 203, English translation by Harold Bender
There are those who in reality are not Anabaptists but have a pronounced averseness to the sensuality and frivolity of the world and therefore reprove sin and vice and are consequently called or misnamed Anabaptists by petulant persons.
Heinrich Bullinger (Reformation leader and fierce enemy of Anabaptism), Der Wiedertöufferen Ursprung (1561), fol. 170r., English translation by Harold Bender
But what made the love ethic of Anabaptism so radical was not just that it sought to extend love to God by obeying him with one’s entire life, both inward and outward, but also because it sought to extend love to all humanity–even one’s enemies. In a culture, world, and time in which the proper Christian response to one’s enemies was to either coerce them into Christian faith through force and violence or to slaughter them, Anabaptists were pledged to fulfill both great commandments (to love the Lord their God and to love their neighbor as themselves). In so doing, whether by living or dying, they were committed to loving the Lord their God with all their life.
The Mishnaic Musings are a periodic series of posts where I reflect on one thing or another in the compendium of the Oral Law (the Mishnah) as I read through it for the first time. Quoted portions are taken from Hebert Danby’s eminent single-volume edition, The Mishnah, published by Oxford University Press.
The shofar [blown in the Temple] at the New Year was [made from the horn] of the wild goat, straight, with its mouthpiece overlaid with gold. And at the sides [of them that blew the shofar] were two [that blew upon] trumpets. The shofar blew a long note and the trumpets a short note, since the duty of the day fell on the shofar.
m. Rosh Hashanah 3:3
This is peculiar because it suggests that the horn notes
on the first of Tishri were long.
Perhaps it only meant long relative to the sound of the trumpets, because the sort of sound decreed on that day in Leviticus and Numbers was a t’ruah. It was a short blast on the horn used as an alarm signal, not a long or prolonged sounding, which went by an entirely different name. The biblical texts refer to the New Year as the Day of T’ruah or a Rememberance by T’ruah (see Mishnaic Musings 7), which specifically means a day of short, alarm-like blasts. And it is fairly evident that what is in mind is not short trumpet blasts, but short ram’s horn blasts.
And it came to pass when Moses held up his hand that Israel prevailed, and when he let down his hand Amalek prevailed (Exod 17:11). But could the hands of Moses promote the battle or hinder the battle!–it is, rather, to teach thee that such time as the Israelites directed their thoughts on high and kept their hearts in subjection to their Father in heaven, they prevailed; otherwise they suffered defeat. After the like manner thou mayest say, Make thee a fiery serpent and set it upon a standard, and it shall come to pass that every one that is bitten when he seeth it shall live (Num 21:8). But could the serpent slay or the serpent keep alive!–it is, rather, to teach thee that such time as the Israelites directed their thoughts on high and kept their hearts in subjection to their Father in heaven, they were healed; otherwise they pined away.
m. Rosh Hashanah 3:8
I would be interested in studying these two events more closely to try and figure out what might actually be going on with the raising of Moses’ hands and the making of the serpent. The Rabbinic interpretation offered here in the Oral Law is pleasing from a theological perspective, but not entirely satisfactory. The quote itself would seem to suggest that there were those who actually believed something more was going on in terms of the serpent itself or the raising of Moses’ hands than merely a way for the people to turn their thoughts and hearts to heaven, which one would presume them to be doing anyway when they were in the midst of peril and had seen YHWH work wonders on their behalf already.
The Mishnaic Musings are a periodic series of posts where I reflect on one thing or another in the compendium of the Oral Law (the Mishnah) as I read through it for the first time. Quoted portions are taken from Hebert Danby’s eminent single-volume edition, The Mishnah, published by Oxford University Press.
