Reading Again (Again)
There is a time to act for God; set aside the Torah Psalm 119:126 (Heschel)
To act for God – You won’t get this translation in the English Bibles. Most English Bibles, and a lot of translations of the Jewish Tanakh, read something like, “It is time for the Lord to act, for they have broken Your law.” But Heschel’s translation is certainly legitimate. In fact, the Hebrew text is quite difficult with verbal constructions that appear as nouns and ambiguous case and tense problems. Robert Alter notes that the verse is understood in many different ways. Heschel’s point drives home the lesson that Torah study is not the goal of faith. God is the goal of faith, and at times, it is necessary to set aside the Torah in order to draw closer to the Author. “It is easier to study than to pray. It is harder to become a God fearing person than a scholar.”[1]
Oh, how we know this to be true! Hundreds of books on the shelf. Thousands of pages on hundreds of words. Commentary after commentary. Where does that leave us? Right where we started, still unable to pray for an hour without constant mental dispersion. How much closer are we to the Father for all the study we have done? How much more do we have joy as a constant companion? Or are we not simply more educated, more conversant with Scripture, more arrogant in our understanding?
There are times when Torah needs to be set aside. There are times when work for God is all that keeps us attached to Him. The rituals are empty without His presence. The rites are a sham without the Spirit. And yet we continue to do them, knowing full well that we have side-stepped the real lover of our souls. When was the last time you were bathed in the holiness of God? Was it that long ago? Has life become such a burden of routines that even He is pushed to the edges?
We could go on today, talking about the grammar of this most difficult Hebrew verse. We could search the etymologies and the pictographs. We could wax eloquently on its implications and connections. We could – but why would we when we know what the real issue is? “Where are you?” the Lord asks Adam. He asks us the same question. Where are we when we should be right next to Him?
There is a time to act for God. It is now.
Topical Index: time, et, Torah, prayer, scholar, Psalm 119:126
[1] Abraham Heschel, A Passion for the Truth, p. 56.
I like the way Hebrew can be correct in more than one way. So amazing that in one stroke, both the shirkers of Torah and the hiders behind Torah get reminded that the Author of Torah is the real Power of Torah. And not to be denied!
I am breathless. Again.
Thank you!
God is the goal of faith … Love this!
I understand what Heschel is trying to say, but why use this verse for that?
How can “they have broken [hiphil perfect 3pl] your Torah” mean “stop [imperative] studying your Torah” in the context of this verse? [The ayin section of Ps 119]
(Psa 119:125 ESV) I am your servant; give me understanding, that I may know your testimonies!
(Psa 119:127 ESV) Therefore I love your commandments above gold, above fine gold.
try reading the P-R as a “breaking forth” instead of P-R-R as “breaking apart”. In other words, it’s time for “the doing” of it, instead of the learning of it.
YHWH bless you and keep you……
Better ask him. 🙂 Rabbis often see things others do not.
I agree, Rein – I was thinking the same thing. Although the Hebrew is often ambiguous, the context must inform the understanding (English can be the same with all our homophones that make for some great puns).
For me, the issue starts with the end of the verse. תֹּורָתֶֽךָ can only be “Your Torah”, not “the Torah”. Therefore, if one is addressing Adonai and the phrase “set aside” is interpreted as imperative, then the Psalmist is asking Yah to set aside HIs Torah. Not going to happen.
The phrase at the beginning looks initially like a nominal sentence, except that לַעֲשֹׂות is in the infinitive construct form (and it looks like incorporating the definite article as well) and thus must be read “the working of“, thus it must be working of something or someone. The answer is, of course, לַיהוָה, “Adonai”. I would not have expected the “la” prefix here but that may just be a feature of poetry – sometimes prefixes are omitted or added for “poetic licence”. יהוָה is already definite so technically no definite article is needed for the entire construct chain – it is automatically definite.
The first word then, עֵת is from עַד , but with a vowel change that suggests to me that it is also in feminine construct form, thus “time of”. If this is the case we now have a construct form with 3 nouns and because of “la’Adonai” it is automatically definite, thus “The time of the working of Adonai.”
I might have to run this one past my Hebrew teacher (since we’re currently studying poetry and often unexpected differences between that and narrative/prose).
Blessings!
Very interesting.
Just a quick note about the definiteness of la.
When a preposition is attached to a word that begins with a guttural, the vowel of the chateph vowel will be added to the preposition. So when the guttural has a chateph patach, the patch ends up underneath the preposition.
In both cases the lamed is before a guttural. In the first word it is an ayin, in the second instance it is before the Name, and it behaves like it is in front of the word Adonai. This is a Qere perpetuum. So the prefix is actually lə [lamed with Shewa] which receives a patach due to grammar rules.
Time to weigh in, a little. I am sure that Heschel knew the grammar of Hebrew. Fluent in four languages, I have no doubt he understood the grammatical peculiarities of this verse–and the perhaps odd construction he suggested. But that doesn’t make it wrong. In fact, the genius of a great rabbi is to be able to say, “Ah, but don’t read it like that. Read it like this,” and then show us something that the “rules” would never allow us to see. Rabbis tend to “play” with the text. One can only do this when the natural language is so well understood that variants can be constructed from the space between the lines. Lewis Carroll could do it in English. So could e.e. cummings. The rest of us must follow the map.
This argument always bothered me, because it doesn’t make sense to me.
I really don’t know how to reconcile this with a statement you made in TW Jun20/14 [the next TW]
(A statement I agree with)
“Finally, in order to reconcile this verse (….), we have to say that what the verse plainly says is not what the verse really means. But who is the authority on the meaning of this verse? The author or the translator/theologian? The choice of the verb horizo is Paul’s. He is the only one who decides what he meant. He chooses a verb that is essentially about limitation and only figuratively about appointing or declaring. What are we to make of this?”
In my humble opinion a Sod explanation can never override the Peshat level. Because if it could, you can make it say anything you like. It just depends on how much imagination you have as an exegete. That is genius indeed, but it doesn’t make it right.
Yes, Rein, you are quite right. I actually realised this tonight after our lesson, before I read your reply. Thaks for keeping me on my toes. 🙂
I mean, “thanks.”.
AWESOME TRUTH SKIP – AWESOME TRUTH!!!!!!!!!! WONDERFUL, WONDERFUL!! YES!! The ONE most critical word to be spoken today! Oh Father! Let every blind eye be open to You today-and pour Your oil over Skip!
Right between the eyes! Just printed that one to keep in my Bible. So good; so timely. Registered for the Sandpoint, Idaho weekend yesterday. God bless you.
BULL’S EYE!!!
Best TW yet. We won’t study in eternity as we will know Him as He is. Its best to start the intimate relationship now.
You said, “there is a time to act for God.”
Some would say, “Make time for God to act through you.”
“He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart
will flow rivers of living water.” Jn 7:38