Moses’ Face
It came about when Moses was coming down from Mount Sinai (and the two tablets of the testimony were in Moses’ hand as he was coming down from the mountain), that Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone because of his speaking with Him. Exodus 34:29 NASB
Shone – This painting on a ceiling in the Vatican demonstrates how translation errors creep into cultural images and affect subsequent ideas about people and biblical teaching. The rays of light emanating from Moses’ face are the artist’s rendition of the Hebrew term qaran, a word translated “horn,” or a symbol of strength or extensions from the side of the altar (see Taylor Marshall’s article for a discussion of the translation of this word[1]
Michelangelo’s sculpture of Moses with horns is the most famous example of this mistranslation, but the “horned” Moses is depicted in artistic works across Europe. We might dismiss this as a harmless mistake, but there is perhaps a more serious consequence. A horned Moses takes on the look of the Medieval devil. The Mosaic law appears to be in league with Satan, or at least its continuation after the age of “grace” is viewed as a fatal error. Grace does away with Law, right?
This example is just one of the many ways religious ideas are communicated not through careful exegesis but through cultural expressions, especially in the arts. Think of the representations of Yeshua as a northern European male, the scenes of the crucifixion as if they happened in Germany in the 18th Century, the representations of the Garden of Eden as lush Italian enclosures, complete with African animals. How much of what we imagine about biblical stories is really the product of Rembrandt, Caravaggio or Michelangelo rather than Isaiah, Mark or Paul? You and I are concerned about cultural exegesis, but maybe we have to erase some artistic license as well.
Topical Index: Moses, horn, art, Exodus 34:29
[1] http://taylormarshall.com/2013/08/the-horns-of-moses-defending-michelangelos-horned-moses.html
Well yah….
The criteria for “artistic genius” also ought to be re-defiend. Not only are the horns of concern, but aren’t those sphinges and little naked boys and/or girls hanging around with him. Who would trust such a guy? He looks like some perverted cult leader. And who would want those scrolls he’s peddling?
He does have a awesome beard though!
Makes me wonder if Michelangelo really did any more good for humankind or in esteeming YHVH than American (JEWISH) comedian Paul Reubens did in his very imaginative creation and playing of the comic fictional character and cult hero, Pee-wee Herman, in his Emmy Award-winning children’s series, Pee-wee’s Playhouse, Pee-wee’s Big Adventure, and Big Top Pee-wee. Sadly, in July 1991, during Reubens’ time of “success”, he was arrested in Sarasota, Florida for indecent behavior during a film at an adult movie theater. If Michelangelo and Reubens were in the same era, they may have collaborated in some “artistic” endeavor. Who knows?
Where are the TRUE artists, inspired by the Ruach of Elohim? Let us esteem THEM and THEIR works! Brilliant skills and talents, in and of themselves, that do not serve the YHVH Elohim, are no more to be esteemed than beautiful looking people who give themselves to pornographic movie making.
Maybe we need more discernment, to be more “set-apart”, devoted to the esteem of YHVH, stop compromising in who and what we do esteem, and be more bold ambassadors of the truth, exposing sin, unrighteousness, and error, instead of trying to be so “positive and affirming” of everyone and everything, like giving everyone a trophy for just participating, or like the “positive and encouraging” Christian radio program “K-LOVE”. And when is all this kind of thing really just sinful flattery?
“Now I urge you, brothers and sisters, to keep your eye on those who are causing divisions and stumbling blocks, contrary to the teaching that you learned. Turn away from them. For such people do not serve our Lord the Messiah, but only their own belly. By their smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.” [Rom 16:17-18]
Maybe we shouldn’t just give credit where credit is due. Maybe we should also give discredit where discredit is due, being sensitive and fair, of course.
*re-defined
I didn’t get this via email…. could you please resend?
Got it… maybe it was delayed…. sorry!
Let us not forget (oh, that I could) the images we have burned into our minds from our childhood days of Jesus as having blonde hair (or brown wavy), blue eyes, and a fair complexion. I wonder how many people naively pray in their minds eye to this icon/ idol of a Western artists rendition of a Greco Roman demi-god? There is a supernatural agenda engineered to deceive all mankind that operates on every platform of human endeavors including art. Be aware Beware. Be wary.
Where are we looking when we consider God? Outside of ourselves?
Psalm 46:10 has always intrigued me. “Be still, and know that I am God.”
Consider “I”.
When you say “I”, is that different than when I say “I”?
No.
Is it different when God says “I”? “I am.” Hmmm.
Seems to me we should always be looking where “I” is . . . within.
Let the creative artistic types have their myopic ways. Enjoy their efforts.
Then, be still. Yeshua said it: “the kingdom of God is within you”.
And: “that all of them be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.”
Makes me wonder.
I always like to at least skim through comments on articles such as the one referenced. I think this guy, Michael Duval (among some others), has something here:
Another commenter noted that the two ‘horns’ may be depicted here by Michelangelo in such a way to implicitly reference the two stones Moses was carrying.
thanks Craig. I assume the use of horns also implies male adult status. A bull or ox or stag all grow horns, reflecting their power and strength (and glory). Indeed many ancient cultures had their kings and military chiefs wear horned crowns, presumably to make a statement about power. Here is a question for you. Why is the word “elohim” used for Moses and not “eloah” or “elah” (I think those are the singular versions)? Normally elohim, when referring to a singular entity, means God. So can we conclude that Moses will speak and act as if he himself were God and Aaron was his prophet?
Yes, I think that is an example of agency, shaliah. Since I don’t know enough about Hebrew, I cannot adequately comment on the use of Elohim there, but I note that YHWH is exclusively reserved for God, and, unless I’m mistaken, there are no contexts in which YHWH is used for the agent. When Elohim is used elsewhere for “gods” (Ps 82:6, e.g.), is it only because those contexts happened to be in the plural? In other words, if any of those contexts would have been singular instead would Elohim have been used there, as well?
Relatedly, as far as I know, Moses never self-referenced using divine names/titles such as “the First and the Last”, e.g.
Sacks on Leviticus says “the striking feature of Leviticus is one of priestly ritual generally. It always uses the four-letter name of God, Hashem, as opposed to the priestly creation narrative which uses the word Elokim. Hashem is God as a person. Elokim is God as the force of forces, the totality of powers in the universe. In the moral life, Hashem represents compassion, Elokim strict justice. A sacrifice to Elokim would be a pagan act, an attempt to appease the forces of nature. A sacrifice is always to Hashem, an act of turning our face to His, an inherently personal gesture.”
What did Aaron do while Moses was away?
as always, Jonathan Sacks is insightful
Thanks George. The way I read Sacks (“Hashem is God as a person”) goes to a point I was going to make: In Exodus 4:16, Moses was functioning as shaliah, and it was as if he were Elohim, yet he was not in actuality YHWH, His person. This is essentially what we have today with powers of attorney (POE) in the relationship between the principal and the agent. When the principal (Smith) grants POE to the agent (Jones), Jones functions as if s/he were the principal, yet Jones is not the principal. Should Jones sign a document as agent, s/he must specifically sign as agent, identifying him/herself as such, rather than strictly using Smith’s name. In other words, the agent can do anything within the scope of the POE, however, Jones cannot call him/herself Smith. This aspect is a near-perfect analogy. Thus, calling oneself “the First and the Last” when acting as agent for YHWH would exceed the bounds of shaliah.
To see how strong this agency is, read Ex. 11:4-8 and ask yourself who’s speaking and who’s being spoken to.
Also, I don’t think “agency” quite captures the whole of the idea either. It’s about empowerment. If you read the account where Moses is told that he will be Elohim to Aaron, you’ll note that the declaration doesn’t say “as” Elohim (as it would be preceded by a cof) but rather it’s preceded by a lamed, which indicates it’s a toward or according to. In other words, Moses is the one who “tells” Aaron how it’s going to occur, just like Gen. 1 where Gods says…and it happens that way. If you read further in the account you’ll find that YHWH empowers both of them.
“Empowerment”. You handed me another stick of Mentene, Robert! This tripped a trigger.
Power is about choice. All of God’s sentient creation has free will. Our power comes from the freedom to choose and those choices (acts of will) are, in turn, blessed, or, powered, by their relative correspondence to the choices, or, will of God. To be empowered by God, then, is to experience choices that are lined up with His choices.
He gives ‘jobs’, or, assignments to His creatures, and then shapes His will around how those creatures choose to carry those jobs out. Moses didn’t want to speak; Aaron didn’t want to have direct contact with YHVH. YHVH kindly acquiesced to both (I have always found that amazing). Thus a chain of command was formed. Power (empowerment of choices) from above is the divine stamp of approval as fire is the divine acceptance of the sacrifice on the altar. For example, I see that Moses chose to throw his staff down but it was YHVH who empowered that staff to overpower the staves of the magicians.
Hence the reason men are called elohim. In the genesis account, it’s says that God created man, it goes on to say that in the image of God create (not created) him…..this is what I was saying about the term Elohim and our misunderstanding of its “biblical” use. It’s about those who are “making” the rules.
I am slowly catching on to that, and it has been VERY helpful. Thank you for your patience with me.
I have a question about the plurality of elohim. I need that explained in terms of how elohim functions, or, relates.
Thank you again!
Consider this, the “m” at the end of the word structures like when you put an “h” at the end to designate that it’s been made manifest. (Heh) El, is strength. Elh, is that strength displayed, hence Elohi, my God who displays His strength to me. The “I” is a designation as “ite” is in English. (Israel “ite”) The mem makes it plural, but not personally, but in a multitude of faucets. So Elohi”m” is the same as Elohi, but in a multitude of functional areas and circumstances. Tryin’ to be brief, hope that helps some.
Thank you for the insight. Robert
On Laurita interesting comment of accepting or accommodating the wishes of the agents. That is interesting as today the free will seems to be more that of an abdication towards individuals that choose to be agents… Or is it because they are not really agents?
So how will we know who is or is not an agent?
Or is the new agents face reflected as David’s face red…. Hard working into the issues relating to the one we choose as master…
The way I think experience has shown me so far, agents are known the same way everything else is known: by their fruit. It is not what we proclaim we are, but Who is glorified (Sender) and who is edified (recipient). If self, the audience or the world is glorified and the audience is likewise not edified or convicted (but instead is just impressed – or alienated) the Spirit of agency was absent.
I think you are right: people assign themselves as agent all the time. We can be sent agents one minute, but step over the line into self the next, but that line will be revealed in the fruit. We must rely on the fruit before we really ever know for sure exactly who sent us that particular moment, because the self is so desperately wicked and deceitful.
So often it is the times we find ourselves the most certain we were acting as God’s agents that can be the ones in which we were acting the most emphatically in the service of self. Humility is always the better part of valor for us mortals. I have found I am usually the safest if I got absolutely nothing out of the encounter except self doubt and embarrassment and a sense of falling short, and that is because I am still so very twisted.
Nicely explained thank you.
So, are you implying that the function determines the relative singularity or plurality of origin? If so, that would be VERY interesting to me.
Further question: would the plural usage, then, in the Creation account of the making of man indicate a “multitude of functional areas and circumstances” rather than a multitude (plurality) of origin (or, ‘form(s)’ of God)? If so, then would the focus (description) be on the appearance (result) of the action, rather than on the origin of that action? Skip keeps alluding to the very different ways of describing and understanding reality that the Hebrew uses. I am wondering if this might be one of those very different places?
Sounds a lot like Yeshua transformed into gathering of body into the kingdom.
That would be very close to the understanding just in accordance with the structure of the Hebrew. (paleo) Even the “our” in. …”let us make man in our “….. isn’t a plurality of person but of attached activity. It’s to enable him to function in the multitude of realms of rulership, discernment, etc. as God Himself made divisions and placed things in their proper order to increase.
Robert would this relate to the hundreds of (functionally descriptive) Names we find for God in the Bible?
Of course, just like the term translated helpmate is also used of God in relationship to the Israelites.
So we call the Name according to the relevant function? A Name for every function? (This is fun!) Extrapolated on out, if the functions (the actions of love) exist to complete all relationships, would character (Name) be considered a function of that completion (Israel needed a “Helpmate” so God’s character supplied that need to complete the relationship in that place)? I am really trying to learn how to think of Him as a verb! Help!
If you are interested in this line of thinking, I highly recommend listening to Rabbi David Aaron’s teachings on ‘Seeing God’. You can find them on his website isralight dot com under Media Library. It has helped me to understand God as a verb.
Thank you so much, Migdalah! Going now.
As I’ve stated, I do not know Hebrew, but Dr. Michael Brown, who is Jewish and has earned a PhD in Near Eastern Languages, has argued for the plurality of YHWH using the Tanakh. It’s been a while, but I saw him do so in his debate with Anthony Buzzard. I don’t recall exactly which texts and which words Brown used to defend his position, though. As I’m, admittedly, not equipped to debate this, I’m just throwing this out there.
I’m aware of Dr. Browns position, as well as many others. Again I’m looking at this from a paleo perspective and not from a “modernized” form of the Hebrew. Not debating the differences in views and scholarship, just laying some things out for consideration. I’m pretty sure neither one of us will judged on what we think is the right view of the words written, but on what our understanding impels us to do.
Me too Laurita – thanks for asking that
Robert,
Lots of good comments/thoughts while I’ve been out of pocket. I’ll try to address your various comments in one comment.
I see Ex. 11:4-8 no different than any other “thus saith the LORD” statement. In each, the prophet was the mouthpiece for God, and he was either quoting verbatim, paraphrasing, or being given the words in real time.
Regarding “empowerment”: a POE, Durable POE, and Executorship of Will all may allow some latitude, i.e. power, in addition to the typical power in the agent/principal relationship. With the DPOE this can even include the power of whether or not to ‘pull the plug’. In a POE, the agent may have leeway regarding investment options. An Executor of a will may be given some latitude in how the estate is to be divided up.
If you’re thinking of supernatural empowerment, then, while agency is not fully analogous, it is analogous. Any supernatural empowerment is only given within the scope of the particular situation. In other words, the shaliah is not given carte blanche.
Thanks for the help on the grammar, specifically the use of “lamed”. That sounds to me to be equivalent to the accusative. But I note the CJB renders Ex 4:16 “Thus he will be your spokesman to the people, in effect; for you, he will be a mouth; and for him, you will be like God.” This is just a different way of phrasing the NASB’s “…you will be as God to him”.
The reason I framed the question the way I did was it’s not Moses speaking, it’s Aaron. Yet it says, “and Moses said”…..just a thought on your statements of the Messiah claiming equality. Trying to put this “agency” in its order. Thanks for the response.
We know Aaron was Moses’ spokesman but why? Some think that Moses was simply not eloquent or had some sort of speech impediment, but I think it is more likely he just spoke Hebrew poorly as it was not his first language. We only have a record of one sentence he spoke to the two quarreling Hebrews before his exile. We might assume this was in Hebrew, but we don’t even know that for sure.
To be technical, Ex. 4:16 only says that Aaron would be a spokesman for Moses to the [Hebrew] “people”. As the current Pharaoh was another adopted son by the “Daughter of Pharaoh”, Moses and this man grew up together in the same household until Moses was forty years old. I would assume that they had many conversations together and Moses would have had no difficulty speaking with him directly in their common language.
The description given by Moses is that he’s heavy of mouth and heavy of tongue, but don’t forget that he was nourished in his mothers home in his younger years. God sent him to his people and to the king of Egypt in chapter 3 and that’s where the protest starts.
The role of the prophets and the priests is different. Sacks says Moses is the face of God as His prophet and representative on earth to be the leader of the Hebrews and bring the message of God, Torah, to the people while Aaron is the priest who is charged with being the interface between God and the people daily. It is the role of the priest to know, understand and explain Torah to the people.
Eventually the role of the prophets (and the kings) would die out and the people would only have the priests to direct them. When the Hebrews returned to Judah after Babylon many had forgotten their religion, their culture, their language, their traditions and it would be the role of the priests to bring this back. After the destruction of the temple this would change into the role of the rabbis for the next two thousand years to do the same today for the faithful, messianic or otherwise.
Zechariah prophesied:
“In those days it will come to pass that ten men from every language of the nations will grasp the corner of the garment of a Jew saying, ‘Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.'” [Zec 8:23]
Could this mean the “ten men” represent the ten tribes among the nations and “a Jew” represents Messiah Yeshua and not just any Jew, whether a scholar, a rabbi, or whoever, especially those who don’t believe Messiah Yeshua is the Messiah of Israel?
Also…..
Shaul said:
“You have been built on the foundation made up of the emissaries (apostles) and prophets, with Messiah Yeshua Himself being the cornerstone.” [Eph 2:20]
Would YHVH have us following the teachings of anti-messianic rabbis or rabbis who deny Yeshua is the Messiah of Israel, and not the Ruach HaKodesh concerning the words and examples of the apostles and the prophets in the Scriptures? Sent ones and prophets will cease, but now? During the millennial reign? Or after it?
Let’s not go allegorical, please. That method is only valid if the AUTHOR tells you what it means. Otherwise it is sheer speculation on the part of the reader.
I understand. So it could mean that, but not necessarily. Also, isn’t it possible, that an author can write something he knows is true but not even, himself, rightly understand its true or full meaning? Isn’t it possible for us to try to determine the meaning of a scripture according to all the correct and necessary hermaneutical principles, yet YHVH still means something different than what the author, the audience at the time, or us now think it means?
Nevertheless, what does this Zech. verse mean according to all the correct and necessary hermaneutical principles?
Craig, the identity of Yeshua post-resurrection was definitely different than His identity pre-resurrection. By the time we see His encounters with Paul on the road to Damascus and with John in the Apocalypse, there is a vast change in the revelation of His function. He functioned on earth as a human who had access to the throne of God as we have access. A perfect example of being human. After the resurrection, we see Someone Who is NOT that human example; we see an entirely different function going on, which the book of Hebrews partially reveals and the book of Revelation blows out of the water. By that time, Yeshua was going places no mortal could ever go.
The real question, as I see it, then becomes, was this an elevation in status, or a return to it? I agree with you that what I see, post resurrection, was no mere agent. I see full, unlimited function as God functions, with the provocative claim of being “First” as well as “Last” being what could be, for me (and, I think, for a few others who have said as much on this site) , anyway, the strongest hint of pre-existence, at the very least, if not full equality. “the First and the Last” is hardly a statement any agent would ever have occasion to make because there wouldn’t ever be a reason to make it that I can see – for an agent, anyway.
Sometimes I think we try to understand what the limitations of a finite mind does not allow-
The author of the Corinthians says:
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known
On those rare occasions and they are rare for me, that the
Veil is removed and my eyes see that which my words cannot describe, but my mind retained the picture- in those moments I am overwhelmed by something so indescribable and the knowing that while here on earth
It will remain with me that there are some things off limits to my human mind.
I treasure the knowing in those moments of a Person beyond my understanding but an experience of intimacy with ” ferrocious love and endless desire” . For now that is enough for me because it covers me with a blanket of comfort and it gives meaning to dwelling in the shelter of Elyon and abiding in His Shadow.
Maddie, the only conviction I have that keeps growing and does not change is the thought that I know more and more of what I don’t know. I find I am descending into vast unknowns beneath the surface of anything having to do with ANYTHING! My list of questions grows exponentially with every revelation. I agree with George. I know how he feels.
Excellent observations! You’ve said a lot in that comment, Laurita, some things I’d not considered before. In addition, one of your comments under the “Shaliah” post, I’d been pondering, specifically the one that included this statement: “Yeshua can be limited to wielding ONLY what a human has the ability for, but that does not ‘prove’ that He is only human; it only proves that He is operating under that particular limitation.” I’ll address some of this here, though I’ll probably have more thoughts later.
In His earthly ministry, it is largely assumed here that Yeshua functioned strictly as a man. But was He as limited as any other man? To counter that anything He did that was seemingly beyond human capability or norms is due to His function as Messiah merely begs the question. He came in human form to ‘reveal’ (the Greek verb in John 1:18 is exēgeomai, from which we get “exegesis”) the Father. Though I’m a staunch Trinitarian I will plainly acknowledge Jesus had some limitations in His earthly ministry. For example, if we assume that God is omnipresent, obviously Jesus was, comparatively, limited in physical presence. But, as I will illustrate here, it’s difficult to understand Him as functioning in ways as a mere human would.
Matthew 11:27 is worth citing in full: “All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him” (NASB). (What are “all things” here?) This not only asserts the unique relationship between Father and Son, but claims that no one even knows the Son except the Father and vice versa. More than that, the Son Himself has the power/authority to reveal the Father to anyone whom He wills. This implicitly gives Yeshua the power of life and death carte blanche. This is stated more explicitly in John 5:21-30.
Generally, the way in which Jesus performed his miracles was different from the prophets in the Tanakh. Using the example of Moses parting the Red Sea, note that he was told some of what to do in advance, and then received further instructions from YHWH as he went. He went in ‘blind’, so to speak. Comparatively, Yeshua just performed his miracles without any correspondence with the Father beforehand—at least not any noted by the Gospel writers (though see Yeshua’s comments in John 11:40-42). Think of when He quelled the storm. Initially, He was sleeping, seemingly oblivious to the violent squall. Note his response: “Peace! Be still!” Did Jesus do this by inherent power or from power by the Spirit? Yes, the Apostles performed miracles by command; but, note that this was after the sending of the Paraclete—sent by Yeshua from the Father in Yeshua’s name (John 14:26; 15:26) and that these miracles were done “in Jesus’ name” (though see Luke 10). Also, note that it is belief in the Word/Light that provides the right to become children of God (John 1:12), and that belief in the Son brings “eternal life” (John 3:15-18 – the Greek here is zōēn aiōnion, “life to/of [the] age”).
Taking Daniel 7’s “one like a son of man” (i.e. “like a human”) and assuming this is the background for Matthew 24 (and Rev 1:13; 14:14), we find Yeshua in supra-human form coming at the eschaton. This is a continuation of his role as Messiah.
As far as the preexistence question, I agree with you, but the words on Yeshua’s lips pre-resurrection in John 17:5 is very strong evidence of this (in addition to John 1:1).
I personally can’t see how a “mere man” has the capacity to save me – even one with infinite agency. If that were so, then who needs God to save us? Also, I think Yeshua came to give us a capacity we did not have when we were created, which is access to a relationship with our Creator we did not have (need?) before we fell. Specifically, the relationship He has with His Father. This is certainly more than the capacity we were created with because we are told repeatedly that we lack the ability (in our creation, anyway) to undo the damaged relationship we have with the Father.
Our redemption put us in a new place (“born again” beyond our original creation) and as such we needed a new interface. Yeshua came with great power from heaven, but it is power we are now offered through Him. We need every bit of that power to overcome as He needed that power to overcome in our behalf. I need power from beyond me to be me in a fallen world, because a fallen world requires complete self denial, which I lack any capacity to do; at least in my own flesh.
Everything about Yeshua is a gamechanger. Creation will never be the same after (what I still believe) its Creator put Himself on the gameboard. Skip asked me once why I ‘needed’ Yeshua to be God. My answer is still the same: how else will I know God loves me if He requires of me what He is unwilling (or unable) to do Himself? Otherwise, it is just another amusing game where you simply invent more pieces to throw on anywhere there is a glitch (even though, as Creator, He certainly could do just that).
The question of whether or not Yeshua came as God, to me, is the question of whether or not God is capable of self denial (which just happens to be the cornerstone of love – the very definition of love, in fact). I think that is the question Yeshua’s life and death came to answer.
Self denial takes power far beyond our capacity. We can rely on the same power He showed us how to rely on, to deny self as He denied it. If Yeshua is God, I can see that He denied (limited) Himself His own capacity, to take on ours, as His Father denied Himself His own Son. (Through this I think I can see that love takes more than one to practice the denial peculiar to love.) Even though I probably will never be able to understand just how it is so (which I was never asked to do, anyway), I can also see (through the promises) that His life and death offers to make available to us all the power heaven has to accomplish that necessary self denial: personally (“in Christ”). Certainly, to me, much more than ‘just a man’, even though I know I will never understand how.
Now you will have to explain how all those figures in the Tanakh were redeemed before Yeshua walked on the planet, and why the Tanakh says over and over that it is YHVH who redeems, not Yeshua. Unless of course you want to claim that Yeshua IS the ontological equivalent of YHVH, and that as a man he is really just GOD in disguise. I await your reply. 🙂
You explained the redemption of those who lived pre-cross best in your book, Crossword Puzzles, where the mysterious Lamb provided for forgiveness by blood sacrifice “before the foundation of the world”. You argued that blood was shed long before Yeshua shed it on the cross, and went to great pains to argue that propitiation for sin happened way back then.
The Tanakh repeats over and over that YHVH is the only Redeemer and the only Saviour, so what are we supposed to conclude when Someone comes along and claims to be doing just that? (Small correction: the Tanakh does NOT actually say that Yeshua does “not” redeem. For the record.)
Is YHVH the Father? If so, then it is not I who claims “that Yeshua IS the ontological equivalent of YHVH”, but Yeshua Who makes that claim. I don’t know what to make of it, either!
As for “God in disguise”, that’s probably not that hard to pull off: we wouldn’t know God if we saw Him. At least, that is what Yeshua told Phillip.
Why can’t God do all the above? No one has told me why. That is the elephant in the Unitarian kitchen, as far as I am concerned. I have been concerned that all the posturing about God being limited to numerical singularity (or, for that matter, trinitarity, to be fair) is a smoke screen to distract from the big problem of making rules for God as to what He can and can’t do, including what the word “One” means.
I am beginning to have serious doubts that I am a numerical “one” either, whether that be an expression of my interior or exterior existence in a biome continuum. We now know for a fact that people who dip below a certain amount of genetic, physical, mental, spiritual and other connections to either deteriorate to the point that they simply cease to be able to sustain life at all.
Define singularity (numerical one). Define love. Define life. If they are not all the same definition, I could be saying we might have a problem.
Skip
Any comment on Nehemiah Gordon’ s discussion on the discovery of two chapters of Revelation written in Hebrew- specifically as it relates to the name of YHWH?
Interesting comments, George. What I’m trying to figure out is the understanding of why we ought to think of Him as impersonal, “Elokim” (unless that incorporates other “impersonal” forces, other than Him), and the One responsible for “strict justice”, instead of thinking of Him, even if as sovereign over all the other forces, including those other forces which may also be responsible for “strict justice”, and especially when we are to consider Him as Father, like one who disciplines His son whom He loves. Why fracture, fragment, or disassociate Him as a personal YHVH, and/or Father, from “Elokim”, who acts with “strict justice”, if that too is an act of a loving God for the good of all? Didn’t Messiah reveal to us that we are to consider, YHVH, and even “Elokim” (Elohim), as Father, even if He is “strict in justice”, as well as the Recipient of the personal gesture of our sacrifice? Otherwise, isn’t that why a sacrifice would be considered a “pagan act” and “an attempt to appease the forces of nature”?
Also, why call Him the impersonal word “Hashem” instead of by His self-revealed true name, YHVH, if YHVH is personal and the One to whom we are to turn our faces in the act of our personal sacrifice or offering as “an inherently personal gesture”? Were we anywhere instructed to refer to Him as such? Does that rightly represent how He wants us to represent Him? Are these explanations by Jonathan Sacks helping us more clearly understand “God’ or merely “Jewish i(though possibly erroneous) thinking”, or do you think both?
Thanks for any insights from you gentlemen about these things.
Jerry and Lisa etc., I like to think I know a little about a lot and watching Jeopardy every night proves this. I came to the bible late in life, past the age of 70. As I approach 80 I have learned that I know nothing. I have discovered that I can study all kinds of things from astrophysics, quantum mechanics, neuroplasticity of the brain, artificial intelligence, French, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, imaginary numbers, stem cell therapy, holistics, game theory, you name it but I still know nothing, so what have I learned?
I have learned that I can study all of this and still be an ignorant man. What I really need to learn is how to understand is the complexity of Judaism so I need to understand Torah. Then I can rest in peace. So I read this blog “one Hebrew or Greek word at a time” and thank God for the day I met Skip and everyone here. Shalom Shabbat.
Hi George. Thanks for your reply. It’s great to know you’re thankful you have met everyone here. I’m glad to meet you, too, and shabbat shalom to you, also.
Personally and truthfully, I know nothing of the list of things you mentioned. So, I’m impressed with your zeal for knowledge, but more so with the kind of heart you seem to have. I’m guessing when you say you “still know nothing” and you’re “an ignorant man”, you’re trying to be humble and that you’re just using hyperbole. Seems to me you do know a thing or two, to say the least.
Sorry, but could you clarify what you mean by, “What I really need to learn is how to understand the complexity of Judaism so I need to understand Torah”? I can sort of understand, in a backhanded sort of way, needing to understand the complexity of Judaism so that you can better understand Torah, but I don’t understand your statement as it is. Sorry.
Also, thinking of “resting in peace”, I think of this account about “entering His rest”:
“For He is our God, and we are the people of His pasture, the flock of His hand. Today, if you hear His voice: ‘Do not harden your heart as at Meribah, as in the day of Massah in the wilderness, when your fathers tested Me, they challenged Me, even though they had seen My work. For forty years I loathed that generation. So I said: “It is a people whose heart goes astray, who do not know My ways.” Therefore I swore in My anger, “They shall never enter into My rest.”'” [Ps 95]
So, it seems to me, though difficult because of our yetzer hara, that we can rest in peace, or enter His rest, now, and it’s more about obeying what we do know now, not what we do not yet know. He seems to be saying, we can rest in peace now if we will simply hear and obey His voice, not harden our hearts, not test and challenge Him, and our hearts do not go astray. And I’m thinking that YHVH saying those who won’t enter His rest, those “who do not know My ways”, doesn’t mean ignorance of His ways, but it means knowing His ways, yet being intentionally rebellious against His ways, acting as though one is ignorant.
Our knowledge and understanding of Torah will be ever increasing, even in the Olam haBa, don’t you think? And, therefore, entering into His rest does not depend upon our knowing and understanding it all, or even fully living it all, right? Maybe that’s why Shaul referred to the shalom He gives as being a shalom that “passes all understanding” (Phil. 4:7).
Also, I would have liked to have known some of your thoughts about some of the questions I shared with you that I’m having in reply to your comments, but maybe another time.
Jerry and Lisa
I always thought it was important to show how serious I was in knowing scripture and reciting as and when needed versus… Then one day discussing the question of having salvation I recited the day off the Lord account in Matthews and it hit me during my response it is not how much I know or do in His name. It is that He knows me. That changed my conviction from knowing to seeking. Not that there is not peace at mind it is as both George and Laurita say and as so often explained here. We need to study to show approved not study to recall information. And it is this knowledge that keeps us digging deeper as the spirit seeks even the depths of God. Know why so that we can understand the how we can find favour with God. It is not about just accepting and living a joyous life that was never the calling purpose it is for me all about pleasing God. And not satisfying my cognitive awareness…
Jerry and Lisa, I think you have to come to your own understanding of the questions you ask, not mine. As you know Skip and I are big advocates of Heschel and Sacks. I would recommend that you watch a UTube video of Sacks acceptance speech for his Templeton Prize win, then I would recommend reading his 4-part series on Torah. Genesis, The Book of Beginnings, Exodus, The Book of Redemption, Leviticus, The Book of Holiness, etc.
Let me give one small example of the different viewpoints between two people, my wife and me if I can be so bold. Some years ago we were in Switzerland. I suggested we go up the Matterhorn nearby. She says you go I’ll stay here on the side of a mountain in a B&B watching the cows graze, listening to their bells, seeing the “little” homes below with their window boxes of geraniums glowing in the sunshine and reading and having a “Heidi moment”. I go and observe the majesty of the mountain and awesomeness of the view in biting cold wind and isolation in a micro-snowstorm high above the tree line with a few others trying to stay upright. Next morning I want to visit CERN, the gigantic particle collider that a few weeks before had just discovered the Higgs Boson, the so-called “God particle”. She says I will stay here in the car knitting, reading and watching the world go by. I get back from the top of the mountain and the depths of the earth describing the indescribable massive magnitude and power of each. She says she did the same thing where she had been sitting in both cases. She even had a bonus; a car collided with a streetcar tram right in front of her while I was away. She says a collision is a collision, you have seen one you have seen them all. Her mountain and collider view was as majestic and interesting to her as mine was to me and she didn’t have to move an inch either day. Made me think twice. Essentially, I saw nothing both times and she saw everything! Vive la difference.
OK, George. I accept your reply. Actually, however, I haven’t come to my own definitive conclusions about my questions and I did want to know your answers. And I guess I will have to consider, in a backhanded sort of way, you have answered them. Thanks for your reply. Also, though we often need to agree to disagree, our differences are not necessarily good (“Vive la difference”). Thus, Skip, himself, will posit his conclusions that some who disagree with him will, he suggests, for instance, not be “welcome”, in the kingdom of heaven or the commonwealth of Israel, I suppose he means. In some matters, the differences are not critical. In others, the differences can not be good. And as for those receiving the esteem and praise of men, Messiah warned, “Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for their fathers used to treat the false prophets the same way.” [Luk 6:26] Would you say we are to consider even those who deny Yeshua is the Messiah of Israel as true prophets? Because, that’s not what Yeshua, Himself, has said.
I have not been avoiding a response just very busy and I am not a literary critic by the wildest imagination so for me to try to distill what I have learned from so many sources over the past 6 years is impossible for my mathematics, physics, engineering, manufacturing, Greek mindset at my age doesnt work. I can only tell you how I got here, not why (in detail,) the way so many people can do on this site so eloquently and personally. I love them all.
I think the Messianic message is all about our relationship with our Holy creator YHVH! Yeshua is the “modern day” Moses, the prophet, the intermediary between God and the people telling them how they must live, obey God and His commands, for the benefit of the Hebrews AND MAYBE MOST IMPORTANTLY, for the Gentiles. The Hebrews already knew God personally even if they were recalcitrant from time to time. They really didn’t NEED a Messiah even though they were promised one and got one. They already were self sufficient in their Godly experience.
What does “You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy” mean? Wilson says “holy” means devoted. I buy that. God is totally devoted to us, we must be totally devoted to Him. We can only be devoted to one “person”, not two or three, real or imaginary no matter what convoluted idiosyncratic logic you use. Anything else is pagan. We all agree, there is only one God. Why is one God not enough? Tell me. I am all ears. What problem are Roman Christians trying to solve that hasn’t already been answered for us directly in simple terms for thousands of years? Shema! Hear/obey. What is the greatest commandment?
Why do we take a simple thing and make it complicated? We are Greeks, that is why so we have to know the nitty gritty, the devil that is in the details. It is not about KNOWING, it is about understanding and obeying. It is about relationships, not knowledge. It is all about trust. “I am the LORD thy God thou shalt not have ANY gods before me.” Trust Me.
Who is your most intimate relationship with, who are you devoted to? Who will save you? The Greek language, the bible, Yeshua, YHVH? You pays your money, you takes your choice. I have taken mine. Have you?
Don’t let the term “impersonal” throw you off the mark of what Jonathan Sacks was pointing out. YHWH claims to be the “Elohim” of gen. 1 The thrust of the statement seem to be that “as Elohim” (the term used) He’s telling us, this is how the creation is put together and therefore these are the laws that govern it. It would be much like a teacher in a trade mechanic school describing the basic function of gas powered engines and the design of them. It’s not a personal interaction per say, it doesn’t really matter what you think about it or if you like it, it’s just that way. That doesn’t “separate” God into a personal or impersonal God at different times, it only describes the arena He’s operating in at the moment. The point behind the term YHWH is that, as at the creation of man it’s YHWH that forms and gives breath and life, not the rule governor. YHWH is the term of intimacy and personal interaction. Sacks is correct, in worshipping the “Elohim” you are in essence worshipping the laws that govern this creation and/or the activity of God, but that’s a worship of what God made or does, not God Himself. (God being YHWH)
Job 38 comes to mind here Robert. We know a lot but understand a little until the Father through Yeshua reveals the truth…