Thursday, August 29, 2024

Midrash Tehillim's Messianic Interpretation of Psalm 16:9


 

"Therefore my heart rejoices, and my soul is glad; even my flesh shall rest in hope." Rabbi Abbahu said, "Honor is exiled when children make use of it." Another interpretation: "Therefore my heart rejoices in the words of the Torah, and my honor shall be revealed in the King Messiah who will come from me, as it is said, 'For on every glory there shall be a covering' (Isaiah 4:5). Even my flesh shall dwell in safety, after death." Rabbi Isaac said, "This teaches that the worm and the maggot did not have power over King David's body." (source)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

 

Wednesday, August 28, 2024

Anson Call and John Steele, Jr., vs. the Claim Joseph Smith Prophesied the Second Coming Would Take Place in 1890/91

On January 22, 1886, John M. Whitaker queried Anson Call concerning if the Prophet Joseph Smith ever prophesied the date of the Second Coming:

 

Did you ever hear the prophet say what time the Savior would come to the people, <and> scenes incident to that time? (John M. Whitaker, letter to Anson Call, January 22, 1886, CR 100 394, Church History Library)

 

In response, Anson Call wrote:

 

In answer to your questions.

 

First. I have frequently heard Joseph Smith converse on your first question, but I have never heard him say what year, but I have formed an opinion from his conversation that in 1891 he would make his appearances to certain individuals of the priesthood not to reign as King, but would deliver His people and the Gentile reign would begin to wane and His people would begin to have dominion, and the law of God would have influence in all the civilized nations of the earth. (Anson Call, letter to John M. Whitaker, January 30, 1886, CR 100 394, Church History Library)

 

On January 11, 1891, John Steele, Jr., in a letter to his parents, wrote:

 

I am very glad [18]91 is here & I am of the opinion that if Jesus does not come in his glory this year, that some will be privileged to see him in the Temple of the Lord & no doubt the Prophet Joseph Smith also . . . (John Steele, letter to John Steele, Sr., and Elizabeth Steele, January 11, 1891, MS 24404, Church History Library)

 

Commenting on these and other writings of the time, Christopher Blythe concluded that

 

There is no indication that Mormons were devastated when Christ did not appear in 1890 or 1891. Many continued to expect the Second Coming would occur in their lifetimes or even in the very near future. (Christopher James Blythe, Terrible Revolution: Latter-day Saints and the American Apocalypse [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020], 184)

 

Again, this shows that Latter-day Saints did not believe that the Parousia would take place in 1890/91 based on Josehp’s teachings in D&C 130:14-17 and other sources. For more, see, for e.g.:

 

Did Joseph Smith Predict that the Second Coming would happen in 1890/91?

 

And for more on Joseph’s prophecies, see:

 

Resources on Joseph Smith’s Prophecies

 

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

 

Harris Lenowitz on the Baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist

  

John’s baptism of Jesus lies within the tradition of prophets anointing prophets. The association of the baptism scene in Matthew with monarchic power (the “kingdom of Heaven”) situates the baptism within the tradition of the anointment of kings by prophets while combining these roles, through the motif of purification as a condition of being close to God, with that of the sacrificing priest. The full accounts in Mark and Luke both contain John’s prophecy that a better baptizer will come—a B element; Matthew’s account alone contains John’s demurrer: that it is more appropriate for Jesus to baptize him, to be the Elijah to his Elisha. The immersion returns Jesus to the purity of his birth. Recognition by others reinforces this theme. Like the baptizing sectarians of the time, the account in Matthew here sees bathing not simply as a way of preparing properly for an encounter with the divine, but as a public act of penitence that gives one entry into a particular community. (Harris Lenowitz, The Jewish Messiahs; From the Galilee to Crown Heights [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998], 39)

 

 


 

To Support this Blog:

 

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

 

Excerpts from Books 2, 3, and 4 of “The Wars of the Lord” by Levi ben Gershom (Gersonides) (d. 1344)

  

Now prophecy differs from divination and dreams in several ways. First, prophecy is a perfection that is attained after study; hence the Prophets had students who attempted to prophesy, i.e., they proceeded in a step by step manner so that they would receive prophetic illumination. No such thing obtains in divination or dreams. Second, a condition for prophecy is wisdom, which is obvious from the very nature of prophecy. But this is not true for divination or dreams. Indeed, sometimes children and fools have more such knowledge [by ways of divination and reams] than many who are wiser than they. Third, everything that a prophet transmits is true, i.e., the order obtaining among these events insofar as it is determined by the heavenly bodies, is exactly the same as the prophet communicates it, although such events are contingent with respect to choice. Accordingly, it is said that the evil predicted by the prophet need not be fulfilled, since it is possible for that man or that nation to avoid it through choice, which has been given as an instrument for this purpose, as he has explained. However, the good that a prophet predicts will doubtless occur, i.e., the good that is ordained by the heavenly bodies, since the human intellect, which is the principle of choice, motivates a person to achieve the good. This is the very purpose of human choice. Hence, it is not possible for the motivation coming from the intellect to be directed toward the evil so long as it was ordained by the heavenly bodies that the good would occur. Rather, man tries by various means to attain that good of which the prophet informs him. This shall be explained (with God’s help) in detail in Book Six [Part II]. However, in divination and dreams there are many falsehoods, as the senses testify. Fourth, when a prophet conveys this knowledge, he guides the man or nation to whom he transmitted this information toward human perfection, such as when the prophet tells the man to depart from his evil ways and return to God (may He be blessed) and the man in fact does depart from his evil path. Indeed, most of the information transmitted to man [through prophecy] is for his perfection. This is not the case with divination or dreams. (Levi Ben Gershom, The Wars of the Lord, Book 2, chapter 6, in The Wars of the Lord, 3 vols [trans. Seymour Feldman; Jerusalem: The Jewish Publication Society, 1987], 59-60)

 

 

 

It has been previously shown that these particulars are ordered and determined in one sense, yet contingent in another sense. Accordingly, it is evident that the sense in which God knows these particulars in the sense in which they are ordered and determined, as is the case with the Agent Intellect, according to the results previously established. For from this aspect it is possible to have knowledge of them. On the other hand, the sense in which God does not know particulars is the sense in which they are not ordered, i.e., the sense in which they are contingent. For in the latter sense knowledge of them is not possible. However, God does know from this aspect that these events may not occur because of the choice, which HE has given man to compensate for the deficiencies in the supervision coming from the heavenly bodies, as has been explained in Book Two. But He does not know which of the contradictory outcomes will be realized insofar as they are [genuinely] contingent affairs; for if He did, there would not be any contingency at all. [Nevertheless,] the fact that God does not have the knowledge of which possible outcomes will be realized does not imply any defect in God (may He be blessed). For perfect knowledge of something is the knowledge of what that things is in reality; when the thing is not apprehended as it is, this is error, possible, for He knows them insofar as they are ordered in a determinate and certain way, and He knows in addition that these events are contingent, insofar as they fall within the domain of human choice, [and as such knows them] truly as contingent. Thus, God (may He be blessed), by means of the Prophets, commands men who are about to suffer evil fortune that they mend their ways so that they will avert this punishment, as is the case of King Zedekiah who was commanded to make peace with the King of Babylonia. Now this indicates that what God knows of future events is known by Him as not necessarily occurring; however, He knows these events in the sense that they are part of the general order and also as possibly not occurring insofar as they are contingent. (Levi Ben Gershom, The Wars of the Lord, Book 3, chapter 4, in The Wars of the Lord, 3 vols [trans. Seymour Feldman; Jerusalem: The Jewish Publication Society, 1987], 117-18)

 

 

 

[W]e do possess such knowledge insofar as such events are ordered. Yet they remain contingent by virtue of the factor of choice. This is the reason why this knowledge has been given to us, that we can recognize the evil that has been prepared for us and take measures to avoid it, as has been fully explained in the preceding Book. This can be understood if we examine the practice of the Prophets (may they rest in peace), who warn us of some [imminent] evil. For it is the case that they give advice on how to prevent this evil from coming. Similarly, Joseph warns Pharaoh, by interpreting his dream, about the famine and suggests a relief measure so that the famine will not be as calamitous as it was originally predicted in the dream. Daniel, for example, tells Nebuchadnezzar, by interpreting his dream, that he will lose his reason and be like an animal for seven years, but he also suggests a way in which this evil can be averted. Since we have claimed that God has knowledge of these events insofar as they are ordered, it is not strange that they are still contingent with respect to human choice. It this way, the difficulty that has continually plagued men—i.e., how can God know future events without these events being necessary—disappears; for these events exhibit two aspects [i.e., an ordered, or regular, pattern and a free, or voluntary, dimension], and not just one aspect. (Levi Ben Gershom, The Wars of the Lord, Book 3, chapter 5, in The Wars of the Lord, 3 vols [trans. Seymour Feldman; Jerusalem: The Jewish Publication Society, 1987], 133-34)

 

 

The miraculous story about the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart leading to additional troubles for Israel is also an instance of providence, for in this way the people acquired a firm belief [in God]. For when Pharaoh became liable for punishment—and since it was possible for some good to accrue to Israel by means of this kind of punishment to him such that Israel would become convinced of God’s existence and of His power by means of these many miracles—God brought it about that Pharaoh [himself] hardened his heart, so that HIs miracles would be multiplied and that the true belief would spread throughout Israel. As it is said: “Go to Pharaoh. For I have hardened his heart and the heart of his courtiers, in order that I might display these My signs among them, and that you may recount in the hearing of your sons and of your sons’ sons how I made a mockery of the Egyptians and how I displayed My signs among them—in order that you may know that I am the Lord.” (Ex. 10:1-2) This passage indicates that the hardness of heart [afflicted upon] Pharaoh was [designed] for the purpose of increasing the wonders of God and that the latter were designed to make known throughout Israel and the succeeding generations that there is a God who does whatever He wishes. (Levi Ben Gershom, The Wars of the Lord, Book 4, chapter 6, in The Wars of the Lord, 3 vols [trans. Seymour Feldman; Jerusalem: The Jewish Publication Society, 1987], 203)

 

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

 

Seymour Feldman on Levi ben Gershom (Gersonides) on the topic of Demons and Magic

Commenting on the demonology of Levi ben Gershom (Gersonides), Seymour Feldman wrote that:

 

In Leviticus 17:17, the Israelites are explicitly forbidden to offer any sacrifices to se’irim, which are usually taken to be some kind of demon represented by or manifested in goats. In ancient Greece they were called “satyrs.” A literal reading of this verse can yield the conclusion that at one time the Israelites believed in such things and made expatiatory offerings to them, but then the Bible prohibited these sacrifices without, however, denying the belief in satyrs. Levi will have nothing to do with this interpretation.

 

The word se’irim connotes demons, which are false imaginations that caused the Israelites to believe that things which are not really divine are divine. I think that because the planet Saturn was believed to have control over demons . . . and the goat is the animal representing Saturday (as is maintained in astrology), demons were called se’irim, or goats. . . . (Commentary on the Torah, 158b.)

 

In this passage Levi clearly connects the belief in demons to some astrological doctrine about the symbolic representation of Saturn by goats. The ancient Israelites, uncritically, believing in some false theory that attributed divinity to the planets, sacrificed to Saturn via his “sacred” animals, the goats. But this is nonsense, as his commentary upon Deuteronomy 32:17 reveals:

 

They sacrifice to imaginary entities that they believed were divine . . . i.e., these [entities] were thought to be gods, but in reality they didn’t even exist. They were only vain fantasies. . . . Demons don’t exist at all (Ibid., 242b).

 

It is not merely that sacrifices to demons are forbidden; they are forbidden because demons do not exist, and a sacrifice to or blessing over a nonexistent thing is a “vain” sacrifice or blessing. (The Mishnah explicitly proscribes vain blessings [Mishnah, Berakhot 9:3])

 

If, then, demons are not the causes of the various kinds of divination, all of which are proscribed by Scripture, what kind of analysis are we to give of these phenomena? This question is aggravated by the apparent acceptance of the phenomenon of divination throughout the Bible. Remember that the Egyptian wise men also perform several “wonders,” and the Witch of ‘Ein Dor is described as actually conjuring up Samuel from the grave. Again, it would seem not that the Bible denies these phenomena but that it just does not approve of them. On the story of the Egyptian wise men, Gersonides comments as follows:

 

I think that these wise men were people, who were well versed in Egyptian wisdom. This wisdom consisted of magic, whereby strange deeds were performed that natural methods cannot accomplish. This was done either by trickling the audience with optical illusions . . . or using natural devices to produce strange things, which seemed to be like those that are done by magic; or they actually performed these strange things by magic. . . . To this very day we don’t know very much about magic, so we don’t think it proper to say much about it . . . (Ibid., 58c-d).

 

This passage is interesting if only because it reveals Gersonides’ uncertainly about magic. He is prepared to admit that the Egyptian wise men did have some special skill and that it had to do with magic, but he was not clear on the nature of magic. At any rate, however, he is inclined to interpret this ability as optical illusion: the Egyptian magicians were able to deceive the onlookers into thinking that their rods had been magically transformed into snakes. Nevertheless, the vanity of their pretension was proved by the fact that Aaron’s rod really turned into a snake, which then proceeded to devour the wooden wands of the Egyptian magicians. (Commenting on the demonology of Levi ben Gershom (Gersonides), Seymour Feldman wrote that:

 

In Leviticus 17:17, the Israelites are explicitly forbidden to offer any sacrifices to se’irim, which are usually taken to be some kind of demon represented by or manifested in goats. In ancient Greece they were called “satyrs.” A literal reading of this verse can yield the conclusion that at one time the Israelites believed in such things and made expatiatory offerings to them, but then the Bible prohibited these sacrifices without, however, denying the belief in satyrs. Levi will have nothing to do with this interpretation.

 

The word se’irim connotes demons, which are false imaginations that caused the Israelites to believe that things which are not really divine are divine. I think that because the planet Saturn was believed to have control over demons . . . and the goat is the animal representing Saturday (as is maintained in astrology), demons were called se’irim, or goats. . . . (Commentary on the Torah, 158b.)

 

In this passage Levi clearly connects the belief in demons to some astrological doctrine about the symbolic representation of Saturn by goats. The ancient Israelites, uncritically, believing in some false theory that attributed divinity to the planets, sacrificed to Saturn via his “sacred” animals, the goats. But this is nonsense, as his commentary upon Deuteronomy 32:17 reveals:

 

They sacrifice to imaginary entities that they believed were divine . . . i.e., these [entities] were thought to be gods, but in reality they didn’t even exist. They were only vain fantasies. . . . Demons don’t exist at all (Ibid., 242b).

 

It is not merely that sacrifices to demons are forbidden; they are forbidden because demons do not exist, and a sacrifice to or blessing over a nonexistent thing is a “vain” sacrifice or blessing. (9)

 

If, then, demons are not the causes of the various kinds of divination, all of which are proscribed by Scripture, what kind of analysis are we to give of these phenomena? This question is aggravated by the apparent acceptance of the phenomenon of divination throughout the Bible. Remember that the Egyptian wise men also perform several “wonders,” and the Witch of ‘Ein Dor is described as actually conjuring up Samuel from the grave. Again, it would seem not that the Bible denies these phenomena but that it just does not approve of them. On the story of the Egyptian wise men, Gersonides comments as follows:

 

I think that these wise men were people, who were well versed in Egyptian wisdom. This wisdom consisted of magic, whereby strange deeds were performed that natural methods cannot accomplish. This was done either by trickling the audience with optical illusions . . . or using natural devices to produce strange things, which seemed to be like those that are done by magic; or they actually performed these strange things by magic. . . . To this very day we don’t know very much about magic, so we don’t think it proper to say much about it . . . (Ibid., 58c-d).

 

This passage is interesting if only because it reveals Gersonides’ uncertainty about magic. He is prepared to admit that the Egyptian wise men did have some special skill and that it had to do with magic, but he was not clear on the nature of magic. At any rate, however, he is inclined to interpret this ability as optical illusion: the Egyptian magicians were able to deceive the onlookers into thinking that their rods had been magically transformed into snakes. Nevertheless, the vanity of their pretension was proved by the fact that Aaron’s rod really turned into a snake, which then proceeded to devour the wooden wands of the Egyptian magicians. (Seymour Feldman, The Wars of the Lord, 3 vols [Jerusalem: The Jewish Publication Society, 1987], 217-18)

 

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

 , The Wars of the Lord, 3 vols [Jerusalem: The Jewish Publication Society, 1987], 217-18)

 

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

 

Strack and Billerbeck on Matthew 5:48

  

5:48: You shall therefore be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect.

τέλΔÎčÎżÏ‚ “perfect” = ŚȘָּŚžִŚ™Ś or Ś©ָׁڜֵŚ.—It is said of Abraham that by circumcision he became perfect ŚȘŚžŚ™Ś like God.

 

Genesis Rabbah 46 (29A): R. Levi (ca. 300) said, “Like a matron to whom the king said, ‘Pass me by!’ She passed him by, and her face became discolored. She said (to herself), ‘Perhaps something reprehensible has been found in me.’ The king said to her, ‘There is nothing reprehensible about you, only the nail of your little finger is a little large; remove it and the fault is removed!’ So God said to Abram our father, ‘There is nothing reprehensible in you except this foreskin; remove it, and the fault is removed: “walk before me, and you will be perfect ŚȘŚžŚ™Ś” (Gen 17:1).’ ” ‖ Genesis Rabbah 46 (29A): R. Judan (ca. 350) said, “As there is nothing reprehensible in a fig except the stalk; remove it and the defect is removed—so also God said to Abraham, ‘There is nothing reprehensible in you except the foreskin; remove it and the defect is removed: “walk before me, and you will be perfect” (Gen 17:1).’ ” ‖ A baraita in b. Ned. 32A: Rabbi said, “Great is circumcision; for you have no one who was so occupied with fulfilling the commandments as our father Abraham, and (yet) it was only because of circumcision that he was called perfect ŚȘŚžŚ™Ś (see Gen 17:1f.).” ‖ Tanáž„umaB ڜښ ڜښ § 23 (40A): God said to Abraham, “It is enough for the servant if he is like his master!” Like a king who had a friend who was rich beyond measure. The king said, “What shall I give my friend? He has silver and gold, slaves and female slaves, and livestock; but behold, I will gird him with my belt (so Buber).” Likewise God said (to Abraham), “What shall I give you? Silver and gold, slaves and bondwomen, and livestock have I already given you (see Gen 13:2); what shall I give you therefore? Let it be enough for you to be like me, as it says, ‘I will give my (circumcision) covenant between you and me’ (Gen 17:2).” (Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud & Midrash, 3 vols. [trans. Andrew Bowden and Joseph Longarino; Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2022], 1:430-31)

 

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

 

Frank Gavin on "apostle" and "deacon"

  

Both “apostle” and “deacon” are Hebrew terms. Before the Christian era the pregnant use of the verb to send (shalaáž„) indicates a technical meaning like the use of Î±Ï€ÎżÏƒÏ„Î”Î»Î»Ï‰ in st. Mark vi. 7. The word shaliaáž„ (shaluaáž„) is commonly met with in the sense of deputy, representative, agent, emissary, plenipotentiary. An old Rabbinic maxim is reflected in St. John xiii. 16b: “neither is he that is sent greater than he that sent him” for “he that is sent is like him who sends him”: the emissary is equal in (delegated) authority to him who empowers and sends him. The term shaliaáž„ was used in many senses: for the official representative of the Sanhedrin; for the officiant at congregational worship in the Synagogue; for the representatives and accredited agents of God, as well as in other connections. The atmosphere of Acts ix. 1-2 is entirely in keeping with Jewish procedure: the “letters from the High Priest” would be accrediting testimonials, for which contemporary Hebrew offers a technical parallel, authorizing the venture of an official “emissary” sent off for a particular function. The word “deacon” or “minister” has ample precedent and parallel in Rabbinic literature, and its true congeniality can best be studied in the Semitic Christian milieu of the early Syriac literature. (Frank Gavin, The Jewish Antecedents of the Christian Sacraments [London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1928], 103-4)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

 

Blog Archive