Difference between revisions of "Bizarre Prophetic Commands/2"

From AlHaTorah.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
Line 33: Line 33:
 
<point><b>Maintaining prophetic standards and reputation</b> – Rid does not address how a prophet's engaging in bizarre behavior would impact his reputation and how it might affect how his future prophecies were heard.&#160; It is possible that people were used to their prophets performing symbolic actions and recognized them as such.&#160; And, even if at first they found the prophet's behavior odd, once the actions were explained, they accepted it as part of the prophet's job.</point>
 
<point><b>Maintaining prophetic standards and reputation</b> – Rid does not address how a prophet's engaging in bizarre behavior would impact his reputation and how it might affect how his future prophecies were heard.&#160; It is possible that people were used to their prophets performing symbolic actions and recognized them as such.&#160; And, even if at first they found the prophet's behavior odd, once the actions were explained, they accepted it as part of the prophet's job.</point>
 
<point><b>Commanding a transgression?</b> The Rid is not bothered by the possibility that a prophet might be commanded to transgress a Biblical commandment. Hashem can permit whatever He wants ("הפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר"), and since He is the one doing the commanding, the prophet must listen.<fn>This issue takes center stage in discussions of the Binding of Isaac, where commentators question how Hashem command Avraham to do an action which is later prohibited in the Torah. See <a href="Purpose of Akeidat Yitzchak" data-aht="page">Purpose of Akeidat Yitzchak</a> for elaboration.</fn>&#160; Thus, Hoshea's sleeping with a prostitute or Yechezkel's shaving his sideburns would not be problematic.</point>
 
<point><b>Commanding a transgression?</b> The Rid is not bothered by the possibility that a prophet might be commanded to transgress a Biblical commandment. Hashem can permit whatever He wants ("הפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר"), and since He is the one doing the commanding, the prophet must listen.<fn>This issue takes center stage in discussions of the Binding of Isaac, where commentators question how Hashem command Avraham to do an action which is later prohibited in the Torah. See <a href="Purpose of Akeidat Yitzchak" data-aht="page">Purpose of Akeidat Yitzchak</a> for elaboration.</fn>&#160; Thus, Hoshea's sleeping with a prostitute or Yechezkel's shaving his sideburns would not be problematic.</point>
<point><b>Purpose of such actions</b> This approach might suggest that one of the best ways to get a message across to an apathetic audience is to shock them into attention. This would support reading the verses as literally a possible since the more unexpected the prophet's behavior, the more of an impact it would have had on the listeners.</point>
+
<point><b>Purpose of such actions</b><ul>
 +
<li>This approach might suggest that one of the best ways to get a message across to an apathetic audience is to shock them into attention. This would support reading the verses as literally a possible since the more unexpected the prophet's behavior, the more of an impact it would have had on the listeners.</li>
 +
<li>In the case of Yechezkel, it is also possible that Hashem's directive that he be mute and not rebuke the people might have necessitated substituting verbal chastisement with symbolic actions.</li>
 +
</ul></point>
 +
<point><b>Intended audience</b> – The public nature of the symbolic actions would suggest that they were intended for the nation itself, rather than the prophet or future generations.</point>
 
</opinion>
 
</opinion>
 
<opinion>Non-literal Fulfillment
 
<opinion>Non-literal Fulfillment
Line 47: Line 51:
 
<li>Where the text explicitly states that something occurred in a vision, such as Yechezkel being taken "בְּמַרְאוֹת אֱלֹהִים" to Yerushalayim (8:3), the prophecy and all actions mentioned therein can be assumed to be have taken place only in a prophetic dream.</li>
 
<li>Where the text explicitly states that something occurred in a vision, such as Yechezkel being taken "בְּמַרְאוֹת אֱלֹהִים" to Yerushalayim (8:3), the prophecy and all actions mentioned therein can be assumed to be have taken place only in a prophetic dream.</li>
 
<li>Where the text explicitly states that a prophetic command was fulfilled, such as Yeshayahu's walking naked and Hoshea's taking a prostitute in marriage, one must assume that the action happened literally.</li>
 
<li>Where the text explicitly states that a prophetic command was fulfilled, such as Yeshayahu's walking naked and Hoshea's taking a prostitute in marriage, one must assume that the action happened literally.</li>
<li>In cases where the text is silent, neither mentioning a vision nor an active deed,&#160; such as the commands that Yechezkel shave his hair,&#160; lie on his side, or eat bread baked in dung, one can take either option. </li>
+
<li>In cases where the text is silent, neither mentioning a vision nor an active deed,&#160; such as the commands that Yechezkel shave his hair,&#160; lie on his side, or eat bread baked in dung, one can take either option.</li>
 
</ul></point>
 
</ul></point>
 
<point><b>Loyalty to the simple meaning of the text</b> – Abarbanel is motivated by a desire to stay true to the simple meaning of the text. He questions how someone can arbitrarily decide that the narrator's statement, "and he did so" was only within a dream?</point>
 
<point><b>Loyalty to the simple meaning of the text</b> – Abarbanel is motivated by a desire to stay true to the simple meaning of the text. He questions how someone can arbitrarily decide that the narrator's statement, "and he did so" was only within a dream?</point>
<point><b>Bizarre actions and prophetic standards</b> – Abarbanel argues that the degree of "absurdity" of a commanded action should play no role in determining whether or not it was merely a vision. It is not for the reader to decide what is "strange" or whether or not they are comfortable with Hashem's commands.</point>
+
<point><b>Maintaining prophetic standards and reputation</b> – Abarbanel argues that the degree of "absurdity" of a commanded action should play no role in determining whether or not it was merely a vision. It is not for the reader to decide what is "strange" or whether or not they are comfortable with Hashem's commands.</point>
 +
<point><b>"והיה לאות ומופת"</b></point>
 +
<point><b>Transgressing a command?</b> Abarbanel maintains that Yechezkel's shaving might have only been in a prophetic dream, thereby avoiding the issue. He makes no comment about Hoshea's marriage and might agree with Malbi that it was only prohibited for a priest to marry a prostitute.</point>
 
</category>
 
</category>
 
</approaches>
 
</approaches>
 
</page>
 
</page>
 
</aht-xml>
 
</aht-xml>

Version as of 12:25, 3 October 2018

Bizarre Prophetic Commands

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Prophetic Vision

The bizarre actions demanded of several prophets took place only in prophetic visions.  They were meant to serve as analogies, and not intended to be active public displays.

Maintaining prophetic standards and reputation – These sources find it unfathomable that Hashem would command His prophets to act in ways which would cause others to view them as unstable or mad. If a prophet walks around naked, marries a prostitute, or lies on his side for months on end, how can he earn the respect of the people and have his rebukes to be heard?
Commanding a transgression? Rambam is further bothered by commands which appear to entail transgressing Biblical commands (such as Yechezkel's shaving of his hair and beard).1  As Hashem could easily have a prophet relay whatever message He wants through permitted deeds, it is illogical to assume that He would command someone to perform a prohibited action.
Burdensome actions – Rambam does not limit his position to commands which might result in shaming the prophet, suggesting that even actions which might only burden a prophet took place in a vision and not in reality.  Thus, he claims that Yirmeyahu did not travel hundreds of kilometers to Bavel to hide his girdle in the Perat; this, too, took place only in a vision.2
Variation of this approach – According to Targum Yonatan, it is possible that many of the more bizarre symbolic actions3 commanded by Hashem might have only been relayed as a parable, and the prophet never saw himself performing such actions even in a dream.
No mention of vision – These sources are not bothered by the fact that none of the relevant texts share that the event discussed was just in a dream, assuming that most prophets (besides Moshe) received their prophecies via a vision4 and not while awake.5  In addition, once it is recognized that a chapter speaks of a prophetic dream, it can be assumed that all events described therein similarly took place in the vision and not in reality.6
"וַיַּעַשׂ כֵּן" – Ibn Ezra and Rambam claim that even the fact that a chapter might relay that the "prophet did as told" (see Yeshayahu 20:2 and Hoshea 1:3 ) does not refute this approach.7 These words merely mean that the prophet saw himself fulfilling the prophecy in his dream.8
Yechezkel's questioning – Yechezkel's expressing concerns about eating impure food and Hashem's resulting chnage of command, present a difficulty for this position.  If everything was in a vision and meant only as an analogy, why incorporate such a conversation?
Intended audience – If the symbolic actions were not performed publicly, it is unclear for whom they were intended.  This position could suggest any of the following:
  • The prophet – It is possible that Hashem wished for the prophet himself to internalize Hashem's messages, for only then would he be able to effectively relay them to the people in his own manner.9  Alternatively, certain messages were not even intended to be relayed further and held import only for the prophet.
  • The nation – The messages were relayed as analogies to the nation, but without the accompanying visuals (the deeds of the prophet).  Though verbal parables would seem to have much less impact on an audience than symbolic actions, the honor of the prophet precludes the latter.10 In cases where the audience is a foreign nation, it is possible that verbal analogies were preferred, since any symbolic action would have reached them only via hearsay regardless.
  • Future generations – 
Efficacy of prophecy

Symbolic Action

Hashem's commands were actively fulfilled, despite the embarrassment or pain they might have caused the prophet. This position subdivides regarding whether or not the commands should be reinterpreted so as to mitigate the difficulties that a literal understanding would pose for the prophet.

Literal Fulfillment

Hashem's commands are understood literally, without an attempt to soften the directives.

Prophetic trials – Rid maintains that prophets are initiated into prophecy with the understanding that their lives will be filled with trials and tribulations.  The fact that a command might entail suffering pain, sorrow, or humiliation is part of the prophetic package. Thus Yeshayahu could have been told to walk literally naked, and Yechezkel could be expected to sleep on his side for moths, while eating meager rations of food cooked in dung.
Maintaining prophetic standards and reputation – Rid does not address how a prophet's engaging in bizarre behavior would impact his reputation and how it might affect how his future prophecies were heard.  It is possible that people were used to their prophets performing symbolic actions and recognized them as such.  And, even if at first they found the prophet's behavior odd, once the actions were explained, they accepted it as part of the prophet's job.
Commanding a transgression? The Rid is not bothered by the possibility that a prophet might be commanded to transgress a Biblical commandment. Hashem can permit whatever He wants ("הפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר"), and since He is the one doing the commanding, the prophet must listen.12  Thus, Hoshea's sleeping with a prostitute or Yechezkel's shaving his sideburns would not be problematic.
Purpose of such actions
  • This approach might suggest that one of the best ways to get a message across to an apathetic audience is to shock them into attention. This would support reading the verses as literally a possible since the more unexpected the prophet's behavior, the more of an impact it would have had on the listeners.
  • In the case of Yechezkel, it is also possible that Hashem's directive that he be mute and not rebuke the people might have necessitated substituting verbal chastisement with symbolic actions.
Intended audience – The public nature of the symbolic actions would suggest that they were intended for the nation itself, rather than the prophet or future generations.

Non-literal Fulfillment

Many of Hashem's commands are reinterpreted, easing their fulfillment and making them accord more with the standards of behavior expected of a prophet.

Case Dependent

Any bizarre command which the narrator states was fulfilled by the prophet must be interpreted as having been fulfilled literally and not in a dream.  Those commands whose fulfillment is not explicit might have been given only in a prophetic vision.

The various cases – Abarbanel distinguishes between three types of cases:
  • Where the text explicitly states that something occurred in a vision, such as Yechezkel being taken "בְּמַרְאוֹת אֱלֹהִים" to Yerushalayim (8:3), the prophecy and all actions mentioned therein can be assumed to be have taken place only in a prophetic dream.
  • Where the text explicitly states that a prophetic command was fulfilled, such as Yeshayahu's walking naked and Hoshea's taking a prostitute in marriage, one must assume that the action happened literally.
  • In cases where the text is silent, neither mentioning a vision nor an active deed,  such as the commands that Yechezkel shave his hair,  lie on his side, or eat bread baked in dung, one can take either option.
Loyalty to the simple meaning of the text – Abarbanel is motivated by a desire to stay true to the simple meaning of the text. He questions how someone can arbitrarily decide that the narrator's statement, "and he did so" was only within a dream?
Maintaining prophetic standards and reputation – Abarbanel argues that the degree of "absurdity" of a commanded action should play no role in determining whether or not it was merely a vision. It is not for the reader to decide what is "strange" or whether or not they are comfortable with Hashem's commands.
"והיה לאות ומופת"
Transgressing a command? Abarbanel maintains that Yechezkel's shaving might have only been in a prophetic dream, thereby avoiding the issue. He makes no comment about Hoshea's marriage and might agree with Malbi that it was only prohibited for a priest to marry a prostitute.