EXODUS OT eSOURCES COLLECTION compiled and prepared by Dr. Ted Hildebrandt Gordon College, 255 Grapevine Rd. Wenham, MA 01984 faculty.gordon.eduBiblical Studies Dept. For my students and students of the Bible 2004 Table of Contents for Exodus Articles at Gordon available online in *.doc, *.pdf, *.html, and audio *.mp3 Compiled and prepared by Ted Hildebrandt Gordon College, 255 Grapevine Rd., Wenham, MA 01984 freely available at: faculty.gordon.edu Humanities/Biblical Studies Dept. also available is Ezekiel Hopkins Ten Commandments (442 pp). any errors or suggestions write to: thildebrandt@gordon.edu Enjoy! Allen, Ronald B. "The Bloody Bridegroom in Exodus 4:24-26," Bibliotheca Sacra 153 (1996) 259-69. p. 1 Bailey, Jon N. Vowing Away the Fifth Commandment: Matthew 15:3- 6//Mark 7:9-13, Restoration Quarterly 42 (2000) 193-209. p. 12 Barrick, William D. The Openness of God: Does Prayer Change God? The Masters Seminary Journal 12/2 (Fall 2001) 149-166. p. 29 Beale, G. K. "An Exegetical and Theological Consideration of the Hardening of Pharaoh's Heart in Exodus 4-14 and Romans 9," Trinity Journal 5 NS (1984) 129-54. (Adv) p. 47 Beitzel, Barry J. "Exodus 3:14 and the Divine Name: A Case of Biblical Paronomasia," Trinity Journal 1.1 (1980) 5-20. (Adv) p. 73 Burkitt, F. C. The Hebrew Papyrus of the Ten Commandments, The Jewish Quarterly Review 15 (1903) 392-408. p. 89 Burton, Keith A. The Decalogue as Essential Torah in Second Temple Judaism, Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 9/1-2 (1998): 310-317. p. 107 Cerling, C. E. Abortion and Contraception in Scripture, Christian Scholars Review (Fall, 1971) 42-58. p. 115 Chisholm, Robert B. Does God Change His Mind? Bibliotheca Sacra 152 (October-December 1995): 387-99 p. 132 Coats, G. W. "The Failure of the Hero: Moses as a Model for Ministry," Asbury Theological Journal 41.2 (1986) 15-22. p. 145 Cole, H. R. The Sabbath and the Alien, Andrews University Seminary Studies 38.2 (Autumn 2000) 223-229. p. 153 Congdon, Robert N. "Exodus 21:22-25 and the Abortion Debate," Bibliotheca Sacra 146 (1989) 132-47. p. 160 Craigen, Trevor. Urim and Thummim Post Graduate Seminar Paper, Grace Theological Seminary, Winona Lake, IN: 1978. p. 176 Davis, John J. "The Patriarchs' Knowledge of Jehovah," Grace Theological Journal 4.1 (1963) 29-43. p. 195 Davis, D. R. "Rebellion, Presence, and Covenant: A Study in Exodus 32- 34," Westminster Theological Journal 44 (1982) 71-87. p. 210 Dyer, C. H. "The Date of the Exodus reexamined," Bibliotheca Sacra 140 (1983) 225-43. p. 227 Finn, A. H. The Tabernacle Chapters, The Journal of Theological Studies 16 (July 1915) 449-82. p. 245 Glisson, Shawn D. Exodus 6:3 in Pentateuchal Criticism, Restoration Quarterly 28.3 (1985/86) 135-43. p. 279 Grisanti, Micahel A. The Abortion Dilemma, The Masters Seminary Journal 11/2 (Fall 2000) 169-190. p. 288 Hendrix, Ralph E. "A Literary Structural Overview of Exod 25-40," Andrews University Seminary Studies 30.2 (1992) 123-38. p. 310 ________. "A Literary Structural Analysis of the golden-Calf Episode in Exodus 33:1-33:6," Andrews University Seminary Studies 28.3 (1990) 211-17. p. 326 ________. "Mi kan and 'Ohel Mo'ed: Etymology, Lexical Definitions, and Extra-Biblical Usage," Andrews University Seminary Studies 29.3 (1991) 213-23. p. 333 ________. "The Use of Mi Kan and 'Ohel M' ed in Exodus 25-40," Andrews University Seminary Studies 30.1 (1992) 3-13. p. 344 Hoehner, Harold W. "The Duration of the Egyptian Bondage," Bibliotheca Sacra 125 (1969) 306-16. p. 355 House, H. Wayne. Miscarriage or Premature Birth: Additional Thoughts on Exodus 21:22-25, Westminster Theological Journal 41.1 (1978) 108-23. p. 366 Kennedy, A. R. S. "Shewbread." A Dictionary of the Bible. Ed. J. Hastings. Vol. 4. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1902. 495-97. p. 382 _________. "Tabernacle." A Dictionary of the Bible. Ed. J. Hastings. Vol. 4. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1902. 653-68. p. 390 Klein, David J. Proving and Provision at Marah, Kerux 15.1 (2000) 24-29. p. 435 Kline, Meredith G. The Ha-Bi-RuKin or Foe of Israel? Part 1 Westminster Theological Journal 19 (1956) 1-24. p. 441 _________. The Ha-Bi-RuKin or Foe of Israel? Part 2 Westminster Theological Journal 19 (1956) 170-84. p. 465 _________. The Ha-Bi-RuKin or Foe of Israel? Part 3 Westminster Theological Journal 20 (1958) 46-70. p. 480 _________. The Two Tables of the Covenant, Westminster Theological Journal 22 (1960) 133-46. p. 505 Laney, J. Carl. Gods Self-Revelation in Exodus 34:6-8, Bibliotheca Sacra 158 (Jan.-Mar. 2001) 36-51. p. 517 Leder, Arie, C. "The Coherence of Exodus: Narrative Unity and Meaning," Calvin Theological Journal 36 (2001) 251-69. p. 533 5________. "Reading Exodus to Learn and Learning to Read Exodus," Calvin Theological Journal 34 (1999) 11-35. p. 552 Lee, Jeong W. Introduction to the Ten Commandments, Kerux 12.1 (1998) 33-40. p. 577 Livingston, G. Herbert. "A Case Study of the Call of Moses," Asbury Theological Journal 42.2 (1987) 89-113. p. 589 Mattingly, Gerald L. The Exodus-Conquest and the Archaeology of Transjordan: New Light on an Old Problem, Grace Theological Journal 4.2 (1983) 245-62. p. 614 Meek, Theophile J. The Sabbath in the Old Testament, Journal of Biblical Literature 33 (1914) 201-12. p. 632 Mercer, Samuel A. B. Merneptahs Israel and the Exodus, Anglican Theological Review 5 (1922/23) 96-107 p. 644 Patterson, Richard D. "The Song of Redemption," Westminster Theological Journal 57.2 (1995) 453-61. p. 656 Ray, Paul J. "The Duration of the Israelite Sojourn in Egypt," Andrews University Seminary Studies 24.3 (1986) 231-48. p. 665 Rea, John. "The Time of the Oppression and the Exodus," Grace Theological Journal 2.1 (Winter, 1961) 5-14. p. 684 ________. "New Light on the Wilderness Journey and the Conquest," Grace Theological Journal 2.2 (Spring 1961) 5-13. p. 694 Riggs, Jack R. "The Length of Israel's Sojourn in Egypt," Grace Theological Journal 12.1 (Winter, 1971) 18-35. p. 703 Shea, William H. The Inscribed Tablets from Tell Deir cAlla, Andrews University Seminary Studies 27.1 (Spring 1989) 21-37.p. 721 Slater, Thomas B. The Possible Influence of LXX Exodus 20:11 on Acts 14:15, Andrews University Seminary Studies 30.2 (1992) 151-52. p. 738 Sprinkle, Joe M. "The Interpretation of Exodus 21:22-25 (Lex Talionis) and Abortion,"Westminster Theological Journal 55.2 (1993) 233-53. p. 740 Waltke, B. K. "Palestinian Artifactual Evidence Supporting the Early Date of the Exodus," Bibliotheca Sacra 129 (1972) 33-47. p. 761 Wessner, Mark D. Toward a Literary Understanding of Moses and the LORD "Face To Face" (C`)07R C`)0) in Exodus 33:7-11, Restoration Quarterly 44 (2002) 109-16. p. 776 Wilson, R. D. "Critical Note on Exodus VI.3," Princeton Theological Review 22 (1924) 108-19. p. 784 Worley, David R. Gods Gracious Love Expressed: Exodus 20:1-17, Restoration Quarterly 14 (1971) 184-204. p. 796 Young, E. J. "The Call of Moses, Part 1" Westminster Theological Journal (1966-67) 117-35. p. 817 ________. "The Call of Moses, Part II," Westminster Theological Journal 30 (1967-68) 1-23. p. 836 Zuck, Roy B. The Practice of Witchcraft in the Scriptures, Bibliotheca Sacra 128 (1971): 352-60 p. 859 End p. 867 54 articles 6-20-04 (872 pg) 1BIBLIOTHECA SACRA 153 (July-September 1996): 259-69 Copyright 1996 by Dallas Theological Seminary. Cited with permission. THE "BLOODY BRIDEGROOM" IN EXODUS 4:24-26* Ronald B. Allen EXODUS 4:24-26 comprises possibly the most perplex- ing passage in all the Torah, surpassed perhaps only by the puz- zlement many feel concerning "the sons of God" and "the daugh- ters of men" in Genesis 6:1-4. The Book of Exodus begins in chapter 1 with a brief recital of the plight of Israel in their long period of servitude in Egypt. Then in chapter 2 the story records the birth of Moses, whose protection in his infancy was a most remarkable instance of divine provi- dence, including humor.1 The balance of chapter 2 through nearly all of chapter 4 focuses on Moses' early life, as Yahweh prepared him for his lifework of being the human agent for God's deliverance of His people from Egypt. Along the way God re- vealed Himself to Moses in terms of His divine name Yahweh (2:22-3:15),2 and then He told Moses of His choice of him to be His agent. Moses was reluctant at first, but finally was convinced that his purpose in life was this grand task. So at last in Exodus 4:18 Moses prepared to leave Midian, where he had lived for forty years, to return to Egypt to obey God's command. As Moses was on his way to Egypt, the Lord came to kill him. Surely these three verses (Exod. 4:24-26) are among biblical Ronald B. Allen is Professor of Bible Exposition, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dal- las, Texas. * This is article three in a four-part series, "On Paths Less Traveled: Discovering the Savior in Unexpected Places in the Old Testament," delivered by the author as the W. H. Griffith Thomas Lectures at Dallas Theological Seminary, February 7-10, 1995. 1 It is interesting to note the comic justice of Pharaoh's daughter hiring Moses' mother to nurse her own baby (Exod. 2:7-10). 2 Ronald B. Allen, "What Is in a Name?" in God: What Is He Like? ed. William F. Kerr (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1977), 107-27. 2260 BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / July-September 1996 paths less traveled. Childs wrote, "Few texts contain more prob- lems for the interpreter than these few verses which have contin- ued to baffle throughout the centuries."3 In the New King James Version, Exodus 4:24-26 reads as follows: "And it came to pass on the way, at the encampment, that the LORD met him and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone and cut off the fore- skin of her son and cast it at Moses'4 feet, and said, 'Surely you are a husband of blood to me!' So He let him go. Then she said, 'You are a husband of blood'--because of the circumcision." PRELIMINARY ISSUES Several questions come to mind when one reads these verses. 1. This passage seems to be an intrusion into the flow of the chapter. It is abrupt as well as cryptic and difficult. Though these verses form a unit, the question remains, What is the purpose of this pericope? 2. The passage is marked by a lack of clear antecedents for some of its pronouns or named objects for some of its verbs. Fur- ther, many translations have inserted the name "Moses" in verse 25 where the Hebrew has only "his."5 Who did what to whom? 3. More significantly, the passage prompts the question, Why? What possibly could have prompted the rage of Yahweh that would have caused Him to want to kill Moses? This seems partic- ularly inappropriate, since the initial "misunderstanding" be- tween God and Moses had been settled (Exod. 4:1-17). 4. Why does the passage center on what for modern readers are the distasteful and embarrassing subjects of circumcision, blood, and foreskins? 5. What was behind Zipporah's action? How did she know what to do? Why did Moses not act? After she cut off the foreskin of her son, whom did she touch with it, what did she touch with it, and why did she need to touch anything with it? 3 Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), 95. John I. Durham writes, "These verses are among the most difficult in the Book of Exodus, not in terms of their translation, which is quite straightforward, but in terms of their meaning and their location in this particular context" (Exodus, Word Biblical Commentary [Waco, TX: Word, 1987],56-59). Walter C. Kaiser Jr. echoes these words ("Exodus," in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, 12 vols. [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990], 2:332). 4 The footnote in the New King James Version correctly notes that the Hebrew is literally "his." 5 Certainly this passage must be studied on the basis of the Hebrew text rather than in a translation. At times the priority of the Scriptures in the original lan- guages needs to be reasserted over that of any translation. All translations of Scripture are adequate for the purposes intended; no translation of Scripture is able to reveal the subtle nuances that are a part of the original locution. 3The "Bloody Bridegroom" in Exodus 4:24-26 261 6. What is the meaning of Zipporah's words, "You are a husband of blood to me," and to whom are they addressed? 7. What is the point of this passage?6 SUGGESTED INTERPRETATIONS Not surprisingly, this puzzling passage has been a mine for critical scholars to explore, allowing them to look for exotic ores and bizarre treasures.7 Alas, they seem to have found mostly fool's gold. On the other hand three contemporary scholars have attempted to deal with the passage constructively. BREVARD CHILDS'S VIEW Childs notes many difficulties, including those of connec- tion, the rash action of the Lord, the lack of stated reason, the lack of an explanation of the action of Zipporah, the lack of an- tecedents, and the irrational, almost demonic, atmosphere with its focus on blood.8 Then he says that it is not clear whose feet were touched. "In my opinion the redactor of the present narrative seemed to have understood the child as the recipient of the action. The smearing of the blood serves as a visible demonstration that circumcision had indeed been performed."9 To this the question may be asked, Would not the boy's wail be sufficient evidence that he was the one on whom the procedure had been accomplished? Why also put blood on the child's feet? To whom were the words addressed? On the surface they seem to apply neither to the child nor to Moses, and assuredly not to Yahweh. The frequent suggestion of translating the phrase on the basis of Arabic to mean "the blood-circumcised one" escapes some of the difficulties but cannot be sustained philologically.10 Childs concludes that the story "serves to dramatize the tremendous importance of circumcision. . . . the implication is certainly that Moses was held culpable for its omission. Indeed so serious was the offense as to have nearly cost him his life. When Zipporah righted the omission, he was released."11 6 To put it another way, How does this text aid in one's spiritual development, and how may this text be used in preaching God's Word to hurting people? How is this a part of Scripture that has its role in making the believer complete in the Lord (2 Tim. 3:16-17)? 7 For a survey of theories, see Durham, Exodus, 57. 8 Childs, Exodus, 95. 9 Ibid., 103. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid., 104. 4262 BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / July-5eptember 1996 Thus Childs suggests these points: (1) The child was circum- cised by his mother because Moses did not do so. (2) The bloody foreskin was touched to the feet of the child to demonstrate that the circumcision was accomplished. (3) Questions about Zipporah's enigmatic words are unanswered. (4) The meaning of the pas- sage is to be found in the tremendous importance attached to cir- cumcision (and its role in the covenant of God and man). WALTER C. KAISER JR.'S VIEW With the two textual clues, the rite of circumcision as the ex- planation of the whole episode and "my firstborn son"12 as the connection between the sections, the rest of the passage yields this explanation. The Lord had attacked Moses as he was enroute to accomplish the mission of God in Egypt. The nature of this nearly fatal experience is not known to us; therefore, it does not figure in the interpretation. That Moses was the object of the di- vine action is clear from the fact that the otherwise unspecified son in v. 25 would need to be identified as belonging to someone other than Moses. The sudden introduction of Zipporah's action leads us to believe that she instinctively connected her husband's peril (a malady so great that it left only her hands free to act, for presumably his were not able to help) with their failure to circum- cise their son. This she immediately proceeded to so. But her words of reproach--"Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me"-- indicate that the root of the problem was in her revulsion and disgust with this rite of circumcision.13 Kaiser then gives this conclusion: Thus for one small neglect, apparently out of deference for his wife's wishes, or perhaps to keep peace ill the home, Moses almost forfeited his opportunity to serve God and wasted eighty years of preparation and training! To further underscore this connection between Moses' grave condition and the circumcision of his son, Zipporah took the excised prepuce and touched Moses' feet (this need not be as many commentators argue a euphemism for his genitals, for this is not a puberty rite here). The Lord let Moses go, and the grip of death was lited.14 These are the salient elements in Kaiser's presentation: (1) Moses was the one under God's action, suffering from an (un- named) illness that incapacitated him.15 (2) The child (presum- 12 Kaiser is referring here to the words, "my firstborn son," in verse 22. 13 Kaiser, "Exodus," 332-33. 14 Ibid., 333. 15 This is also the view of U. Cassuto: "that the Lord met him, that means, that he contracted a severe illness (on the Hebrew usage that attributes every event to the direct action of God)" (A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, trans. Israel Abra- hams [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967], 60). 5The "Bloody Bridegroom" in Exodus 4:24-26 263 ably Gershom) had not been circumcised, possibly the result of a family dispute. (3) Zipporah showed revulsion to the act of cir- cumcision of her son, as seen in her words to Moses; nevertheless she acted to save Moses' life. (4) One senses the homiletical point in Kaiser's last paragraph: What sadness if one were to lose a ministry for God just to keep peace in the home. JOHN I. DURHAM'S VIEW Durham insists that the study should be "of the passage as it stands in Exodus, and, just as important, where it stands in Exo- dus.16 These are his interpretive points. (1) The main point is clearly circumcision, and at that, a specific circumcision. The etiological view (as Childs argues) is not in view here, nor (in the present text) is there any ground for a demonic interpretation. (2) Moses was the object of Yahweh's encountering action. (3) The reason for the attack is "that Moses had not previously been cir- cumcised."17 (4) Zipporah circumcised her son, because if she had circumcised Moses, he would have been incapacitated for his journey. On the child, the effects would be less problematic; in any event, the child did not make the journey. (5) To transfer the effects of the rite to Moses, she touched the severed foreskin of her son to Moses' genitals. (6) The phrase "a bridegroom of blood" was an ancient formula recalling circumcision as a premarital rite. (7) Thus Zipporah's action "is a vicarious circumcision of Moses to prevent his being painfully crippled at the beginning of the most important undertaking of his life."18 There are some strengths to Durham's position, but his view is marred by a critical error. "Vicarious circumcision" is as un- likely a category as "vicarious baptism." This is a theological oxymoron. If Yahweh were about to kill Moses because he was not circumcised, the blood of his son's foreskin on his still uncir- cumcised organ would not likely assuage the wrath of God. Fur- ther, Durham says that the words of Zipporah form "the ritual statement which accompanied the premarital circumcision as a declaration to a young man's in-laws that he was of an are appro- priate for marriage."19 Of what application would this be for Moses, who had long before married her and fathered two sons by 16 Durham, Exodus, 57. 17 Or if he had been circumcised, it was in the "partial manner" of the Egyptians. This is farfetched, for was it not Hebrew circumcision that led Pharaoh's daughter to recognize Moses as a Hebrew baby (Exod. 2:6)? 18 These points are summarized from Durham, Exodus, 57-59. 19 Ibid., 59. 6264 BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / July-September 1996 her? If circumcision were a necessity for marriage in her cul- ture, and if Moses had not been circumcised as a baby in Egypt, surely Moses would have been circumcised by Jethro, her father,20 in the time-honored tradition of the Arabian (and other) peoples of this period. The weaknesses of this view outweigh the strengths. A PROPOSED INTERPRETATION VERSE 24 "Now it happened on the way at an inn, that Yahweh encoun- tered him and sought to kill him" (author's translation). The "him" (twice) in verse 24 undoubtedly refers to Moses.21 Is it pos- sible that the delicate nature of the text led Moses (or another) to refer to him obliquely? Moses was on his way to Egypt, as com- missioned by Yahweh (4:21-23). The strained interplay Moses had had with the Lord (4:1-17) was behind him. Yahweh is clearly the subject of the verbs "met" (U10, "to en- counter") and "sought to kill" (though the Septuagint substituted the word "angel" for Yahweh). Moses had recently learned the meaning of the name of God, Yahweh (Exod. 3:13-15); now God who was for him had become his enemy. The verb "encounter" is minimized by many commentators. Cole says Moses "was struck down by some dangerous sickness or other blow as the sign of God's displeasure."22 However, He- brew has a clear way of speaking of physical illness or injury (e.g., 1 Kings 17:17; 2 Kings 1:2), and such phrases are not in this passage. The verb "encounter" is as significant in this passage as is the word "son." Kaiser rightly sees "son" (v. 25) as the con- necting link of this pericope with the preceding one (v. 23), but he 20 This is particularly the case since the Hebrew for "his father-in-law" (1)h) used of Jethro is derived from an Arabic word that means "his circumciser." 21 Because there is no clear antecedent for the pronoun "him" in this verse, it is remotely possible that the one whom the Lord was about to kill was not Moses but his son (either Gershom or Eliezer) who was not circumcised. The uncircumcised one was to be cut off from Israel (Gen. 17). In this case one may picture the Lord holding the boy, even as his mother circumcised him. Then the Lord would have re- leased the boy. This option is likely without precedent among interpreters (but see comments below on v. 26). Perhaps the strongest objection to this view is the obser- vation that one would have expected Moses to have acted on behalf of his son in this Hebrew custom rather than his mother (who was a Midianite). Yet her mother's love may have urged her to act quickly, as Phinehas acted with zeal in Numbers 25. 22 R. Alan Cole, Exodus (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1973), 79. Similarly, John J. Davis suggests Moses "was punished by God and was apparently desper- ately sick" (Moses and the Gods of Egypt: Studies in the Book of Exodus [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1971], 71). 7The "Bloody Bridegroom" in Exodus 4:24-26 265 strangely dismisses the link of "encounter" with the next pericope beginning in verse 27.23 Yahweh encountered Moses to kill him; in the next unit Aaron encountered Moses to embrace him. Both statements use U10, a relatively rare verb that connotes a significant personal en- counter.24 This verb suggests a dramatic (hostile) encounter of Yahweh with Moses in what may be a hitherto-unacknowledged theophany. Those approaches that say Moses was ill because of a visitation by the Lord overlook the serious nature of this term. This theophany was an appearance of the living, preincarnate Christ, the One who reveals the Father and is the living Word (John 1:14-18). Yahweh's encounter with Moses was similar to the wrestling match of the Angel of Yahweh (the preincarnate Christ) with Ja- cob (Gen. 32). Both theophanic appearances were sudden, per- sonal, direct revelations of the divine presence in a hostile, wrestler's hold. Moses was held by the Lord, not beset by a myste- rious disease. And then he was released by Yahweh when His demands had been met (Exod. 4:26); it was not simply that he "got better." Just as he was later held by Aaron (v. 27) in a warm em- brace, so now he was held by the Lord (v. 24) in a hostile hold--a death grip. Why does verse 24 state that "Yahweh. . . sought to kill him"? If He truly wished to kill Moses, could He not have done so in a moment? Actually the very opposite was God's intention. He held Moses in a death grip, but He did not want to kill him. The verb U3, "to seek," means not a frenetic activity on God's part, but a sudden struggle, a divine grip, and divine patience before the fi- nal blow. Indeed, He was giving Moses one last chance to stay alive. Strangely, but surely, this is another instance of God's grace. Moses had committed a serious offense against the Lord that made him unfit to be God's agent of deliverance or to live in God's presence. VERSE 25 "Then Zipporah took a flint and she cut off the foreskin of her son, and she held it out to touch his feet, and she said, "Surely you are a bloody bride-father25 [C`b"|h ] to me!' " (author's transla- 23 Kaiser, "Exodus," 332. 24 The word here (v. 24) is not the more familiar verb R, "to meet." Both U10 and R are used in verse 27. 25 Brown, Driver, and Briggs list |h as a "daughter's husband, bridegroom" (meaning one who undergoes circumcision), and more generally, a wife s or hus- band's relations. For Exodus 4:25 they give the standard translation, "a bloody 8266 BIBLIOTHECA SACRA I July-September 1996 tion). Crucial to the interpretation of this verse is the Lord's in- struction regarding circumcision based on Genesis 17. Clearly that passage says that each male child is to be circumcised on the eighth day of his life. Should that fail to be done, that one was to be cut off from Israel; he had broken covenant with Yahweh (Gen. 17:3-14). Moses was guilty of not carrying out circumcision in his own family, yet he was the one who was to lead the circumcised nation of Israel from Egypt to the Promised Land. The situation was simply intolerable. "But if Moses was to carry out the divine commission with success, he must first of all prove himself to be a faithful servant of Jehovah in his own house."26 Though a sen- tence of death was pronounced on any neglect of circumcision as being a breach of the covenant (Gen. 17:14), "Moses had probably omitted circumcision [of his child] simply from regard to his Midianitish wife, who. . . disliked this operation; he had been guilty of a capital crime, which God could not pass over in the case of one whom He had chosen to be His messenger, to establish His covenant with Israel."27 There may be a grisly pun in the words "cut off" in Genesis 17:14. If the foreskin were not removed, then the person was to be removed. Did the punishment fall on the child who was uncir- cumcised, or on the parent who refused to have this done? The an- swer may be "On both." That is, the child seems to be in view in Genesis 17:14, but the command is for the father (or his agent) to do the task. Another issue concerns which son is in view in Exo- bridegroom art thou to me" (Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament [Oxford: Clarendon, 1907], 368). However, there are etymological data that may suggest the standard translation is based on the false assumption that Zipporah's words were addressed to Moses. The verb |h, "to circumcise" is related to an Arabic verb, hatana, "to circum- cise." The Hebrew |h, "father-in-law," is related to the Arabic hatin, "a circum- ciser ," hence to a father-in-law with reference to circumcision performed on young men just before marriage (cf. the Arabic hatan, a relative on the wife's side). The Hebrew |h is used of Jethro, Moses' "wife's father" (Exod. 3:1; 4:18; 18:1-2, 5-8, 12, 14, 17, 24, 27; Num. 10:29; Judg. 1:16; 4:11). The same word in the feminine is used of the wife's mother (Deut. 27:23). In Ugaritic the related verb htn means "to marry," and the related noun htn means "son-in-law" (Cyrus H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook [Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965], 405). These Hebrew, Arabic, and Ugaritic terms also have cognate nouns in Aramaic, Syriac, and Old South Arabic, with the same general meaning (cf. the Akkadian hat(a)nu). See Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Ara- maic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 1:364-65. 26 C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, The Pentateuch, 3 vols., Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, [n.d.D, 1:459. 27 Ibid. 9The "Bloody Bridegroom" in Exodus 4:24-26 267 dus 4:25. Since only one son is said to be circumcised, one may assume that the other son had already been circumcised.28 The words "her son" do not exclude Moses as father, of course, (nor is it likely that this was a child of hers from another mar- riage). But they may suggest something of the animosity she may have had against circumcision.29 VERSE 26 "Then He released him. (Now she had said 'bloody bride-fa- ther' with reference to the circumcision)" (author's translation). The verb "to release" (00, "to sink," "to relax," "to with- draw") fits with the idea of the release of the wrestler's grip of death, described above. Zipporah repeated the scurrilous phrase "bloody bride-father" to the living God because she was so angry at the act she was forced to perform on her child. A PROPOSED SCENARIO When Gershom was born, Moses would have circumcised him on his eighth day as a matter of course, following the clear teaching of Genesis 17:9-14. While circumcision was also prac- ticed by the Midianites, it would have been a kind of puberty "rite of passage" for them (and other Semitic peoples as well).30 Thus to 28 Some might suggest the second son was an infant, not yet eight days old, but this seems unlikely. The birth of the second son that near the time of travel would have been an extraordinary hardship. Only Gershom's birth has been mentioned to this point (Exod. 2:22). But Moses took with him his "sons" and his wife (4:20); the name of the second, Eliezer, was not given until 18:3-4. 29 Some suggest the son in view here is Gershom, Moses' firstborn. The tie that may link this pericope with the preceding may be the words "firstborn son" (v. 23). Also, as Kaiser suggests, the firstborn of Moses and Zipporah may be linked with the firstborn of Pharaoh. However, even Kaiser is uncertain on this point. Actually the relationship is tenuous. In the case of Pharaoh, it was his son who was at risk, but in the case of Moses, it was Moses himself, not his son, who was at risk. Yet the problem concerned his son. "He who is on his way to liberate the people of the cir- cumcision, has in Midian even neglected to circumcise his second son Eliezer" (John Peter Lange, Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal and Homiletical [1876; reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, n.d., 2:13). 30 The rite of circumcision was not an exclusive practice of the ancient Hebrews. Actually circumcision was practiced in prehistoric times, as attested by some cave paintings. It was practiced among many people groups in the ancient world, in Asia, among South Sea Islanders, in many tribal groups in Africa, and among some of the native peoples of the Americas. However, in most of these cultures, circum- cision was a rite of passage performed on a boy at puberty rather than shortly after birth. Among the ancient Semitic peoples, circumcision was practiced among many of Israel's neighbors, but not among the Canaanites or among the Semites of Mesopotamia. Circumcision was practiced in Egypt, but exclusively among priests. The Philistines (who were Indo-European peoples) did not practice circumcision 10268 BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / July-September 1996 the child's mother the practice of circumcising babies would have been unexpected at best and abhorrent at worst. When the second child was born, Zipporah (perhaps in association with her fa- ther31) may have strongly resisted, saying, "You have done this with the first boy, but not again. Not with my son." If only one son had not been circumcised, it would seem more likely to be the younger rather than the older. So now at the critical moment she did what she had objected to before. Moses, her husband, was in the death grip of his God. She rushed forth, did the deed, but was surely repulsed by the practice. In her anger "she reached out with the foreskin to touch his feet." At whom was she angry? Certainly not at her son, for she had sought to protect him from an "early" circumcision. Nor would her anger have been directed principally against her hus- band. For she sought to save him by her impetuous action. Instead, she was angry at Moses' God. Who demanded the circumcision of babies, against the traditions of all peoples in the region? Who had brought about her husband's action in circum- cising their older boy shortly after his birth? And who now de- manded that her younger boy be circumcised or her husband would be killed? Her husband's God! So to the Lord she reached out with the bloody prepuce, touch- ing His feet.32 And to Him she called out harshly, "You are a bloody bride-father to me." She would have addressed these words to Yahweh for three reasons. (1) God was the One who had de- manded that this action be done on her son. (2) She reasoned that since God "liked" the bloody prepuce so well, He might as well have it. (3) God had become to her like the circumcisers of her culture, demanding the circumcision just before marriage. This (Judg. 14:3; 15:18; 1 Sam. 14:6). The distinction in Israel was the meaning attached to the rite. This was not a rite of passage, but a sign of God's covenant with His people ("Circumcision," in Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2 vols. [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988], 1:462-65). 31 When Moses arrived in Midian he was a fugitive, a person without land, family, wealth, or standing (Exod. 2:15). Besides marrying Zipporah (2:21) he likely became the adoptive son of Jethro. He had become like Jacob in relation to Laban. This is likely the point of Exodus 2:21: "Then Moses was content to live with the man, and he gave Zipporah his daughter to Moses." The verb translated "was content" (Hiphil of 7R`), probably means here, "he came to terms with," or "he acquiesced with." When Moses wanted to leave, he was not free to do so. He needed to seek permission from Jethro, as he had become Jethro's dependent (4:18). Thus Jethro would have had considerable influence over the treatment of his grandson. 32 Critical scholars assert that "feet" is a euphemism for the male genitalia. The unnamed translator of Martin Noth's commentary wrote, Feet, is of course here a euphemistic expression, as elsewhere in the Old Testament (Noth, Exodus, 50, note). 11The "Bloody Bridegroom" in Exodus 4:24-26 269 is the meaning of her ambiguous words in which she called God her "blood relative" by means of the enforced circumcision of her son. This view helps explain the use of lR in verse 26. This word sometimes serves as a stylistic device to introduce a phrase that is to be stressed.33 She said what she did to the Lord, "because [lR] of the circumcision." This passage does not explain circumcision; circumcision explains the passage. Also this point of view helps explain something the text does not mention until later. Even though Moses had asked for per- mission from Jethro to return to Egypt (presumably with his fam- ily, 4:18-20), he must have sent his family back to Jethro follow- ing this encounter at the inn (18:1-5).34 They are not mentioned at all in the story of Moses' dealings with Pharaoh in Egypt. Given the attitude of Zipporah, she may well have separated from her husband. She saved his life when he was under threat by God, but she was not present when he by the mercy of God saved the na- tion. This view may also explain why Moses married again (Num. 12). Many commentators have assumed that Zipporah died before he married a second time. But it may be that she remained with her father Jethro even after the events in Exodus 18. Although Zipporah came with Jethro to Moses, nothing is said about their reunion. Was it perhaps out of respect for his wife that Moses did not detail the nature of their estrangement? And was it out of per- sonal shame that he did not make this passage clearer? Moses' sin of not having circumcised his second son calls to mind the concept of a "sin to death" in the New Testament (1 Cor. 11:27-30; 1 John 5:16). Exodus 4:24-26 becomes an example of this in the Hebrew Scriptures. If the proposed view is correct that Zip- porah touched the feet of the preincarnate Christ with the bloody foreskin, whose thoughts are not thereby driven to the cross on which His feet would one day bleed? The rite of circumcision was the foremost symbol of Israel's relationship to God (Gen. 17:9-14). Involving the shedding of blood, it ultimately pointed to the shedding of the blood of the most innocent Son. But He did not merely bleed a few drops; His very life was bled away. And His death is memorialized in the Lord's Supper by the cup, a symbol of blood. 33 Koehler and Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Tes- tament, 1:26. 34 Lange, A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical, 2:13. 12 Restoration Quarterly 42 (2000) 193-209. Copyright 2000 by Restoration Quarterly, cited with permission. VOWING AWAY THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT: MATTHEW 15:3-6//MARK 7:9-13 JON NELSON BAILEY Dallas, TX I. Introduction Religious vows are prominent in ancient Judaism. This study examines the evidence that in the first-century CE a son could make a vow that would keep him from honoring his parents as commanded in the fifth of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16). This practice, mentioned in Matt 15:3-6//Mark 7:9-13, had the effect of vowing away the fifth commandment. The practice may have been rare and controversial, but it was a phenomenon that could occur in ancient Judaism. Since God required that vows be kept, problems arose when a vow was made that violated the Torah. In this study, I trace the development of such vows within Judaism and show that the NT bears witness to the practice by which a person could make a vow that superseded requirements of the fifth command- ment. I also show that such vows encountered opposition by the rabbis and eventually became unthinkable for pious Jews by the time of the Babylonian Talmud. II. Significant Terms A vow is a promise made in a religious context, usually to God. Vows tend to be promises to perform, or to abstain from, specific actions. In biblical and rabbinic Hebrew, the most common terms for "vow" are the verb ) and the noun ). The corresponding Aramaic terms are the verb ) and the noun ).1 The most common Greek terms for "vow" are the verb cuyoot and the noun 1 F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1907; repr. 1981) 623-24 (hereinafter cited BDB, Lexicon); M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York: Judaica, 1903; repr. 1985) 879-80 (hereinafter cited Jastrow, Dictionary). 13194 RESTORATION QUARTERLY cuyn.2 A vow is a solemn promise or assertion directed toward God. Vows in ancient Judaism can be divided into two basic types. The positive vow promises to perform an act or to offer a gift or sacrifice as a votive offering. The negative vow promises to abstain from something, imposing a prohibition on the one who made the vow or others.3 Vows in ancient Judaism were closely related to oaths, and sometimes the terms were used interchangeably. The common Hebrew terms are 0V13U "oath," and V3U "swear, take an oath."4 The Greek terms are o pxo, "oath," and ovuu, swear, take an oath.5 An oath is a solemn, formal calling upon God as witness to the truth of words directed toward other human beings 6 Another important term is the Hebrew noun |3. In rabbinic Hebrew this noun introduces a vow to abstain from something by declaring an object to have the status of a consecrated offering as far as the one prohibited by the vow is concerned. This usage is a development from biblical Hebrew in which the term occurs frequently but simply to denote a literal "gift, offering, or sacrifice.7 In 2 H. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (9th ed., H. Jones and R. McKenzie; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1940) 739 (hereinafter cited LSJM, Lexicon); W. Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans. W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, 2nd ed. rev. F. W. Gingrich and F. W. Danker; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979) 329 (hereinafter cited BAGD, Lexicon); J. Hermann and H. Greeven, "cuyoot," TDNT 2:775-808. 3 "Vows and Vowing," Encyclopedia Judaica (ed. Cecil Roth; 16 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1971) 16:227-28; "Vow," Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period: 450 B.C.E. to 600 C.E. (ed. Jacob Neusner and William Scott Green; 2 vols.; New York: Simon & Schuster/Macmillan, 1996) 661-62; "Vows and Oaths," The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion (ed. R. Werblowsky and G. Wigoder (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997) 716-17. 4 BDB, Lexicon, 989-90; Jastrow, Dictionary, 1511, 1515. 5 LSJM, Lexicon, 1223, 1252; BAGD, Lexicon, 565, 581; J. Schneider, "ovuu." TDNT, 5:176-185; idem, "opxo et al.," TDNT, 5:457-67. 6 E. Klinger, "Vows and Oaths," The Encyclopedia of Religion (ed. Mircea Eliade; 15 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1987) 15:301. In this study it will be evident that the Jews often blurred the distinction between oaths and vows, especially in regard to vows that negatively affected others. 7 BDB, Lexicon, 898; Jastrow, Dictionary, 1411; J. Kuhlewein, Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (ed. E. Jenni and C. Westerman; trans. M. Biddle; 3 vols. (Peabody: Hendrikson, 1997) 3:1164-69; R. Averbeck, New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (ed. W. VanGemeren; 5 vols.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997) 3:979-82. The noun occurs 80 times in the Hebrew Bible, with 40 of those occurrences in Leviticus. Both the noun and cognate verb are associated with the Israelite concept of drawing near to God in worship by presenting a consecrated gift as a sacrificial offering. While the law specified many gifts such as burnt offerings, grain offerings, and peace offerings, it also was possible to vow voluntarily to God other gifts from one's property. After the loss of the Temple, even the study of the Torah concerning 14BAILEY/VOWING AWAY THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT 195 rabbinic literature it is used both as a designation for actual sacrificial offerings and as a technical term that introduces a vow of abstinence from some object consecrated to God. In rabbinic texts, to avoid use of the actual word for sacri- ficial offering, the term commonly is replaced by the euphemism C)1.8 III. The Hebrew Bible The Hebrew Bible indicates that vows were important in Israelite religion from an early period.9 With a vow a person was placed under solemn obligation to God to do something or to refrain from doing something. Vows were volun- tary. Yet, once taken, they were to be fulfilled. The motive for vows was often a desire to obtain divine favor. They regularly have the form "If God does something for me, then I will do something for God." Except for the Nazirite vow, negative vows or vows of abstinence are rare in the Hebrew Bible. Vows intended to affect others negatively are even less common. A few examples will demonstrate the importance of positive vows in the Hebrew Bible.10 Jacob vowed that if God would keep him safe, fed, and clothed until he returned, he would make the pillar at Bethel into a sanctuary and pay tithes (Gen 28:20-22; 31:13). The people of Israel vowed that if God would give them the land of Canaan, they would destroy its cities (Num 21:2). Jephthah vowed that if God would bring him home victorious, he would offer as a sacrifice whatever first came out of his house when he returned (Judg 11:30-40). Hannah vowed that if God would give her a son, she would dedicate him to God (1 Sam 1: 11). In addition, the Psalms include many texts associated with making and fulfilling vows (Pss 22:22-31; 50:14-15; 56:12-13; 61:8; 65:1; 66:13-20; 116:12-14). Much of the information concerning vows is in the Pentateuch. Everything offered in fulfillment of a vow was to be of the highest quality (Lev 22:17-25). The vow of valuation allowed one person to vow another person, an animal, a building, or a portion of land, but then redeem what had been vowed by paying sacrifice was considered an offering to God. 8 Jastrow, Dictionary, 1335. 9 The text of the Hebrew Bible used for this study is the Hebrew-Aramaic text of E. Elliger and W. Rudolph, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibel- stiftung, 1977), and the Greek text of Alfred Rahlfs, Septuaginta (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1935). English quotations are taken from The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books: New Revised Standard Version (ed. B. Metzger and R. Murphy; New York: Oxford University Press, 1991). 10 F. W. Cartledge, "Vow," The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (rev. G. W. Bromiley; 4 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979-1988) 4:998-999; idem, Vows in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (JSOT Supplement Series 147; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992). 15196 RESTORATION QUARTERLY what it was worth to the priests (Lev 27:1-33). Whether made by a man or a woman, vows were absolutely binding (Num 30:1-2). However, a vow made by an unmarried woman could be annulled the same day by her father, and a vow made by a married woman could be annulled the same day by her husband (Num 30:3-16). Vows were to be fulfilled at the place God chose: the temple in Jerusalem (Deut 12:6-18). Payment of a vow was not to be made with money obtained by immoral means (Deut 23:18); and even though vows were voluntary, they were most serious: If you make a vow to the LORD your God, do not postpone fulfilling it; for the LORD your God will surely require it of you, and you would incur guilt. But if you refrain from vowing, you will not incur guilt. Whatever your lips utter you must diligently perform, just as you have freely vowed to the LORD your God with your own mouth (Deut 23:21-23). The most notable vow of abstinence is the Nazirite vow. It required a person to abstain from grape products, from cutting the hair, and from contact with the dead (Num 6:1-21; Judg 13:4-5; 1 Sam 1:11; Amos 2:11-12). Another negative vow is the vow made by David that he would not enter his house, go to bed, or sleep until he had found a place for God's house (Ps 132:1-5). Also worth considering is an oath imposed by Saul upon Israel (1 Sam 14:24-45), when Saul laid an oath on the people, saying, "Cursed be anyone who eats food before it is evening" (1 Sam 14:24). Later passages suggest that vows created practical difficulties and conflicts with the Law. Vows resulted in promises people failed to fulfill (Mal 1:14). The author of Ecclesiastes advises: "When you make a vow to God, do not delay fulfilling it; for he has no pleasure in fools. Fulfill what you vow. It is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not fulfill it" (Eccl 5:4-5). Similarly, the book of Sirach teaches: "Let nothing hinder you from paying a vow promptly, and do not wait until death to be released from it. Before making a vow, prepare yourself; do not be like one who puts the Lord to the test" (Sir 18:22-23). IV. Qumran The most relevant source from Qumran is the Damascus Document (CD).11 Two incomplete medieval copies of this document were discovered in an old Cairo synagogue in 1896. Extensive fragments of the document were later found 11 The text used for this study is The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations (ed. J. Charlesworth; 10 vols.; Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox, 1994-) vol. 2: Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents. English quotations are from The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (ed. G. Vermes; New York: Penguin, 1997). 16BAILEY/VOWING AWAY THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT 197 in Caves 4, 5, and 6 at Qumran. The oldest fragments date from the early first century BCE. The most important text for this study begins at CD 16:6 and continues to CD 9:1.12 And concerning the saying, "You shall keep your vow by fulfilling it (Deut 23:24)," let no man, even at the price of death, annul any binding oath by which he has sworn to keep a commandment of the Law. But even at the price of death, a man shall fulfill no vow by which he has sworn to depart from the Law. Inasmuch as He said, "It is for her husband to cancel her oath (Num 30:9)," no husband shall cancel an oath without knowing whether it should be kept or not. Should it be such as to lead to transgression of the Covenant, he shall cancel it and shall not let it be kept. The rule for her father is likewise. No man shall vow to the altar anything unlawfully acquired. Also, no Priest shall take from Israel anything unlawfully acquired. And no man shall consecrate the food of his house to God, for it is as he said, "Each hunts his brother with a net (Mic 7:2)." Let no man consecrate.... And if he has consecrated to God some of his own field ... he who has made the vow shall be punished.... Every vow by which a man vows another to destruction by the laws of the Gentiles shall himself be put to death. This passage emphasizes the solemn nature of oaths and vows. It allows for annulment of vows of women that violate the law. It prohibits vows that dedicate wrongfully acquired property. It forbids vowing or consecrating personal property to affect others negatively. And it condemns the practice of vowing another person to destruction. The entire passage is based on Deut 23:21-23 (Matt 23:22-24) and Num 30:2-15 (Matt 30:3-16). However, the texts from the Hebrew Bible have been paraphrased, and the terms for oath and vow are used interchangeably. In addition, CD 16:6-18 uses C ("something consecrated, dedicated, removed from profane use, vow"), 03) ("freewill-offering, dona- tion"), U" ("sanctify, consecrate, dedicate"), C1 ("swear, vow"), 0V13U ("oath"), and V3U ("swear, take an oath").13 The text upholds the inviolability of the Law, requiring individuals to pay the price of death rather than transgress a commandment. The text does address the annulment of oaths and vows made by women, but any such annulment is limited only to oaths or vows that violate the community's covenant. Significant for this study are the admonitions concerning unacceptable vows, particularly the ruling "No man shall consecrate the food of his house to God, for it is as he said, 12 D. Dimant, "Qumran Sectarian Literature," Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (ed. M. Stone; CRINT; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 490-97. Manuscript evidence from Qumran indicates that CD 16 originally was followed by CD 9. See Charlesworth and Vermes. 13 BDB, Lexicon, 355, 356, 21,872, 873; Jastrow, Dictionary, 503, 504, 877, 1319, 1320. 17198 RESTORATION QUARTERLY Each hunts his brother with a net (Mic 7:2). The prohibition is supported by a quotation from Mic 7:2: C 11Y` 10`V hR U`R. In CD 16:15, the noun C should be understood as "something consecrated, dedicated; vow;" rather than the homonym meaning "trap, net, snare." According to Fitzmyer, the text forbids "the dedication of any food to God so that it might not be used to help one's neighbor." V. Philo Philo of Alexandria, who lived from about 20 BCE to 50 CE, provides still another link in the tradition concerning vows.15 He regularly uses cuyn and cuyoot for "vow."16 His most extensive treatment of vows occurs in On the Special Laws. In 1.247-54 he discusses the `great vow' of the Nazirite. In 2.1-38 he discusses rash oaths and vows, oaths and vows of women, and vows of valuation, all under the category cuopxto, "fidelity to one's oath, the duty of keeping oaths."17 In 2.16 he comments on people who make oaths that negatively affect others. Here Philo uses opxo, "oath," rather than cuyn, "vow." But he often uses the terms interchangeably, and his statements in this text show how negative oaths or vows affecting others could be made by Jews in his time contrary to the law or good moral judgment: But there are some who, either because through excessive moroseness their nature has lost the sense of compassion and fellow-feeling or because they are constrained by anger which rules them like a stern mistress, confirm the savagery of their temper with an oath. They declare that they will not admit such and such a person to their board or under their roof, or again, that they will not render assistance to so and so or accept anything from him till his life's end. Sometimes they carry on their vindictiveness after that end has come and leave directions in their wills against even granting the customary rites to the corpse. Although the practice was not considered acceptable by Philo, this example provides evidence that oaths, and probably also vows, were used by Jews in his 14 J. Fitzmyer, "The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament," New Testament Studies 7 (1961) 323. See also L. Schiffman, "The Laws of Vows and Oaths in the Zadokite Fragments and the Temple Scroll," Revue de Qumran 15 (1991-1992) 199-214. 15 The Greek and English texts used for this study are from F. H. Colson, G. H. Whitaker, and R. Marcus, Philo (Loeb Classical Library, 10 vols.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929-1962). 16 Philo, Allegorical Interpretation 1.17; 2.63; On the Unchangeableness of God 87; On Husbandry 175; On Drunkenness 2; On Mating with the Preliminary Studies 99; On Flight and Finding 115; Life of Moses 1.252; On the Decalogue 126; et al. See also Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 8.7. 17 LSJM, Lexicon, 725. 18BAILEY/VOWING AWAY THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT 199 day to prohibit individuals from receiving any assistance from the one who made the oath or vow. VI. Archaeological Evidence Two archaeological discoveries provide valuable information regarding the Jewish practice of making vows during the Second Temple period. In each case the term |3 was used to deny others the use of something by declaring an object to have the status of a consecrated offering. The first discovery is a fragment of a stone vessel recovered from an excavation of a first-century-BCE Herodian street near the Temple in Jerusalem.18 The vessel, found among coins and other vessels, bears the inscription |3, most likely representing the Hebrew noun |3. Along with this inscription is a carved depiction of two birdlike figures, suggesting some connection with the offering of two doves or pigeons (Lev 12:8). The vessel's inscription and its discovery along with coins indicate that its use was similar to the practice debated in the following passage from the Mishnah: Any coins that are found are deemed unconsecrated, even if it was a golden denar found with silver coins. If a potsherd was found with them and on it was written Tithe, they must be deemed (Second) Tithe (redemption money). If a man found a vessel and on it was written "Korban," R. Judah says: If it was of earthenware the vessel is to be deemed unconsecrated but its contents Korban; and if it was of metal it is to be deemed Korban but its contents unconsecrated. They said to him: It is not the way of men to put what is unconsecrated into what is Korban (m. Ma 'aser Sheni 4:9-10).19 The second discovery is an ossuary found southeast of Jerusalem.20 On the ossuary lid, written in a Herodian script from the end of the first century BCE, is the Aramaic inscription: 0l13 |b |3 0 Oh73 0)0hb U)R ` 73 07R ("Everything that a man will find to his profit in this ossuary (is) an offering to God from the one within it)."21 According to Milik, |3 is used as a male- diction or imprecation toward others." Fitzmyer claims the term still means "offering," but is used here as "a warning that whatever of value is in the ossuary 18 B. Mazar, "The Excavations South and West of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem: The Herodian Period," Biblical Archaeologist 33 (1970) 55. 19 H. Danby, The Mishnah (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933). 20 J. Milik, "Trois tombeaux juifs recemment decouverts au Sud-Est de Jerusalem," Studii Biblici Franciscani Liber Annuus 7 (1956-1957) 232-39; J. A. Fitzmyer, "The Aramaic Qorban Inscription from Jebel Hallet et-Turf and Mark 7.11 /Matt 15.5," JBL 78 (1959) 60-65. See also J. A. Fitzmyer and D. J. Harrington, A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1978) 168-69, 222-23. 21 Fitzmyer and Harrington, A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts, 168-69. 22 Milik, "Trois tombeaux juifs," 235, 238, 239. 19200 RESTORATION QUARTERLY has been dedicated to God and is not intended for any profane use."23 Significantly, the term |3, did not transfer the ossuary or its contents to the temple. Rather, this vow formula was used simply to declare something to be sacred and thus prohibit others from using it or obtaining benefit from it in any way. VII. The New Testament The practice of vowing is not common in the NT.24 The verb cuyoot is not used meaning "vow," but only "pray" or "wish" (Acts 26:29; 27:29; Rom 9:3; 2 Cor 13:7, 9; Jas 5:16; 3 John 2). The noun cuyn is used once meaning "prayer" (Jas 5:15) and twice meaning "vow" (Acts 18:18; 21:23).25 References to oaths are more common. The noun opxo, "oath," occurs ten times, and the verb ovu , "swear, take an oath," occurs twenty-six times.26 Most significantly, with the exception of oaths made by God or an angel, swearing of oaths is always portrayed in the NT as an undesirable act. Other significant terms include ovo0co ("anything dedicated, a curse") and ovo0co1tcu ("curse, bind with an oath").27 The one clear NT example of a negative vow forbidding the use of some- thing by others is in Matt 15:3-6 and Mark 7:9-13. Here Jesus speaks to some Pharisees about a conflict between their oral tradition and the Scriptures. The key sentence occurs in Matt 15:5 and Mark 7:11-12. It describes a practice by which a son could make a vow prohibiting his parents from receiving any benefit from him, thus exempting him from honoring them with material support. This violated not only the commandment to honor one's parents (Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16) but also the commandment not to speak evil of one's parents (Exod 21:17; Lev 20:9). According to both Matthew and Mark, Jesus accused the Pharisees of upholding the validity of such a vow that would prevent a person from doing anything for his parents. 23 Fitzmyer and Harrington, A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts, 222. 24 The Greek text used for this study is The Greek New Testament (4th ed., B. Aland, K. Aland, J. Karavidopolous, C. Martini, and B. Metzger; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibel- geselschaft, 1993). English quotations are from The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal Deuterocanonical Books: New Revised Standard Version, ed. B. Metzger and R. Murphy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991). 25 BAGD, Lexicon, 329. 26 BAGD, Lexicon, 565, 566, 581. See also: cvopxtcu, "cause someone to swear"; ccopxtcu "charge under oath"; and opxtcu, "cause someone to swear"; opxuoct o, "oath, taking an oath." 27 LSJM, Lexicon, 104-5; BAGD, Lexicon, 54. See Acts 23:12; Rom 9:3. 20BAILEY/VOWING AWAY THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT 201 Matt 15:3-6 Mark 7:9-13 3) He answered them, "And why 9) Then he said to them, "You have a do you break the commandment fine way of rejecting the of God for the sake of your commandment of God in order to tradition? keep your tradition! 4) For God said, Honor your 10) For Moses said, Honor your father and your mother, and father and your mother, and Whoever speaks evil of father or Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die. mother must surely die. 5) But you say that whoever tells 11) But you say that if anyone tells father or mother, Whatever father or mother, Whatever support support you might have had from you might have had from me is me is given to God, Corban (that is, an offering to then that person need not honor God)-- the father. 12) then you no longer permit doing 6) So, for the sake of your anything for a father or mother, tradition, you make void the word 13) thus making void the word of God of God." through your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many things like this." According to Mark 7:11, the vow was introduced by the formula "Whatever support you might have had from me is Corban." The term xop6ov is simply a transliteration of the Hebrew |3 or the Aramaic |3. Mark explains this term with the clause o cc1tv 8upov, "that is, an offering to God."28 Matthew simply has the translation 8upov. Thus |3 or |3 was understood in the first century CE to mean "gift, offering" while also functioning as a technical term in a vow formula that prohibited others from deriving benefit from that which was dedicated. Scholars are divided over whether a vow formula like the one preserved in Mark 7:11 actually dedicated the designated object to the temple or simply declared the object to have the status of consecrated property as far as certain individuals were concerned.29 Derrett has argued that the person who made the vow could not continue to use the property, but was required to give the property 28 BAGD, Lexicon, 210-11. 29 S. Zeitlin, "Korban," Jewish Quarterly Review 33 (1962) 160-63; G. W. Buchanan, "Some Vow and Oath Formulas in the New Testament," HTR 58 (1965) 319-26. 21202 RESTORATION QUARTERLY or its value to the Temple.30 However, Derrett's argument is based entirely on later rabbinic rulings concerning vows of valuation and does not consider earlier evidence. In an age when the Temple still stood, the formula may well have been used to dedicate property that would subsequently be given as an offering to God. Yet the previous evidence examined in this study suggests that the formula was also used to prohibit others from using something by declaring it consecrated as far as they were concerned. The person who made the vow could retain possession of the property as before, and only those toward whom the vow had been directed could have no further use of it. Still, the effectiveness of this vow was based on the belief that such a declaration gave objects consecrated status, even if only with limited application.31 However, would the Pharisees actually have upheld a vow that violated the Law of Moses? For scholars such as E. P. Sanders, this would not have been possible. At least not as it is portrayed in the Gospels. According to Sanders, even if some odd Pharisee may have done this at some time, the Pharisees as a whole were not guilty of teaching people to act in this way. Instead, according to Sanders, most Pharisees would have condemned the practice just as Jesus did. Thus the story preserved by Matthew and Mark must be considered part of the anti-Jewish or anti-Pharisaical polemic of the early church and not dependable evidence for an accepted practice within the tradition of the Pharisees in the first- century CE.32 In response to Sanders, it must be pointed out that his claim is based on the presupposition that the teaching of the Pharisees is preserved in later rabbinic texts. However, the tradition passed on by the Pharisees was not identical with that of the later rabbis, but underwent considerable development.33 One area in which such development occurred was the tradition concerning vows. As Saul Lieberman has shown, the practice of making all kinds of oaths and vows 30 J. D. M. Derrett, "KOPBAN. O E2TIN AOPON." NTS 16 (1970) 364-68. 31 J. Hart, "Corban," Jewish Quarterly Review 19 (1907) 615-50; H. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum neuen Testament aus Talmud and Midrasch (4 vols.; Munich: C. H. Beck, 1922-1928), vol. 1: Das Evangelium nach Matthaus, 711-17; Z. Falk, "On Talmudic Vows," HTR 59 (1966) 310; K. Rengstorf, "xop6ov. xop6ovo," TDNT 3:862-63. 32 E. P. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990) 55-57; idem, The Historical Figure of Jesus (New York: Penguin, 1993) 218-19. 33 J Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70 (3 vols.; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970); E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (rev. and ed. G. Vermes et al.; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973-1987) 2:381-403. 22BAILEY/VOWING AWAY THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT 203 presented a constant challenge to rabbis in the formative period of Judaism.34 Albert Baumgarten has argued very convincingly that the Pharisees of the first- century CE probably taught that only a limited number of vows could be released and that they probably would have required a son to fulfill a vow even like the one recorded in the Gospels." The vow described by Jesus may have been due to anger, selfishness, or even misguided religious zeal. However, to uphold the sacredness of vows, the Pharisees were apparently bound by oral tradition to enforce and not annul such a vow. VIII. Josephus The writings of the Jewish author Josephus contain two passages that include xop6ov, a transliteration of either the Hebrew noun |3 or the Aramaic noun |3 similar to Mark 7:11.36 In Antiquities 4.73, Josephus says that the term xop6ov was used as a vow by those who declared themselves a "gift," 8u pov, for God, apparently referring to the vow of valuation (Lev 27:1-33). In Against Apion 1.167, he reports that according to Theophrastus the use of xop6ov as an "oath"(opxo) was forbidden by the people of Tyre. Josephus then comments: "Now this oath will be found in no other nation except the Jews, and, translated from the Hebrew, one may interpret it as meaning God's gift. Josephus's translation "God's gift," 8upov 0cou, confirms that the idea of an offering or consecration of something to God was still behind the formulaic use of the term in the first century CE. IX. The Mishnah The Mishnah treats oaths and vows at length.37 Although primarily informative regarding the time of its completion around 200 CE, the Mishnah also provides some insight into earlier development of Jewish law. The rulings on vows before 70 CE dealt with the invalid nature of vows made in error or under constraint. From 70-140 CE, general principles for abrogating vows were 34 S. Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Life and Manners of Jewish Palestine in II-IV Centuries C. E. (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1942) 115-43. 35 A. Baumgarten, "Korban and the Pharisaic Paradosis," Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 16 (1984) 5-17. 36 The Greek text and English translation used for this study are from Josephus (Thackeray, LCL). 37 The Hebrew/Aramaic text of the Mishnah used for this study is Shishah Sidrei Mishnah (ed. C. Albeck; 6 vols.; Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1959), with comparison of Mishnayoth (2d ed.; ed. P. Blackman; 7 vols.; New York: Judaica, 1963-1964). English quotations are from the Mishnah (ed. H. Danby; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933). 23204 RESTORATION QUARTERLY worked out. After 140 CE, the language of vows was subjected to greater clarification. The general trend was to restrict frivolous vows and to annul unacceptable ones.38 The main treatment of oaths is found in tractate Sebuoth ("Oaths").39 The most extensive treatment of vows is found in tractates Nazir ("Nazirite Vow"), Arakin ("Vows of Valuation"), and especially Nedarim ("Vows").40 According to Neusner, the predominate concern of the tractate Nedarim is "the power of a person to affect his or her concrete and material relationships with other people through invoking the name of heaven."41 In this tractate, the rabbis attempt to regulate the practice of vowing, to prevent improper vows, and to provide for release from harmful or unjust vows because "vows will be taken primarily under emotional duress and express impatience and frustration. They are not predictable and never follow upon a period of sober reflection."42 The passages in the Mishnah of primary interest for this study are those that deal with negative vows, or vows of abstinence or prohibition. Many of these passages use |3.43 Even more frequent is the euphemism C)1.44 The following passages from the Mishnah are significant because they include the use of these terms in negative vows, or vows of abstinence intended to prohibit the use of something by someone other than the person who made the vow: (If a man said to his fellow,) "May I be to thee as a thing that is banned!" he against whom the vow is made is forbidden (to have any benefit from him); (if he said,) "Be thou to me as a thing that is banned!" he that makes the vow is forbidden (to have any benefit from the other); (if he said,) "May I be to thee and thou to me (as a thing that is banned)," then each is forbidden (to have any benefit from the other). (m. Nedarim 5:4) 38 J. Neusner, Judaism: The Evidence of the Mishnah (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981) 59, 61, 93. 39 See also m. Seqal. 2:1; m. Ketub. 8:5; 9.2; 10:5; 13:1-4; m. Ned. 1:1, 2; 2:1, 2, 3; 3:4; m. Git. 4:3; 5:3, 4; m. Kidd. 1:5; m. B. Qam. 9:5; 10:3; m. Baba Mezi'a 1:1, 2; 3:1, 2; 4:7; 6:8; 7:8; 8.2; 9:12; m. Sanh. 3:2. 40 See also m. Sebu. 9:7; m. Ter. 1:3; m. Hal. 1:2; m. Sabb. 24:5; m. 'Erub. 3:1; m. Meg. 1:6,7; m. Wed Qat. 3:1, 2; m. Hag. 1:8; m. Yebam. 2:10; 13:13; m. Ketub. 7:6; m. Git. 4.-3; m. Qidd. 2:5; m. Sanh. 3:2; 7:6; m. Menah. 12:2; m. Hul. 8:1; m. 'Arak. 5:1; m. Nid. 5:6. 41 Jacob Neusner, Nedarim, Nazir, vol. 3, A Histony of the Mishnaic Law of Women (5 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1980) 4. 42 Neusner, Nedarim, Nazir, 5. 43 m. Nedarim 1:2-4; 2:2, 5; 9:7; 11:5; m. Nazir 2:1-3; m. Ma'aser Sheni 4:10. 44 m. Nedarim 1:2, 4; 2:1-2, 5; 3:1-4, 11; 4:6; 5:3; 6:1-4, 7, 10; 7:3, 6-8; 9:2-3, 7-10; 11:1-4, 6, 11; m. Gittin 4:7; m. Baba Kamma 9:10; m. Sebu'oth 3:4. 24BAILEY/VOWING AWAY THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT 205 If a man was forbidden by vow to have any benefit from his fellow, and he had naught to eat, his fellow may give (the food) to another as a gift, and the first is permitted to use it. It once happened that a man at Beth Horon, whose father was forbidden by vow to have any benefit from him, was giving his son in marriage, and he said to his fellow, "The courtyard and the banquet are given to thee as a gift, but they are thine only that my father may come and eat with us at the banquet." His fellow said, "If they are mine, they are dedicated to Heaven." The other answered, "I did not give thee what is mine that thou shouldst dedicate it to Heaven." His fellow said, "Thou didst give me what is thine only that thou and thy father might eat and drink and be reconciled one with the other, and that the sin should rest on his head!" (m. Nedarim 5:6) So, too, if a man said to his fellow, "Konam be the benefit thou hast from me if thou come not and give my son a kor of wheat and two jars of wine!" R. Meir says: The vow is binding until he gives (him them). But the Sages say: He, too, may break his vow without recourse to a Sage, and he can say to his fellow, "Lo, it is as though I had already received them.." (m. Nedarim 8:7) R. Ehezer says: They may open for men the way (to repentance) by reason of the honour due to father and mother. But the Sages forbid it. R. Zadok said: Rather than open the way for a man by reason of the honour due to father and mother, they should open the way for him by reason of the honour due to God; but if so, there could be no vows. But the Sages agree with R. Eliezer that in a matter between a man and his father and mother, the way may be opened to him by reason of the honour due to his father and mother. (m. Nedarim 9:1) If a man said to his son, "Konam be any benefit thou hast of mine!" and he died, the son may inherit from him; (but if moreover he said) "both during my life and at my death!" when he dies the son may not inherit from him and he must restore (what he had received from his father at any time) to the father's sons or brothers; and if he has naught (wherewith to repay) he must borrow, and the creditors come and exact payment (m. Baba Kamma 9:10) The preceding passages demonstrate that at the time of the Mishnah negative vows could affect other people, even spouses, parents, or children. Some vows were declared with the intent of denying benefit to others. The most significant texts are m. Ned. 9:1 and m. B. Qamma. 9:10. In m. Ned. 9:1, in spite of debate, the Sages agreed "in a matter between one and his father and his mother," a son could be released from a vow "by reason of the honor due to his father and his mother." A vow such as that described in Mark 7:11 was a vow that could be annulled. This is a change from the situation in Mark 7:12, where Jewish teachers would not permit one who made such a vow to do anything for his parents. And in m. Baba Kamma 9:10, it is the father who declares C)1 any benefit that his son might have from him. It was possible for a son to vow away obligations toward his parents, but the rabbis of the Mishnah would declare such a vow voidable. As Z. W. Falk observed, "had the son approached them, they 25206 RESTORATION QUARTERLY would have taught him to annul his vow and abide by the rules of filial duty."45 Still, the Mishnah considers rules of release from vows to "hover in the air and have naught to support them" (m. Hagigah 1:8).46 Sometimes, he says, when money-lenders fell in with stubborn debtors who were able but not willing to pay their debts, they consecrated what was due to the account of the poor, for whom money was cast into the treasury by each of those who wished to give a portion of their goods to the poor according to their ability. They, therefore, said sometimes to their debtors in their own tongue, "That which you owe to me is Corban," that is, a gift, "for I have consecrated it to the poor, to the account of piety towards God." Then the debtor, as no longer in debt to men but to God and to piety towards God, was shut up, as it were, even though unwilling, to payment of the debt, no longer to the money-lender, but now to God for the account of the poor, in the name of the money-lender. (Commentary on Matthew 11.9) X. The Yerushalmi The Yerushalmi, also known as the Palestinian Talmud or Talmud of the Land of Israel, is the next significant source for this study.47 Completed around 400 CE, it contains a systematic exegesis of thirty-nine of the Mishnah's sixty- two tractates.48 The Yerushalmi contains numerous stories concerning the sages and how they found grounds for absolving vows. Some passages speak of oaths 45 Falk, "On Talmudic Vows," 311. 46 Origen was a contemporary of the Mishnah's redactors and appears to have had firsthand knowledge about Jewish teaching of the time. For information on Origen and his knowledge of Judaism, see J. Danidiou, Origen (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1955); C. Kannengiesser and W. L. Petersen, eds., Origen ofAlexandria: His World and His Legacy (Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1988); H. Crouzet, Origen (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1989. Origen preserves the following explanation of xop6o v, which he learned from a Jew. The translation is from A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (rev. A. C. Coxe, 10 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980-1983). 47 The Hebrew/Aramaic text of the Yerushalmi used for this study is from Talmud Yerushalmi, (7 vols.; New York: M. P., 1976). English quotations are taken from J. Neusner, ed., The Talmud of the Land of Israel (35 vols.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982-1986). There were other compilations of Jewish law produced between the Mishnah and Yerushalmi. The work m. Aboth, compiled around 250 CE, contains only two brief references to vows (3:14; 4:18), neither of which concerns negative vows. The Tosefta, compiled around 300 CE, omits much of the Mishnah's discussion of negative vows, especially expletive vows. Of the Mishnaic texts discussed previously, the Tosefta does not include m. Nedarim 5:6 and 9:1 and includes only a small portion of m. Nedarim 8:7. 48 J Neusner, Judaism in Society: The Evidence of the Yerushalmi (Chicago: Univer- sity of Chicago Press, 1983), x-xi; idem, The Oral Torah: The Sacred Books of Judaism (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986) 73. 26BAILEY/VOWING AWAY THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT 207 and vows interchangeably (y. Ned. 1:1 VI; 5:4 IV; 9:1 V). Other passages dis- tinguish oaths from vows by claiming that only vows were capable of being absolved by the rabbis (y. Ned. 11: 1 II). According to Jacob Neusner, what is important is that "in its account of the public conduct of the rabbis, the Talmud provides ample evidence that rabbis found grounds for absolution of vows and told people about them."49 The Yerushalmi discusses m. Ned. 5:4; 5:6; and 8:7, but it provides no additional information. It treats m. Ned. 9:1 more thoroughly, including some material found only here in rabbinic literature. In particular, y. Ned. 9:1 I-IV contains various rulings on the proper grounds for release from vows. Immediately afterward y. Ned. 9:1 V attempts to explain what the rabbis of the Mishnah must have meant in m. Ned. 9:1 in the matter between a son and his parents: How shall we interpret the matter? If he says, "Benefit deriving from me is forbidden to father," then we must invoke that which was said by R. Jacob bar Aha, R. Samuel bar Nahman in the name of R. Jonathan: "They force the son to provide maintenance for the father." But thus we must interpret the matter: It is a case in which he has said, "Benefit deriving from father is prohibited to me." The rabbis of the Yerushalmi record an interpretation that the son had made a vow forbidding his father from receiving "benefit" (0``)), the financial support due to his parents.50 But they conclude this could not be the correct meaning of the Mishnah. The command to "honor" one's parents was sufficient reason to absolve the vow and force the son to provide for his father. Therefore, they explain the text to mean that the son had vowed not to receive any benefit from his father. XI. The Bavli The Bavli, also called the Babylonian Talmud, dates from 500-600 CE.51 Like the Yerushalmi, the Bavli provides an exposition of over half the Mishnah. In addition to organizing the work around the structure of the Mishnah, the compilers of the Bavli produced a synthesis of all rabbinic literature, drawing on previous Mishnah exegesis in the Tosefta, the Yerushalmi, and previous Scripture exegesis in the various midrashim. All this material was selectively shaped into the "classical statement" of rabbinic Judaism." As Louis Jacobs has 49 Neusner, Judaism in Society, 169-70. 50 Jastrow, Dictionary, 357-58. 51 The text and translation of the Bavli used for this study is from I. Epstein, ed., Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud (London: Soncino, 1962-). 52 J. Neusner, Judaism: The Classical Statement, The Evidence of the Bavli (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986) 4-46, 114, 211-40. 27208 RESTORATION QUARTERLY observed, "the compilers were creative artists, reshaping all the earlier material to produce a literary work."53 The Bavli shows significant developments in rabbinic attitudes toward vows. These include emphasis on fulfilling all binding vows, opposition to vow taking in general, and increased efforts to find ways of releasing people from improper vows. In b. Shabbath 32b the rabbis say failure to fulfill a vow can result in the death of one's wife and children.54 In b. Ta'anith 4a the rabbis criticize the vow of Jephthah (Judg 11:30-40) and link it with worship of Baal.55 In dealing with annulling vows, b. Yebamoth states: "R. Nathan said, If a man makes a vow it is as if he has built a high place and if he fulfills it, it is as if he has offered up a sacrifice upon it."56 After quoting the biblical injunction on vows in Eccl 5:4, b. Hullin 2a says: "And it has been taught: Better than both is he who does not vow at all; this is the opinion of R. Meir. R. Judah says, Better than both is he who vows and pays."57 As in the Mishnah and Yerushalmi, the most extensive treatment of vows in the Bavli is Nedarim ("Vows"). Here the Bavli intensifies its opposition to vows, offers examples of rabbis granting release from vows, but demands fulfillment of binding vows. Numerous passages repeat that any vow that appears to violate biblical commands must not really violate them or must be annulled (b. Nedarim 13b; 14a; 15a; 15b; 16a; 16b; 17a; et al.). The practice of taking vows is discouraged: "Never make a practice of vowing, for ultimately you will trespass in the matter of oaths" (b. Nedarim 20a). Occasionally, rulings attempt to save the practice from condemnation (b. Nedarim 21b). However, in general, vowing is seen as undesirable, as the rabbis once told a man who sought release from a vow: "Go and pray for mercy, for you have sinned. For R. Dimi, the brother of R. Safra, learnt: He who vows, even though he fulfills it, is designated a sinner" (b. Nedirim 77b). 53 L. Jacobs, The Talmudic Argument: A Study in Talmudic Reasoning and Methodology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984) 20. 54 Similar warnings concerning vows are found in Leviticus Rabbah 37:1, where a man's unfulfilled vows result in idolatry, fornication, and bloodshed, including the death of his wife and himself. Also Genesis Rabbah 81:1 explains that when a man delays to fulfill his vow, God examines his ledger. 55 A similar disapproval occurs in Genesis Rabbah 60:3 and Leviticus Rabbah 37:4, where it is emphasized that Jephthah should have obtained release from his vow by appealing to Phineas. 56 Opposition to vows was so strong that sayings attributed to the rabbis in Leviticus Rabbah 37:2-3 state that whoever takes a vow and whoever annuls a vow deserve to be stabbed with a sword. Still, anyone who makes a vow is urged to go to a rabbi and beg for release. See also b. Nedarim 22a. 57 See also b. Nedarim 9a; Leviticus Rabbah 37:1. 28BAILEY/VOWING AWAY THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT 209 The passages of the Mishnah concerning negative vows of prohibition that affect others are not at all important for the compilers of the Bavli. For example, the Bavli's treatment of m. Nedarim 9:1 in b. Nedarim 64a-65a lacks the discussion that is found in y. Nedarim 9:1 V A-B. The rabbis of the Yerushalmi concluded that the Mishnah could not have meant that a son could make a vow forbidding him from supporting his parents, but they did record the earlier view that it could happen. The rabbis of the Bavli omit all discussion of this issue. The issue had been settled, and it was no longer even a faint memory that a person seeking to live as a faithful Jew could vow away the fifth commandment. XII. Conclusion A major issue in the development of Jewish law concerning vows is the possible conflict between keeping a vow and keeping the commandments of the written Torah. Evidence from the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Philo, and archaeological information indicates that prior to the first century AD negative vows that affected others were already being made. Mark 7:9-13 shows that, in the first century CE, a son could make a vow using the term qorban and prohibit his parents from receiving support from him. Even though such a vow violated the fifth commandment, some Jewish teachers upheld such a vow, perhaps because of the biblical teaching on the inviolability of vows. The NT and Josephus indicate that the use of the term qorban as a vow formula was still associated with the idea of an offering. Later the Mishnah set forth rulings making such a vow clearly voidable because of the honor due to one's parents. For rabbis of the Yerushalmi, the practice was understandable, though rejected. By the time of the Bavli, the rabbis did not contemplate it, for one could no longer vows away the fifth commandment. This material is cited with gracious permission from: Restoration Quarterly Corporation P. O. Box 28227 Abilene, TX 79699-8227 www.restorationquarterly.org Please report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at: thildebrandt@gordon.edu 29 The Masters Seminary Journal 12/2 (Fall 2001) 149-166. Copyright 2001 by Masters Theological Seminary. Cited with permission. THE OPENNESS OF GOD: DOES PRAYER CHANGE GOD? William D. Barrick Professor of Old Testament A proper understanding of two OT prayers, one by Hezekiah and one by Moses, helps in determining whether prayer is the means by which God gets His will done on earth or the means by which the believer's will is accomplished in heaven. A chronological arrangement of the three records of Hezekiah 's prayer in 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, and Isaiah reveals the arrogance of Hezekiah in his plea for God to heal him. Because Hezekiah missed the opportunity to repent of his self-centered attitude, God revealed that his descendants would become slaves in Babylon, but Hezekiah 's arrogance kept him from being concerned about his children and grandchildren. His pride further showed itself in his inability to trust God for defense against the Assyrians. God healed Hezekiah, not so much because of his prayer, but because of the promises that God had made to Hezekiah 's ancestors about sustaining the Davidic line of kings. Hezekiah 's prayer changed Hezekiah, not God. Moses' prayer in Exodus 32 sought a change from God's expressed intention of putting an end to Israel and starting over again with just Moses. This suggestion was not something that the Lord ever intended to occur; such a course would have voided His expressed purpose for the twelve tribes of Israel (Genesis 49). God did not change His mind regarding His plan for the twelve tribes; He rather altered His timing in order to keep His promises to them. What He did in response to Moses' prayer cannot be taken as normative action. His "change of mind" was a tool to elicit a change of response in Moses. Moses 'prayer changed Moses, not God. Introduction Two very different views of prayer pervade the church today. The first view teaches that prayer is one of the means by which God gets His will done on earth: "Effective prayer is, as John said, asking in God's will (John 15:7). Prayer is not a means by which we get our will done in heaven. Rather, it is a means by which 149 30150 The Master's Seminary Journal God gets his will done on earth.1 The second view proclaims that prayer is one of the instruments by which the believer's will is accomplished in heaven. This view holds that prayer can change God: Prayer affects God more powerfully than His own purposes. God's will, words and purposes are all subject to review when the mighty potencies of prayer come in. How mighty prayer is with God may be seen as he readily sets aside His own fixed and declared purposes in answer to prayer.2 This view sees prayer as changing God's mind or helping Him decide what to do, since He does not know everything.3 In his book The God Who Risks, John Sanders writes, "Only if God does not yet know the outcome of my journey can a prayer for a safe travelin