CHRISTOPHANIES IN THE TORAH

There is a wealth of evidence for the appearances of a Messianic God-Person in the Five Books of Moses, the Torah. We call these “Theophanies” or “Christophanies.” We have good reason to identify a Christophany whenever the “The Angel of the Lord” (in the singular) is mentioned in the Torah. Interestingly, in each one of these appearances, there is direct evidence that He is God. Take His first appearance:

·       The angel of the LORD found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, the spring on the way to Shur. And he said, “Hagar, servant of Sarai, where have you come from and where are you going?” She said, “I am fleeing from my mistress Sarai.” The angel of the LORD said to her, “Return to your mistress and submit to her.” The angel of the LORD also said to her, “I will surely multiply your offspring so that they cannot be numbered for multitude.” And the angel of the LORD said to her, “Behold, you are pregnant and shall bear a son. You shall call his name Ishmael, because the LORD has listened to your affliction. He shall be a wild donkey of a man, his hand against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he shall dwell over against all his kinsmen.” So she called the name of the LORD [Yahweh] who spoke to her, “You are a God of seeing,” for she said, “Truly here I have seen him who looks after me.” (Genesis 16:7-13; ESV)

Here, the Angel is also identified by the narrative as the “LORD” (“Yahweh” in Hebrew, a term that is only used for God). Hagar then acknowledges that this Angel is “God.”

This presents us with a paradox. How can this Angel also be God? Aren’t there two people present – the Angel and Yahweh? The paradox is heightened by the fact that the Hebrew word “malach,” which is generally translated as “angel,” is also translated in other contexts as “messenger.” Whichever translation is chosen, “The Angel of God” or “messenger,” both terms indicate that this individual is a distinct person from the God whom sent him. And yet, he is also called “God” or “Yahweh.”

This, of course can be resolved from a Trinitarian perspective. The Son, Jesus, is both a distinct Person, the Angel, and yet God Himself.

 In the next appearance of The Angel of the Lord, Yahweh is merely identified as a man:

·       And the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day. He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth. (Genesis 18:1-2)

Although “The Angel of the Lord” is not mentioned in this account, we are again confronted with the same perplexity as before. Yahweh appears as a man along with two other “men,” who are actually “angels” (Genesis 19:1). While the two go to investigate Sodom after enjoying a meal with Abraham, “Yahweh” remains behind, while Abraham intercedes with Him on behalf of his nephew Lot and his family:

·       So the [two] men turned from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the LORD [Yahweh]. (Genesis 18:22)

However, the rabbis claim that Yahweh cannot take on human form. Therefore, they claim that this “Yahweh” was only a messenger from Yahweh. However, the text will not allow such an interpretation. After Yahweh had assured Abraham that He would spare Sodom if ten righteous could be found within it, Scripture claims that Yahweh left Abraham:

·       And the LORD [not the “man”] went his way, when he had finished speaking to Abraham, and Abraham returned to his place. (Genesis 18:33)

From all indications, the text leads us to believe that Yahweh was actually present. Nevertheless, rabbinic authorities argue that this person could not possibly be Yahweh because Yahweh cannot be seen (Exodus 33:20). However, this doesn’t discount the second Person of the Trinity, the Son. From an NT point of view, the impossibility of God being seen refers strictly to the Father (John 1:18; 1 Timothy 6:16).

Jacob later wrestled with a “man,” whom he later understood was God:

·       So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.” (Genesis 32:30)

Later, Jacob identified God as the “Angel” with whom he had wrestled:

·       And he [Jacob] blessed Joseph and said, “The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, the God who has been my shepherd all my life long to this day, the angel who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the boys; and in them let my name be carried on, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.” (Genesis 48:15-16)

Notice how Jacob equated the Angel with God! Besides this, after Jacob invokes the name of God three times, he calls upon God to “bless the boys.” However, “bless” is in the singular, which reflects the fact that although he had invoked God three times, he also recognized that they are One!

(Why did Jacob refer to the Angel is the One who “has redeemed me from all evil?” He, God, had allowed Jacob to have his way with Him, even to humiliate and brutalize Him, as a foreshadowing of the Cross.)

Well, isn’t this evidence of a Christophany? Not according to the rabbis. Gerald Sigal wrote:

·       The fact that Jacob sees “elohim face to face” only goes to prove that the divine being [a mere messenger from God] that Jacob wrestles with is not God. But, since the angel represents God, Jacob views the messenger as if it is God Himself. It is quite clear that this angel is not God manifested on earth as a human being. At no time does the Hebrew Bible teach this belief. (The Jew and the Christian Missionary, 143)

Sigal once again appeals to Exodus 33:20, which claims that God cannot be seen. However, this evidently only pertains to God, the Father. Instead, the Torah repeatedly demonstrates that God can be seen in His human appearances.

Then the Angel appeared to Moses in the midst of the burning bush in the middle of the desert:

·       And the angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush. He looked, and behold, the bush was burning, yet it was not consumed. And Moses said, “I will turn aside to see this great sight, why the bush is not burned.” When the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.” (Exodus 3:2-4)

First, it claims that the Angel of the Lord had been in the midst of the bush; then it claims that it is actually Yahweh who is in the midst of the bush. Notice that this Angel is also called “LORD” (Yahweh) and “God!” To reinforce the claim that Yahweh is actually present, the account reads:

·       …God called to him out of the bush, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.” Then he said, “Do not come near; take your sandals off your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground” …And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God. (Exodus 3:4-6)

Moses understood that this was “holy ground,” because of Yahweh’s presence and not the presence of a mere messenger. Besides, the fact that he was “afraid to look at God” meant that he knew that God was present in the bush.

Nevertheless, Sigal seems to believe that both the Angel and God were “present” in some sense:

·       …the textual evidence leans in favor of the view that this angel of the Lord functions here solely as a fiery manifestation which attracts Moses’ attention, while it is the God of Israel who actually “appeared,” that is, made Himself known and spoke to Moses…”an angel of the Lord” can in no way be identified as part of the divine essence.” (134-35)

Once again, contrary to the text, Sigal will not acknowledge that God actually appeared in the bush. Consequently, Moses was afraid to look upon Him and had been instructed that this was holy ground. Instead, he has to awkwardly claim that both individuals were somehow present in the one bush. While Moses had been convinced that Yahweh was actually present, Sigal is convinced that he knows better.

Instead, all of these appearances provide us with evidence that God, Yahweh, is not as the present-day rabbi’s claim. Instead, these appearances of a Messianic figure provide us with evidence of the Trinity.

(Before the Battle of Jericho, the Angel, another Christophany, identifies Himself to Joshua as the “Commander of the Lord’s army.” Here too, we find out that this “Commander” is actually Yahweh:

·       And he said, “No; but I am the commander of the army of the LORD. Now I have come.” And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and worshiped and said to him, “What does my lord say to his servant?” And the commander of the LORD’s army said to Joshua, “Take off your sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so. (Joshua 5:14-15)

A mere angel or messenger would have ever received worship. Only the former archangel Satan demanded worship or would have allowed Joshua to worship Him. Consequently, this Commander would have been usurping God’s majesty to demand that Joshua take off his sandals. Instead, this command signified that God was present as He stood before Joshua. The narrative also identifies Him as Yahweh:

·       And the LORD said to Joshua, “See, I have given Jericho into your hand, with its king and mighty men of valor.” (Joshua 6:2)

The Angel had also manifested Himself to Samson’s parents, Manoah and his previously barren wife to promise them as son. However, Manoah was beginning to suspect that this He was more than just a mere messenger:

·       And Manoah said to the angel of the LORD, “What is your name [essence of being], so that, when your words come true, we may honor you?” And the angel of the LORD said to him, “Why do you ask my name, seeing it is wonderful?” (Judges 13:17-18)

The Angel responded that His name or essence was “wonderful,” (“pawlee;” a term used in reference to the Messiah, Isaiah 9:6, but never to a mere messenger). The narrative also identifies Him as Yahweh:

·       So Manoah took the young goat with the grain offering, and offered it on the rock to the LORD, to the one who works wonders, and Manoah and his wife were watching. And when the flame went up toward heaven from the altar, the angel of the LORD went up in the flame of the altar. Now Manoah and his wife were watching, and they fell on their faces to the ground. The angel of the LORD appeared no more to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of the LORD. And Manoah said to his wife, “We shall surely die, for we have seen God.” (Judges 13:19-22. We find the same phenomenon in the account of Gideon – Judges 6:22-23)

While Samson’s parents were convinced that they had “seen God,” Sigal is not. He correctly points out that God (Elohim in the Hebrew) is also used to refer to human judges (Exodus 22:8) (129). However, Sigal overlooks all of the other contextual evidence that this couple had actually seen “Yahweh” and had become convinced of this fact.

The Angel was also the One who brought Israel out of Egypt:

·       When we cried out to the Lord, He heard our voice and sent the Angel and brought us up out of Egypt. (Numbers 20:16)

However, other verses claim that it was God who brought Israel out of Egypt. Again, in order to make sense out of this recurring paradox, it is most easily resolved by concluding that the Angel Himself is God, but as another Person. We find many examples of distinction between the Angel and Yahweh and yet Oneness, exactly what the doctrine of the Trinity posits.

God is often identified as the “Redeemer of Israel.” However, at closer examination, it seems that the “Angel of His Presence” had “saved” and “redeemed” Israel:

·       In all their affliction He was afflicted, and the Angel of His Presence saved them; in His love and in His pity He redeemed them; and He bore them and carried them all the days of old. (Isaiah 63:9)

Is this a contradiction? Not unless this Angel is God Himself, the second Member of the Trinity! Here is further evidence. God the Father claimed that He could never be seen:  

·       But He said, "You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live.” (Exodus 33:20; 1 Timothy 6:16)

Nevertheless, God was seen:

• So the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. And he would return to the camp, but his servant Joshua the son of Nun, a young man, did not depart from the tabernacle. (Exodus 33:11)

·       And he [God] said, “Hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the LORD make myself known to him in a vision; I speak with him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses. He is faithful in all my house. With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and he beholds the form of the LORD. Why then were you [Miriam and Aaron] not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?” (Numbers 12:6-8)

This sounds like a contradiction, unless Moses had seen God the Angel, the second Person of the Trinity. Elsewhere, God says:

·       "Behold, I send an Angel before you to keep you in the way and to bring you into the place which I have prepared. Beware of Him and obey His voice; do not provoke Him, for He will not pardon your transgressions; for My name is in Him… For My Angel will go before you… and I will cut them off.” (Exodus 23:20-23)

If God’s “name” is in Him, this is the same as saying that “My essence or nature is in Him.” God the Father also makes a sharp distinction between Himself and His Angel:

·       “And I will send My Angel before you, and I will drive out the Canaanite and the Amorite and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite. Go up to a land flowing with milk and honey; for I will not go up in your midst, lest I consume you on the way, for you are a stiff-necked people." (Exodus 33:2-3)

God, the Father, could not be in the presence of Israel. Therefore, He sent His Angel, the second Person of the Trinity to be with Israel.

Elsewhere, the Angel is mentioned interchangeably with God, suggesting that the Angel is also God, Yahweh:

·       And the Angel of God, who went before the camp of Israel, moved and went behind them; and the pillar of cloud went from before them and stood behind them. (Exodus 14:19)

·       Now it came to pass, in the morning watch, that the Lord looked down upon the army of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and cloud, and He troubled the army of the Egyptians. (Exodus 14:24)

·       And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead the way, and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so as to go by day and night. (Exodus 13:21)

Again, the Angel seems to be God Himself but as another distinct Person. The rabbis and the various cults do not seem to want to engage the extensive Biblical evidence. It simply does not accord with their worldview. However, these verses provide for us a compelling glimpse of the Trinity in the Torah and also the following books of the Tanach.

Did Paul Wrongly Impugn the Mosaic Law?

According to the Rabbis, Paul misunderstood the Hebrew Scriptures and attempted to impugn Judaism by alleging that the Mosaic Law inevitably placed everyone under a curse (Gal. 3:10-12). The Rabbis also correctly point out the many salutary effects of the Law: that it imparts wisdom and conversion (Psalm 19) and that it delights the soul and imparts blessing and peace (Psalm 119). In light of this, it seems that Paul is missing the boat when he proclaims that the Law kills.

Did the Law really bring death (Rom. 3:19-20; 11:32; Gal. 3:22)? Didn’t the Apostle Paul misconstrue the Hebrew Scriptures? Didn’t he erroneously impugn the Law of Moses as the inevitable source of condemnation and death, rather than a source of wisdom, blessing, and conversion (Psalm 19:7-8)? In Why the Jews Rejected Jesus, David Klinghoffer, a columnist for the Jewish Forward, offers a resounding “yes!” He charges that Paul so badly twisted the Hebrew Scriptures that he became “the first person to imagine the essence of what would become Christian theology.”[1] Klinghoffer contends that Paul’s interpretation was so novel and distorted, that no one else would have come up with it, not even Jesus. More specifically, Klinghoffer alleges,

• Paul had misunderstood the verse just quoted from Deuteronomy: ‘Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them.’ The Hebrew word he took to mean ‘abide by’ really means ‘uphold.’ In other words, the Jew was expected to uphold all the Torah’s commandments, affirming that they were God’s will. But there was no expectation of perfect conformity in his actions. The rabbis made this clear.[2]

While Paul understood the Law to teach that any infraction resulted in a curse, Klinghoffer insists that the Law requires Israel to merely, “uphold all the Torah’s commandments.” Mustn’t Israel also actually perform all the laws? Not according to Klinghoffer! For him, it seems that to uphold them simply means “affirming that they were God’s will.” From where does he derive this piece of sophistry? From the Talmud! His endnote cites B. Sanhedrin 81A.[3]

Clearly, Klinghoffer is not alone in this assessment. The thirteenth century sage and Talmudic jurist, Rabbi Mosheh ben Nachman (Nachmanides), wrote regarding Deuteronomy 27:26, “This refers to a person who denies the Divine origin of any commandment of the Torah and considers its fulfillment valueless.”[4] Conspicuously absent was any acknowledgement that Israel had to obey all God’s commands, and that they would fall under His curse if they failed to do so. Similarly, Gerald Sigal wrote,

·       [Deuteronomy 27:26] does not refer to the breaking of the Law by an ordinary individual. It is, as the Rabbis explain, a reference to the authorities in power who fail to enforce the rule of the Law in the land of Israel (J.T. Sotah 7:4). The leadership of the nation is thus charged, under pain of the curse, to set the tone for the nation and make the Law the operative force in the life of the nation.[5]

As appealing as it might be to the ordinary Israelite that the curses would only apply to the “leadership,” the context rules against this interpretation. Instead of addressing the “leadership,” the curses are explicitly addressed to “all”:

• And the Levites shall speak with a loud voice and say to all the men of Israel: “Cursed is the one who makes a carved or molded image. (Deut. 27:14-15)[6]

Paul did Maintain that the Law Brings Condemnation as Klinghoffer Charges

           

Paul had often asserted that the Mosaic Law kills, and that it is removed through the Messiah’s atoning work:

• For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them’ (quoting Deuteronomy 27:26). But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for "the just shall live by faith." Yet the law is not of faith, but "the man who does them shall live by them” (quoting Leviticus 18:5). (Galatians 3:10-12; also Col. 2:13-14; Rom. 7:9-11; 3:19-20; 2 Cor. 3:6, 9)

According to Paul, the Law is strictly about performance. One violation brought guilt and consequences. Did Paul misread Jesus in this respect?

Paul’s Interpretation Matched Jesus’ and His Apostles’

           

Jesus also taught that a single infraction was enough to bring condemnation. One wrong motive or word could open the mouth of hell:

• You have heard that it was said to those of old, “You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.” But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, “Raca!” shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, “You fool!” shall be in danger of hell fire. (Matthew 5:21-22)

A portfolio of sins wasn’t required for condemnation; a single word was enough! Even looking at a woman lustfully established candidacy for the fires of hell (Mat. 5:27-30). James wrote similarly (James 2:9-10). For all the Apostles, the commission of the slightest sin provided grounds for concern. Peter wrote that our model is perfection Himself (1 Peter 1:15-16). Nothing short of this is adequate. In order to support his claim, he cited Leviticus 11:44-45, affirming that the Law represented an uncompromising standard. John assured his readership that any sin was damning, but more importantly, that Christ had trumped them all (1 John 1:9; 2:1-2; 3:4).

           

Uniformly, the Apostles maintain that the Law is about doing as opposed to merely acknowledging that it is God’s will. Nowhere in the Bible do we find any excuse for a cavalier attitude about the commission of even one sin!

Did Paul Misconstrue the Hebrew Scriptures?

           

If Deuteronomy 27:26 alone had posited that a single infraction was enough to bring down a curse, we might have grounds to attempt to reinterpret this verse to bring it into line with other teachings on the subject. But this verse is part of a much greater chorus. Throughout the Law, Israel is repeatedly warned that they had to obey and not just acknowledge every command (Lev. 26:14-16; Exodus 20:6; 23:21-22; 24:3; Deut. 5:29; 6:24-25; 8:1; 10:12; 11:8, 26-28, 32; 12:28; Jer. 11:3-5; 7:22-23).

           

This truth is poignantly illustrated by God’s first law: “Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die" (Gen. 2:17). Contra Klinghoffer, Adam’s problem was never that he had failed to acknowledge that this command had come from God. This was never an issue.

           

Of course, sins could be forgiven, but this is a far cry from Klinghoffer’s assertion that merely acknowledging that the Law came from God was enough. The damning reality of just one sin is brought home graphically by Ezekiel:

• But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die. (Ezekiel 18:24)

It’s important to note that punishment never had to wait until sin reached a certain number. There is no “wait-and-see” policy; nor does grace require God to extend a second or third chance. Ezekiel simply mentions “the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed.” This could be a matter of just one sin! In other words, it was presumptuous for any Israelite to think, “With my perfect record, I’ve got it made and now can afford to relax!”

           

The reality of the sacrificial system further enforced the idea that every Israelite had to make payment for every offense. It wasn’t enough to merely acknowledge a lapse; a sacrificial offering had to be made. Nowhere in Hebrew Scriptures can we find any justification for the idea that it was acceptable to renege on any law. Instead, every transgression carried with it a penalty.

Hebrew Narratives Also Demonstrate the Damning Power of Even One Sin.

           

Even more problematic for Klinghoffer’s thesis that “there was no expectation of perfect conformity in his [the Israelite’s] action,” are the numerous Old Testament narratives that show just how damning a single infraction could be.

           

Moses struck the rock instead of speaking to it, as the Lord had directed. Consequently, the Lord informed him that "Because you did not believe Me, to hallow Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them" (Numbers 20:12).  It would have been ludicrous for Moses to protest, “Lord, since you don’t require perfect conformity to Your Word but rather my acknowledgement that this Word is indeed Your Word, You are acting a bit heavy-handed in my regards.”

           

Klinghoffer would have had a better case had Moses habitually transgressed, but this was Moses’ only recorded sin during his forty desert years with Israel. In Leviticus 24, during a fight, one Israelite cursed God. The Lord determined that he should be put to death. Clearly, the Lord did expect perfect conformity to His Law and not just an acknowledgement that it was God’s Law. The punishments for Adam’s sin, Cain’s sin, and Achan’s also speak elequently in support of this fact.

           

Klinghoffer’s interpretation fails to accord with any aspect of the Hebrew Scriptures, but is the New Testament interpretation Scripturally accurate?

Making Sense of the New Testament Interpretation

           

From the New Testament perspective, it’s easy to wrongly conclude that God had set up Israel for failure. Who was righteous enough to avoid the curse? Nobody (Psalm 130:3; 143:2; Eccl. 7:20; Isaiah 64:6)! Had God demanded the impossible?

           

No! Uniformly, the Bible holds Israel accountable, not God. However, God was always merciful (Psalm 103:10; Ezra 9:13; Neh. 9:31; Dan. 9:18) when Israel humbled themselves and confessed. However, the condemnation was a necessary piece in the puzzle:

• Scripture [Law] has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. (Galatians 3:22-24)

According to Paul, the Law and its curse illuminated grace and Messiah. But was Paul merely imposing his own philosophy on the Hebrew Scriptures? No! This same message is implicit to the entire body of Scripture. It seems that the Law’s curse in regards to his sin with Bathsheba enabled David to see grace even more poignantly:       

• Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute iniquity…I acknowledged my sin to You, and my iniquity I have not hidden. I said, ‘I will confess my transgressions to the Lord,’ and You forgave the iniquity of my sin. (Psalm 32:1-5)

In contrast, Klinghoffer’s distinction between obeying the Law and upholding the Law (merely “affirming that they are God’s will”) will not produce the desired results. Such a law will not convict or condemn anyone! Why should it as long as we have the recourse of easily acknowledging that the law is “God’s will?” If no one is convicted, then no one needs to be forgiven. No one will cry out for mercy, and therefore receive mercy. Grace is then irrelevant—so too the sacrificial system, Christ and His New Covenant, and the need for a circumcised heart (Deut. 30:6).

Besides, a legal code that only requires affirmation is absurd. Imagine a police officer stopping you for going 60 in a 25 MPH zone. Would you say to the officer, “I didn’t violate the law, because I affirm that the law is the will of the state? The state doesn’t expect perfection from me.” It would be equally ridiculous to say, “Officer, I have been driving for 20 years without a speeding ticket. Therefore, I don’t deserve one now.” If such illogical reasoning had prevailed in Israel, any violation of Mosaic Law could be easily dismissed.

OT/NT Harmony

Rather than finding contradiction between Paul and the Scriptures of Israel, we find a glaring chasm between Klinghoffer and the Scriptural Tradition he claims to represent. In spite of Klinghoffer’s allegations, a rich and illuminating consistency emerges among Jesus and the Apostles on the one hand, and the Scriptures they embraced on the other.

           

How then is it that the Jewish establishment could be so wrong, while a handful of renegades led by a condemned Rebel would be so consistently right—unless, of course, they had Divine guidance?  

---

[1] David Klinghoffer, Why the Jews Rejected Jesus (New York: Doubleday, 2005), 112. 

[2] Klinghoffer, 110-11.

[3] This citation reads, “When R. Gamaliel read this verse he wept, saying, ‘Only he who does all these things shall live, but not merely one of them!’ Thereupon R. Akiba said to him, ‘If, so, defile not yourselves in all these things  is the prohibition against all [combined] only, but not against?’ [Surely not!] But it means, in one of these things; so here too, for doing one of these things [shall he live].” While R. Gamaliel was disturbed by the obvious interpretation that an Israelite had to perform each command in order to live, R. Akiba felt that this couldn’t be the right interpretation.  Instead, he suggested that by “doing one of these things” [commands of God], it would be sufficient to “live.”  In this, Akiba falls prey to the all-too-human impulse to soften or “humanize” the Law.

              In a more recent commentary, the Jewish Study Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004, p.427), we read in reference to Deuteronomy 27:15-26, “In the context, the twelve curses correspond to the twelve tribes…The resulting incongruence points to the many editorial revisions that this chapter has undergone.” Since “incongruence” is left undefined, we are left to conclude that it refers to the fact that the Chosen People are issued 12 warning curses. However, rather than pointing towards human editorializations, this tends to point in the direction of Divine authorship. Why would any people stand for such threats and negative prognostications (Deut. 32) unless they were miraculously assured of God’s supernatural presence!

[4] The Socino Chumash, A.Cohen (ed.), (Hindhead, Surrey: The Soncino Press, 1947), 1123.

[5] Gerald Sigal, The Jew and the Christian Missionary: A Jewish Response to Missionary Christianity (New York: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1981), 18. However, after confining the curses to the leadership, Sigal then contradicts his argument: “Thus, Deuteronomy 27:26 could declare as cursed only those who reject the means by which atonement for sins may be achieved. If one does not repent sincerely for his sins, he is cursed because he failed to save himself from the clutches of sin.” Sigal is here on more solid ground. Although we might quibble with his wording, Sigal correctly acknowledges that the curse is not God’s last word. There is God’s forgiveness extended through the Mosaic sacrificial system. Although this “forgiveness” wasn’t the full forgiveness of the Cross, it was the means by which God, in His forbearance, passed over sin (Rom. 3:25). However, Sigal fails to realize that by shifting his argument to acknowledge the necessity of forgiveness, he is thereby acknowledging that the Law brings a curse with any and every sin. By admitting this, he has unwilling thrust himself into Paul’s embrace.

[6] All Bible quotations are from the New King James Version.