One of the chapters of Judaism Reclaimed that I found most intriguing to research relates to the difficult question of unfulfilled biblical prophecies, and its impact on the apparent lack of confidence in divine assurances displayed by various prophets.
In his introduction to the book of Chaggai, Malbim grapples with prophecies from the early Second Temple period which predict the imminent onset of a Messianic era. Citing a Talmudic source in support, Malbim argues that such prophecies were not intended as definitive statements of future events, rather they were contingent upon the righteous conduct of the nation in that era. Malbim’s approach to prophecy, for which we find precedents in earlier sources, is that it only discloses “what should occur if there is no sin”. Such a notion also appears to be borne out in Yirmiyah’s statement “But if it [a nation]…disobeys My voice, the I will retract the good which I had said to bestow upon it”. Such an approach holds out the prospect of resolving a number of difficulties: we find the Avot at times displaying fear and concern despite divine reassurances, Moshe at the Burning Bush reacting to God’s “I will be with you” with repeated apprehension, and Rabbi Akiva declaring that the Ten Tribes are eternally lost despite prophetic predictions of future reunification.
Rambam, however, emphatically rejects such an approach, writing that no positive prophecy can ever be withdrawn or viewed as contingent. Rambam argues that, were prophecy to be subject to uncertainty and change, this would disqualify the process of authentication of a prophet which is premised on our confidence in the accuracy of his or her predictions. This position draws additional support from Talmudic sources as well as an episode in which Yirmiyah condemns a putative prophet, Chananiah ben Azzur, as false on the basis of an inaccurate positive prediction.
Maharal detects his principle in the commentary of Rashi to the Covenant of the Parts. When Avraham is initially informed that his descendants will inherit the Land, he seeks reassurance “How will I know that I will inherit it?”. However, once God has stated (past tense) that “to your descendants I have given this land”, Avraham’s doubt dissipates. Rashi comments: “the word of God is as if it has been performed”.
Judaism Reclaimed uses this key to resolve difficulties in several biblical and Rabbinic passages. Most significant perhaps is the light that it shines on the perplexing dynamics between God and Moshe at the start of the book of Shemot. After being approached at the Burning Bush with the instruction to relay God’s word to Pharaoh and the Jewish people, Moshe is extremely reluctant and appears to lack confidence in the success of the mission. This despite God telling him “I will be with you”. This lack of confidence continues into parashat Va’eira until God discloses “I haveplaced you as a Master over Pharaoh”. With this prophetic statement of pre-ordained fact, Moshe’s worries evaporate, and he henceforth fearlessly confronts Pharaoh and his courtiers without a hint of concern or protest.
As an aside, I have translated the term “Elohim” very loosely as “Master” over Pharaoh. In response to Christian theologians, who have seen significance in this apparently godly description of Moshe, Rabbi S. R. Hirsch highlights the unexpected genealogical enumeration of the first three tribes that immediately precedes this verse, understanding that its purpose is to emphasise the essential humanity of Moshe. The Jewish redeemer and lawgiver was conceived and born of regular flesh and blood and distinguished by his actions rather than any innate Superhero or godly status. More on this last point in Rabbi Simi Rivka Lerner‘s excellent podcast.
First posted on Facebook 25 January 2020, here.
