parashat bhaalotkha Two Trumpets sola scriptura
Our Torah portion this week is parashat bhaalotkha “when you raise up.” parashat bhaalotkha runs from Numbers 8:1 to Numbers 12:16. parashat bhaalotkha includes the instructions concerning the two silver trumpets. Reading Numbers 10:1-10.
“HaShem spoke to Moshe saying, ‘Make yourself two silver trumpets, cast-work make them. They shall be yours for calling the assembly and for journeying the camps. When they blow them they shall assemble on you all the assembly at the door of the tent of assembly. If they blow one, the princes and heads of the thousands of Israel shall assemble on you. When you blow a blast, the camps pitched eastward shall journey. When you blow a second blast, the camps pitched southward shall journey; a blast they shall blow for their journeys. When congregating the congregation you shall blow and not blast. And the sons of Aaron the priest shall blow the trumpets and they shall be yours for a perpetual statute throughout your generations. When you shall go to war in your land against the oppressor oppressing you, you shall blast the trumpets. Then you shall be remembered before HaShem your God and you shall be saved from your enemies. And on the day of your joy, on your assembly appointments, on your heads of months you shall blow the trumpets over your burnt offerings and over the sacrifices of your whole offerings. They shall be yours for a remembrance before your God. I am HaShem your God.’”
A plain reading of Number chapter 10 would seem to rule out any confusion of the two silver trumpets with the shofar instrument, but during the 2nd temple period, hypersensitive readers became anxious to guard against any suspicion that a Torah hero like Joshua might have been negligent regarding the commandments. We’re going to see from three separate ancient documents, that three separate brands of ancient Judaism had three separate solutions to this problem.
Around the supper table last Shabbat, we were discussing the fact that some of the differences between the way Jews and Christians read the Torah can be attributed to the difference between the Bibles they’re used to reading. Jews read in the original language and have to tackle all the linguistic problems of archaic language first-hand. Christians read a predigested Bible in which many of the challenges have been smoothed out and glossed over in advance. The difference in experience has led us to different approaches. Somebody asked for an example. Here goes.
What Jewish leaders during the 2nd temple period feared was that somebody might suppose that when "Joshua fit the battle of Jericho and the walls came a-tumbling down" that some Jew might have been tooting the wrong horn. Numbers 10:8 clearly spells out that only the priests are allowed to blow the two silver trumpets. But what about shofars? Can non-priests blow shofars? The Torah doesn’t say. More to the point, during the ten days of repentance before yom hakippurim can non-priests blow the shofar in the synagogue, or is this the prerogative of priests, like placing HaShem’s personal name on the congregation in Numbers 6? Jewish leaders weren’t happy with such unclear rules.
At the beginning of the story in the Book of Joshua it’s clear that the shofars were entrusted to priests. Joshua 6:8.
“And it happened when Yehoshua spoke to the people seven of the priests carrying seven shofars of the jubilees before HaShem crossed over and blew the shofars.”
This verse set off a buzzer in the head of some readers — Aha! If Joshua entrusted seven shofars to the priests, then shofars must be like the two silvers trumpets in Numbers chapter 10. Nobody has the right to touch them except priests.
But when you read the next verse in Hebrew, the syntax makes it sound like somebody other than the priests was blowing those horns. Joshua 6:9.
“And the vanguard was marching in front of the priest who were blowing the shofars and the rear guard was marching after the ark, all the while blowing the shofars.”
Problem. How could God have performed such a spectacular miracle at Jericho if Israel had been in flagrant violation of the Torah? Somethun in the story needs fixin. The rearguard has no business handling those horns! They belong back in the hands of the priests!
Some scribe went ahead and inserted the necessary clarifications right into the Bible. Today the text of the Septuagint survives only in Greek, but during 2nd temple times this was a Hebrew language Bible. The text of the Septuagint explicitly turns Joshua’s rearguard into a priests-only outfit.
“And the troops in front shall go past, and the priests who form the rear after the ark of the covenant of HaShem going and trumpeting.”
That’s one way to tackle the problem: rewrite the story so that the rearguard is comprised of priests.
In verse 13 the problem pops up again. It’s not so acute, because from the first part of verse 13 it’s pretty clear that the seven shofars are safely in the hands of priests. But the second half of the verse is somewhat ambiguous. A simple reading makes it sound like the wrong folks maybe got der mitts on dem horns again.
“And the seven priests carrying seven shofars of the jubilees before the ark of HaShem were marching all the while blowing the shofars. And the vanguard was marching ahead of them, and the rear guard walking after the ark of HaShem all the while blowing the shofars.”
In verse 13 the text of the Septuagint has the same solution — just add the fact that it was the priests! You only need to repeat this from the first part of the verse and the story comes out the way you want.
“And the seven priests carrying the seven trumpets proceeded before HaShem and after these came the troops and the rest of the multitude after the ark of the covenant of HaShem and the priests blew the trumpets.”
In verse 20 we have the same problem. The text says they blow, and the subject of the verb seems for all the world like ordinary Israelites. Not exactly a parade example of precise obedience.
“And the people shouted when they blew the shofars. And it happened when the people heard the sound of the shofar that the people shouted a great shout.”
The text of the Septuagint, as you might expect by now, inserts the priests again.
“And the priests blew the trumpets, and when the people heard the sound of the trumpets all the people screamed a great and mighty scream together.”
Fiddling with the text is one method of straightening out the story. There were also other ways. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, there’s a document entitled “The Scroll of the War of the Children of Light against the Children of Darkness.” Archaeologists have found two copies. This document projects the conquest of Jericho into the end-time. The War Scroll reassigns the horns to different players. In the War Scroll the priests first blast on the two silver trumpets. That action fulfills the requirement of Numbers chapter 10. Next the Levites and the holy warriors blow the shofars. That assures a repeat of Israel’s victory in Joshua chapter 6. Finally, the priests again blast the two silver trumpets, which nicely rounds out the orchestra. By having the musicians take turns, the relevant scriptural passages can all be given their due.
Rabbinic Judaism had yet another way to solve the problem. The Rabbis go for a legal technicality. The Rabbis latched onto the wording of Numbers 10 verse 2, where God tells Moshe make yourself two silver trumpets. The Rabbis interpreted “yourself” as a term of exclusion. I’ll quote Bmidbar Rabba [15, 15] here:
“Make yourself — from your own property make yourself, make it for yourself and not for somebody else. You shall use them and no one else shall use them. Know that Joshua the disciple of Moshe didn’t use them, but only shofars.”
The rabbinic interpretation flatly contradicts verse 8, where God says the two silver trumpets are intended for the priests. According to the Torah Moshe doesn’t get to use them.
“And the sons of Aaron the priest shall blow the trumpets and they shall be yours for a perpetual statue.”
You can well ask why the rabbis would lay down an interpretation of verse 2 that flies in the face of verse 8, to fix a problem that isn’t even a real problem? It’s because for the ancient rabbis sorting out who’s supposed to blow the shofar in synagogue on rosh hashana had a higher priority than the literal meaning of the Torah. The rabbis weren’t worried about the children of Israel in the desert; the rabbis are addressing a practical matter of worship order in their own day.
Ancient readers pull some surprising stunts to wiggle out of a perceived Bible problem. Scholars today, who must sift through the evidence ancient readers left, often have to think twice just to figure which form of the Bible was most likely original at a given point.
Nobody reads a bare-bones Bible; the Bible comes packaged with interpretation. It behooves us to examine that packaging over and over again, because message and interpretation can’t be disentangled. Apart from interpretation the divine message doesn’t exist, yet interpretation is always up for grabs.
People who assert “the Bible says this” and “the Bible says that” conveniently forget the Bible has no mouth of its own. Try holding the Bible up to you ear sometime. (Don’t try it here, you’ll look silly.) Even if you hold the Bible very close to your ear, you’ll find it doesn’t say a thing. Whatever the Bible allegedly “says” comes from the lips of somebody with a particular understanding, somebody with a particular agenda, somebody who interprets and translates the ancient text in a particular way. Whatever the Bible “says” is shaped by human beings, human beings who may have or may not have heard God’s message correctly. What we hear is shaped by our experience and the tradition of our community.
The Bible presents us with multiple perspectives. If we choose to highlight a certain perspective, and subordinate others to it, we should own up to what we’re doing. In some areas the Bible makes available several choices. The decision to accept one or the other is clearly our own decision. Should we make such a decision, it isn’t responsible to go around claiming this is God’s final word on the subject. It is one of several inspired possibilities, not the final word. In interpreting the Bible we have to take responsibility for our choices and live humbly with the consequences. That’s how life is.
As Seventh-day Adventists, who believe we’ve enjoyed prophetic guidance, we frequently proceed as though we have special immunity from having to make tough choices when we read Scripture. We simply assure ourselves that 19th century New England Yankees were so incredibly blessed they’d have been right about almost everything.
Our tendency to bank on other readers isn’t unique. A week ago I was with a group of Messianics seeking a teacher. They were restorationists; they wished to recover their Hebraic roots; they wished to go back to primitive Messianic Jewish practice; they wanted authentic 1st century apostolic worship as it was prior to apostasy and the introduction of pagan elements. But they were adamant about the Bible only. They weren’t interested in what the rabbis taught or accounts preserved by the church fathers. They weren’t interested in archaeology, history, or tradition. They didn’t want human wisdom; they wanted the Bible only.
But how exactly do you expect a teacher who is deliberately overlooking the evidence to come up with 1st century apostolic experience? As if we expected the Holy Spirit to hand us everything on a silver platter because we’re too lazy to do our homework!
For what it’s worth, in my opinion Bible students who refuse information outside the Bible will never arrive at apostolic practice, because the apostolic experience was historically contingent on a very particular set of circumstances which don’t coincide with contemporary Christian assumptions.
Many Evangelical Christians are rather like the gourmet diner who doesn’t want to know what goes on at the butcher's and in the kitchen, because he’s afraid it might spoil his appetite. We want to taste the finished product, but we don’t care about the process. We don't want to know what goes on behind the scenes. We prefer to delegate the spiritual discipline of grappling with the biblical text to an anonymous panel of experts. When Evangelical Christians hear talk about ambiguity and multiple possibilities of interpretation, they often perceive it as doubt and skepticism.
In some quarters it’s even become fashionable to designate this narrow-minded attitude with the label sola scriptura. In some quarters sola scriptura has come to mean the Bible alone without the original languages, the Bible alone without its tradition of pronunciation, the Bible alone without its historical context. sola scriptura has come to mean a pre-digested Bible with conservative Evangelical teaching already built-in. This is the diametrical opposite of what the Protestant Reformers intended by sola scriptura, but that’s how the label’s being tossed around today.
Why is information outside the Bible essential for understanding the Bible? Let me give an example from the shavuot experience which we celebrate this week. Acts chapter 2 verse 42.
“And they were steadfast in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers.”
When 1st century Jews spoke of “the prayer” without further qualification, they referred to the amida, the 18 blessings recited standing. This is still true of observant Jews today: “the prayer” is the amida, the prayer recited standing three times per day. Within a Jewish context, Acts chapter 2 is saying that those who received the gift of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost continued to pray the amida together. In other words, those who received the Holy Spirit continued to recite the most important prayer in Judaism together with their Jewish brothers and sisters. Unless he or she is acquainted with Jewish usage, the average Christian reader isn’t going to pick up on this. You need information outside the Bible, which mainstream Christian culture isn’t going to supply you with.
Another example. James chapter 2 verse 2.
“For should a man enter your synagogue with gold rings and glittering clothes; and should there also enter a poor man in ragged clothes…”
The Greek here says “synagogue,” but most all English Bibles translate “synagogue” as “church” or as “assembly.” The translators were either reluctant to portray the follows of Jesus as participating in Jewish religious institutions, or perhaps the translators felt the Bible needed to be dumbed down for Christian consumption. Most Christians, after all, have no experience of visitors entering synagogue, but Christians can readily identify with visitors to their church. In the interests of making the verse more directly applicable, the translators sacrificed a little historical accuracy: “church” instead of “synagogue.” Unless you have recourse to outside information, you won’t catch that the English translation here has been stacked against Israel in favor of Christianity.
Another example. In Romans 3:9 the Revised Standard Version reads,
“What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all; for I have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin.”
The Greek doesn’t say the “power of sin.” The Greek merely says “sin.” The Greek doesn’t say “all men.” The Greek merely says, “all.” In the context, the Apostle Shaul has been discussing Jewish and Gentile disobedience. He’s referring to “all” the above aforementioned Jewish [Romans 2:1-13, 17-25 3:3] and Greek [Romans 1:18-32] sinners. He has said token obedience to minimal commandments won’t bring the Gentiles into God’s redeemed family and Jewish missionaries who advocate such measures are themselves guilty of undermining Israel’s mission to the Gentiles. But here the RSV translators were thinking Saint Augustine, not Saint Paul. Saint Augustine taught that sin is a universal power which has seized all human beings ever since Adam's disobedience and held them captive by a metaphysical shift. Saint Augustine’s doctrine of original sin is deeply embedded in the heritage of Western Christianity. It has been accepted by all Roman Catholics and almost all Protestants. In Romans 3:9 the RSV translators have inserted Augustine’s doctrine into the English Bible: “all men…are under the power of sin.” Unless you’re acquainted with the historical development of Christian doctrine, you probably aren’t going to spot this. From the RSV you might surmise that the Bible teaches Saint Augustine’s doctrine of original sin!
We need to constantly keep in mind that the Bible is a Christian educational product aimed at a particular market. Provided readers are informed, and have friends to steer them clear of the pitfalls, the Bible can be a very useful educational product. But the Bible isn’t a stand-alone product. The Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura doesn’t mean when reading the Bible that all outside information ought to be excluded. What the Protestant Reformers meant is that information which goes contrary to the Bible ought to be excluded. The Protestant Reformers realized that reading the Bible requires information not contained within the Bible. There’s nothing inherently wrong with accessing external information. It's not against the rules.
The two silver trumpets in parashat bhaalotkha seemed straightforward enough, until they got all bent out of shape by readers struggling with concerns that aren’t addressed in the written Torah. Readers got possessive with the shofar. Remember the two silver trumpets and lighten up a little.
