Decoding Matthew 5:18

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Decoding Matthew 5:18

Post by Secret Alias »

More points brought up by the midrash. The ten commandments begin:
I am the LORD thy God [אָנֹכִי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ], who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me
Moreover then, 'Lord God' is 'yod aleph' too. Another 'Marcosian' argument made in kabbalistic writings is that Adam began as the totality of the alphabet but when he was expelled from paradise the first ten 'heavenly' letters went upwards away from him leaving him 'Seth' whose name represents the last 'earthly' letters Shin Tav. Cain walks around of course with the Tav on his head.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Decoding Matthew 5:18

Post by Secret Alias »

Another odd or interesting fact. It is odd that if - as the mystics propose - there is a deliberate emphasis on the connection between the Law and the first ten letters of the alphabet there is a consistent negation of the last letter of the alphabet or לֹא-תִ

לֹא-תַעֲשֶׂה Thou shalt not make ... לֹא-תִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה thou shalt not bow down (2nd commandment)
לֹא תִשָּׂא Thou shalt not take (3rd commandment)
לֹא-תַעֲשֶׂה Thou shalt not work (4th commandment)

לֹא תִרְצָח Thou shalt not murder (6th commandment
לֹא תִנְאָף Thou shalt not adulterate (7th commandment)
לֹא תִגְנֹב Thou shalt not steal (8th commandment)
לֹא-תַעֲנ Thou shalt not false witness (9th commandment)
לֹא-תַחְמֹד Thou shalt not desire (10th commandment)

And it continues in what follows:

לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן, אִתִּי (Thou shalt not make me)
לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ לָכֶם (Thou shalt not make unto you)
לֹא-תִבְנֶה (Thou shalt not build)
לֹא-תַעֲלֶה (Thou shalt not go up)
לֹא-תִגָּלֶה (not uncovered)
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Decoding Matthew 5:18

Post by Secret Alias »

Actually if we go a little deeper, the nots for God are always לֹא-יִ, the nots for humanity always לֹא-תַ
לֹא-יִהְיֶה לְךָ אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים, עַל-פָּנָי There shalt not be other gods before me. (1st commandment)
לֹא-תַעֲשֶׂה Thou shalt not make ... לֹא-תִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה thou shalt not bow down (2nd commandment)
לֹא תִשָּׂא Thou shalt not take (3rd commandment)
כִּי לֹא יְנַקֶּה יְהוָה For Yahweh will not hold guiltless
לֹא-תַעֲשֶׂה Thou shalt not work (4th commandment)

לֹא תִרְצָח Thou shalt not murder (6th commandment
לֹא תִנְאָף Thou shalt not adulterate (7th commandment)
לֹא תִגְנֹב Thou shalt not steal (8th commandment)
לֹא-תַעֲנ Thou shalt not false witness (9th commandment)
לֹא-תַחְמֹד Thou shalt not desire (10th commandment)
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Decoding Matthew 5:18

Post by Secret Alias »

Another thing. If אי was taken to be the symbol of the ten commandments it is interesting that אי derives from אין = not. In other words it is a negative. It is odd that the underlying characteristic of the ten commandments are a series of 'nots.' Is this what Paul was originally referencing when - just before mentioning (negatively) the ten commandments:
But as surely as God is faithful, our message to you is not “Yes” and “No" ... but in him it has always been “Yes.” For no matter how many promises God has made, they are “Yes” in Christ. And so through him the “Amen” is spoken by us to the glory of God.
In a very confusing manner it is worth noting that אין in Aramaic can mean 'not' as well as 'yes.' The confusion is that in Hebrew it means 'not' and Syriac 'yes' http://cal.huc.edu/showjastrow.php?page=52 Also in Hebrew לא is no and כן is yes. Example - זה היה כן או לא = is that a yes or a no. The opposite of אין (is not) is יש (is).

Curiously there is an important story just before the revelation on Sinai. In chapter 17 we read:
The whole Israelite community set out from the Desert of Sin, traveling from place to place as the Lord commanded. They camped at Rephidim, but there was no (אין) water for the people to drink. So they quarreled with Moses and said, “Give us water to drink.” Moses replied, “Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you put the Lord to the test?” But the people were thirsty for water there, and they grumbled against Moses. They said, “Why did you bring us up out of Egypt to make us and our children and livestock die of thirst?” Then Moses cried out to the Lord, “What am I to do with these people? They are almost ready to stone me.” The Lord answered Moses, “Go out in front of the people. Take with you some of the elders of Israel and take in your hand the staff with which you struck the Nile, and go. I will stand there before you by the rock at Horeb. Strike the rock, and water will come out of it for the people to drink.” So (כן) Moses did this in the sight of the elders of Israel. And he called the place Massah and Meribah because the Israelites quarreled and because they tested the Lord saying, “Is (יש) the Lord near or not (אין)?”
So the question of Yahweh's presence or non-presence is paralleled by the presence or non-presence of water. It is an interesting question that the Israelites pose - what the fuck are we doing in this desert? The desert is nothing (or 'not-being') and God is 'being.' Interestingly the same problem comes up at the end of Deuteronomy.

Here - explicitly at least - it is Moses that is going to 'not-be' - i.e. go away. The giving of the aleph yod (אי from 'is not' אין) is clearly intended to fill the void of the 'not being' not only of Moses but also of God. Indeed I know this isn't the way we've been told to read this chapter. But let's be honest - the Israelites never again 'see God' - so it's fair to say 'he's gone.' They have Moses for a while is a kind of substitute or second god but here at the end of Deuteronomy we are dealing with the 'not being' of the divine presence. The 'aleph yod' (אי) is quite literally the 'not being' of god:
You will again obey the Lord and follow all his commands I am giving you today. Then the Lord your God will make you most prosperous in all the work of your hands and in the fruit of your womb, the young of your livestock and the crops of your land. The Lord will again delight in you and make you prosperous, just as he delighted in your ancestors, if you obey the Lord your God and keep his commands and decrees that are written in this Book of the Law and turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
Let's be real. If God was there you wouldn't need the ten commandments. I guess what I am saying is that in some mystical sense the commandments are given by God as a substitute for his presence. But they as a 'thing' are actually a 'not-thing' - the explicit nothing or not-being (i.e. disappearance or going away) of God.

With me so far?

What I am suggesting is that - it is possible at least - that the Pentateuch was written as an elaborate sort of 'gnostic' text. Not in the stupid sense of what Detering has written (as someone who has not even attempted to understand the text in its Hebrew context) but as a Hebrew mystical grammar exercise. The ten commandments - our supposed 'aleph yod' (אי) - are quite literally a series of negative commandments. This can't be coincidental. What I am suggesting is ultimately - from the perspective of the gospel writer who was aware of the original Hebrew grammatical mystery - is essentially telling the story of the return of God to his people (see the opening words of John). This is the context of the antinomianism of the gospel. Instead of a 'no' or 'not being' document (viz. the ten commandments) the presence of God is a positive commandment - to love one another, to love God. Not negative but positive. Hence Jesus's only emphasis not to lust, but to love.

Getting back to the situation before Christianity, the ten commandments are given in a desert. The desert symbolizes non-being. It is appropriate to give these tablets that epitomize the 'non-being' or non presence of God in a desert because this series of negative commandments are what amounts to being an integral part of a negative future for the Israelite people:
After Moses finished writing in a book the words of this law from beginning to end, he gave this command to the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord: “Take this Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God. There it will remain as a witness against you. For I know how rebellious and stiff-necked you are. If you have been rebellious against the Lord while I am still alive and with you, how much more will you rebel after I die! Assemble before me all the elders of your tribes and all your officials, so that I can speak these words in their hearing and call the heavens and the earth to testify against them. For I know that after my death you are sure to become utterly corrupt and to turn from the way I have commanded you. In days to come, disaster will fall on you because you will do evil in the sight of the Lord and arouse his anger by what your hands have made.”
So basically everything is going to be bad from here on in. Genesis begins with Adam being in the presence of God and he's expelled. Now the Israelites again find themselves in the presence of God but soon he and his twin Moses are going to leave and all they will be left with are these 'non-being' commands.

At the very least you can start to see the story of God coming to again to his people and giving the positive command to love one another in light of all this negativity. The way I see it, the sacrifices aren't to a god who is actually in the temple but rather as a way of appeasing a withdrawn God from making things totally negative (i.e. harsh and bad). God was near in the desert and the Israelites didn't see him or didn't believe he was there. Soon he will be gone and the Israelites all alone with these 'not being' or 'non-presence' commandments. It's not that far to imagine a situation where the gospel writer contextualized the end of the ten commandments as the result of the revisiting of God. Even in Exodus the ten commandments are destroyed.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply