From Metaphysics to Midrash: Myth, History, and the Interpretation of Scripture in Lurianic Kabbala

5. Deuteronomy The Human and/as God: Divine Incarnation and the “Image of God”

Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic circle constitute perhaps the most influential component of the Hebrew Bible. Deuteronomy is a book schola a ars have determined represents a reformist trend in Ancient Israel taking shape roughly around the reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah (640–609 bce) (2 Kings 18:1–8; 23:4–25), revising earlier biblical traditions.1 There are parts of Deuteronomic literature that are likely of much later origin, perh a haps the product of the postexilic period. Framed ostensibly as a repetit a tion of the previous four books of the Pentateuch, Deuteronomic innovat a tions altered the structure and form of earlier biblical traditions and were a fairly systematic revision the Covenant Code (Exod. 20:23–23:19). There are numerous themes that Deuteronomy introduces to the biblical corp a pus. The four most well known are (1) the centralization of ritual worship 5 Deuteronomy The Human and/as God: Divine Incarnation and the “Image of God” Deuteronomy is Israel’s book of Imitatio Dei —Solomon Schechter Man is an end to himself only by virtue of the divine in him —G. W. F. Hegel, Reason in History Anyone who repudiates idolatry is called a Jew —b.T. Megillah 13a Deuteronomy 197 around the Tent of Meeting/Temple in Jerusalem (Deut. 12:10–16), revisi a ing earlier traditions that apparently allowed worship at other venues (Exod. 20:19–23); (2) the humanistic turn of the statutory law of the Cove a enant Code; (3) the replacement of the anthropomorphic notion of God with the more abstract concept of the divine name who has no form (Deut. 4:12; 12:5; 26:2); and (4) the emergence of a written text, comp a posed by Moses, that replaces Moses and becomes the central witness of the covenant (Deut. 31:9, 26).2 In Deuteronomy, God does not dwell in the tabernacle as other priestly strata suggest (Exod.25:8; 29:45; and Num. 16:3).3 Rather, it is the name of God, His name serving as a repres a sented manifestation on earth that dwells in the tabernacle and later the Temple.4 Moses, as prophet, is replaced by the “text” (Moses as author of the text, or Moses as the text?) creating a suggestive correlation between the body and the word. This last “innovation”—moving from divine body to divine name—will inform my use of Deuteronomy as a frame for the Lurianic discussion of theosis and incarnation.5 Structurally, Deuteronomy is the last will and testament of Moses. From beginning to end it is a Mosaic rendition of the Torah that Jewish tradition termed mishneh torah (a repetition of the law).6 We know, howe a ever, that Deuteronomy is far from a repetition. Bernard Levinson puts it succinctly: “[T]heir [the Deuteronomic] concern was to implement their own agenda; to effect a major transformation of all spheres of Judean life—culturally, politically, theologically, judicially, ethically and economi a ically. . . . The authors of Deuteronomy sought to implement a compreh a hensive program of religious, social, and political transformation that left no area of life untouched.”7 The revolutionary nature of Deuteronomy may be the first in a long list of revolutionary trends in Judaism that have become canonical, including the work of Yohanan ben Zakkai and Yavneh resulting in the Mishna and subsequently the talmudic tradition,8 Moses Maimonides and the medieval rationalist tradition, and the Zohar and the subsequent canonical tradition of medieval and modern Kabb a bala. All these trends act under the guise of “tradition” but each has its own reformist agenda. And each renewal claims its own particular aut a thoritative anchor. In the case of the Lurianic tradition, this revision (founded on the basic principles of the zoharic corpus) revolutionized the metaphysical, ritual, and liturgical structure of early modern Judaism in most of Europe, the Levant, Maghreb, and Yemen. Moving back to Deuteronomy, we find another implied dimension of this reformist tradition that will be the focus of this chapter. Deuteronomy offers its reader a complex and often confusing rendition of the erasure of the person, Moses, who is replaced by the book, or law (Deut. 31:1–5). Even though Moses appoints Joshua as a successor (Deut. 3:28; 31:7–8, rep a 198 From Metaphysics to Midrash peating and perhaps revising Num. 27:19), it is clear that Joshua does not replace Moses. Moses...