Torah Reading Services include a supplemental scriptural read called the Haftarah. This canonized Extra-Pentateuchal reading was selected as it bared some relationship to the particular weekly or holiday Torah Portion. By Extra-Pentaeuchal, it means that the reading comes from other parts of the Hebrew Bible- either Prophets or Writings.
Preliminary Notes
With this being this Blog’s first Haftarah Post, I wanted to address my criteria, approach and thought process.
This Blog’s initial objective is search for Ten Commandments’ content and connections within the scripture. Thus, textual instances of either commandments application or awareness are the intended targets.
Beyond that, sometimes the bigger picture is addressed. If materials provide insights into the commandments’ political blueprint schemata, they will be addressed as well. This in part is tied to a Deuteronomistic viewpoint. In essence, a nation’s existential fate is tied to its morality.
Finally, some aspect of biblical literacy is a secondary goal. I encourage people to spend time with the original texts.
Source Material
This blog’s writing utilizes translated texts. I prefer the most literal of texts. While Richard Elliott Friedman’s Torah translation is utilized for the Torah writings, he did not publish any further translations.
Thus, for Haftarah Posts, I am using the Artscroll Publication. For this particular post, the Rubin Edition of 1 Kings is employed. In doing so, I appreciate that Artscroll materials are used for religious purposes; they are available on many synagogue bookshelves.
Textual Analysis Approach
There are facts. There are the facts that were reduced to writing. And, there is the factual interpretation- the writings.
Essentially, the author’s mindset is what we can best analyze with respect to scripture. The analysis is not as much of about theology but rather the author’s view of the theology. The reality is that opinions and mindsets are challenged by facts and the completeness of the facts. The reality emerging from the writings are the writer’s (and perhaps editor’s) vision.
In essence, the author ‘s vision as to how things were supposed to happen or how they should be presented. How much that vision matched up with actual events is something worthy of consideration and analysis.
This, however, is not the analysis’ main focus for these posts. In essence, the authors and editors of post-Torah scripture reveal their knowledge of the Torah itself. This is often revealed by their references as well as the borrowing of phrases. As such, we explore as to whether particular authors appreciated the Ten Commandments.
The Perfect Swear?
The Torah Portion Vayigash contains two deathbed matters involving swearing. It is both Jacob and Joseph involved with these activities. With the Vayigash Haftarah, First Kings 2:1-12, it is King David on his deathbed advising Solomon. [Note: For this Blog’s take on Vayigash]
In the Haftarah, King David’s deathbed speech reminds one of the movie The Godfather. David is asking Solomon to take care of the family business, the Israelite Monarchy, as he is ending his tenure.
David instructs Solomon concerning the Monarchy’s unfinished matters. Among them is a grievance against Shimei.
During a Monarchical crisis- a rebellion, David was forced to flee Jerusalem. Shimei, son of Gera, encountered a distressed David. Shimei took that opportunity to curse David.
David, in that moment of despair, did not react. The Vayigash Haftarah Portion states “I swore to him by The Lord, saying ‘I will not put you to death by the sword.'” 1 Kings 2:8.
David, in his lifetime, upheld his oath. Shimiei saw no harm.
David, however, advised Solomon to address the matter. He told Solomon: “But now, you shall not hold him guiltless, for you are a wise man, and you will know what you are to do to him, and you shall bring his white hair to the grave in blood.” 1 Kings 2:9.
Analysis
The Kings‘ author was challenged by having to address both the brutalities of ancient monarchies with sensitivities towards the Torah. At the same time that David instructs Solomon to “make a hit” on Shimei, the readers are reminded that David was a man of his word. He fulfilled his Lord’s name evoked oath to “personally” do no harm to Shimei. [Note: David’s life and actions has been subject to scrutiny. Joel Baden’s The Historical David: The Real Life of an Invented Hero addresses this topic.]
The Kings’ authors also buttress David’s fealty to the Lord. At the Haftarah’s beginning, King David’s speech to Solomon is quite epic: “…be strong and be a man. Safeguard the charge of the Lord, your God, to walk in His ways, to observe His decrees, commandments, ordinances, and testimonies, as written in the Torah of Moses, so that you will succeed in all that you do and wherever you turn; so that the Lord will uphold His word that He spoke regarding me, saying, ‘If your children will safeguard their way, to walk before Me sincerely, with all their heart and with all their soul,’ saying ‘no man of your will ever be cut off from upon the throne of Israel.'” 1 Kings 2:2-4.
Ideology Advanced?
Thus, the recounting of this event evidences the Deuteronomistic viewpoint. The theology that loyalty to the God of Israel constitute an existential condition for the Davidic monarchy. The implications of this was later captured by the Prophets. The failure to act accordingly- to adhere to the Torah values which included truth, justice and righteousness- placed the Davidic nation at risk.
Conclusion
In sum, the Vayechi Haftarah evidences a perfect swearing in accordance with the Ten Commandments. As David indicated, when he swore, he evoked the Lord’s name in doing so.
While he honored his commitment, Kings appreciated the tactical and brutal reality of an ancient monarchy. The King’s author was capable of painting a Deuteronomistic vision for the Israelite monarchy despite the obstacles presented. A nation whose existence would be tied to both its Deity and morality.
Be well!!
Please like, follow, comment or share
The Ten Commandments Project 
Why Jews view both the NT and Koran as av tuma avoda zara – a Torah abomination.
The Codex Sinaiticus is significant in biblical scholarship, but it does not explicitly include the Nicene Creed itself. However, its contents reflect early Christian theology, which aligns with the Nicene understanding of the Trinity. The Nicene Creed was formulated in AD 325 at the First Council of Nicaea to address debates over the nature of Christ and the Trinity. It affirms the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The text within Codex Sinaiticus, including various New Testament writings (like Philippians), supports the core concepts of the Trinity as expressed in the Nicene Creed. Passages affirming the divinity and humanity of Christ—such as Philippians 2:5-11—align with Nicene teachings. The theological sentiments present in the manuscript reflect a developing understanding of beliefs that would be formalized in creeds like the Nicene.
Philippians 2:5-11 aligns with Nicene teachings which violate the First and Second Commandments of Sinai – a complex theological assertion. First Commandment: I am HaShem who brought you out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. The Nicene Creed makes absolutely no reference to the revelation of this first Commandment Divine Name. Translating the Divine Name into other words duplicates the Sin of the Golden calf wherein the mixed multitudes, which the Torah describes as people who had no fear of “Elohim”.
Why did the Torah refer to the very error of the mixed multitudes who translated the Spirit Name revelation – first Sinai commandment with the word “Elohim”. The Torah directly commands not to compare the revelation of the Spirit Name not to anything in the Earth, Heavens, or Seas –yet would permit word translations which ignore the revelation of the Sinai Divine Spirit which so horrified Israel that they thought they would die after hearing only the first two commandments; therefore Israel demanded from Moshe that he rise up upon Sinai and receive the rest of the Torah!
The Second Commandment does not say You shall not make for yourself an idol; as if avoda zarah – the Av tuma negative commandment of Sinai – limit itself to physical graven images. The T’NaCH defines the intent of the 2nd Sinai commandment to A) Do not follow the cultures and customs/practices of peoples who rejected the revelation at Sinai. B) Do not marry any man or woman of these alien foreign peoples who rejected the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Both the New Testament and Koran – no different than the worship of Baal. Only the 12 Tribes of Israel accepted the Sinai revelation. The revelation of this local god differs totally and completely from the Monotheistic theological creed creation of new Gods as expressed by both the authors of the New Testament and Koran.
Furthermore Philippians 2:5-11 likewise perverts the Torah mitzva of Moshiach unto some “Savior of death”, in accordance with the Apostle Paul’s perversion of the exile of Adam from the Garden (A major Torah theme likewise expressed in the stories of Noach, Israel in Egypt, and the 40 years in the Wilderness.), as the fall of all Man Kind condemned to eternal death till the NT theology of messiah created a new Universal God which defeats Satan and frees Man kind from the prison of Hell.
The theology of Monotheism, this creed subverts the revelation of the Divine Spirit Presence revealed in the First Sinai commandment. This Spirit not a word which Human lips can pronounce. Hence the theology of monotheism utterly and totally rejects the revelation of the Divine Spirit Name revealed in the first Sinai commandment. Furthermore, the theology creeds which pervert the 2nd Sinai commandment limited strictly and only to physical idols (a fundamental dispute which separates Catholic and Protestant theology to this very day), utterly ignores the Torah commandment as interpreted by the stories of King Shlomo’s foreign wives and Ezra’s commandment for Israel to divorce their foreign wives.
The First Commandment states, “I am HaShem your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.” It focuses on HaShem’s identity and His relationship with Israel, rather than explicitly declaring monotheism as understood in later avoda zarah theological frameworks. HaShem judging the Egyptian gods implies that the existence of other deities reject the avoda zarah simplistic theology as defined by the established creeds of both religious belief systems. Torah defines the pursuit of judicial justice as FAITH, not believe in some Trinity or Allah as faith. This distinction highlights a relationship based on an oath brit alliance rather than a theological religious “covenant”. The Hebrew term brit does not correctly translate as “covenant”.
Implications for Worship: known as the mitzva of Avodat HaShem refers to doing time oriented commandments during the 6 days of the week and ceasing to do time oriented commandments on the day of Shabbat. Based upon the creation story of בראשית/Genesis. Neither the NT nor Koran accepted the revelation of the first two Sinai commandments; therefore both fraudulent religions reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.
The Xtian creed of Holy Spirit has no connection what so ever with the Divine Presence Spirit Name revealed in the first Sinai commandment. The koran replacement theology of Allah no different than the error of the Nicene creed Holy Spirit. Only Israel accepted the Torah at Sinai, HaShem by definition a local tribal god and not some grand Universal Monotheistic God as both Xtianity and Islam dictates. Peoples around the world throughout the span of Human history worship and believe in other Gods. To negate the existence of other Gods therefore constitutes as revisionist history.
Time oriented commandments express a Torah wisdom not bound by some child-like rote understanding which limits “time” as some linear event. Torah wisdom, such as required to build the Mishkan, herein serves as the strongest Torah common law precedent wherein the Torah itself defines time oriented commandments. Neither the NT nor Koran have the least bit of a clue concerning Torah wisdom as the definition of all time oriented Torah commandments. Therefore neither the NT nor Koran qualify as valid continuation of the Divine Revelation at Sinai which only Israel accepts to this very day.
Torah common law shares no common ground with av tuma NT & Koran theology/creed belief systems. A judge who hears a case before his court having strong “beliefs” pro or con concerning the details of the case argued before his court – righteousness demands that he recuse and excuse himself as a judge in that current case debated by both prosecutor and defense justices of the 3 man Torts common law court.
mosckerr
LikeLike