Q&A: What Is the Meaning of a Divine Command
What Is the Meaning of a Divine Command
Question
What is a "command"?
Seemingly, in my humble opinion, every command contains an implicit statement that if you do not obey, you may be punished.
That is what a "command" means everywhere when it is said from one person to another.
And my question is: what is a "command" when it is said by God to a person?
Does it also mean here that if you do not obey, you may be punished?
And if that is not the meaning, then what is?
(And if my understanding of the meaning of the concept "command" is incorrect, I would be happy to hear how you understand the concept.)
Thank you very much.
Answer
It is true that every command contains the possibility of punishment (although in principle there are commands without punishment, certainly in an earthly religious court), but that is not the essence of a command.
A command is a type of statement that comes from someone with formal authority, meaning an entity that must be obeyed simply because it said so (like the Knesset, or, of course, the Holy One, blessed be He). When such an entity commands, an obligation to obey is created. If it merely expresses a wish that we do something but does not command it, then there is no obligation, though it is proper to do so. Punishment is a consequence: someone who was under an obligation and did not fulfill it is liable to punishment.
In fact, making the essence of a command depend on punishment gets things backwards. In order to impose punishment we need justification (punishment cannot be arbitrary, unless you are simply wicked). The justification is that there was an obligation and you did not fulfill it. Therefore you deserve punishment. If you make the command depend on punishment, that means there is no obligation, and therefore your failure to comply does not justify punishment. So why punish you? It would just be an arbitrary act. So punishment does not give content to the command; rather, the command (and the obligation it creates) gives justification for the punishment.
For example, in the Israeli law book there is no prohibition stated against stealing or murdering. What is written there is: the punishment for a thief is such-and-such. Or: the punishment for a murderer is such-and-such. Seemingly this is based on your conception. But in my opinion that is not correct. The determination that there is a punishment assumes that the act is an offense, because without that there is no justification for punishing. The law does not permit sanctions to be imposed just like that without the act first having been forbidden. Admittedly, the legislator did not see fit to state explicitly in the law that there is a prohibition (perhaps because it is obvious, and inserting such prohibitions into the law book would only cheapen them), but it is clear that he assumed their existence.
Discussion on Answer
It does not depend on the listener. A command is a command by virtue of the authority of the one commanding. The choice whether to obey is in the hands of the listener.
Who determines the authority of the one commanding?
Reality. It is not a matter of agreement. Regarding the Knesset, it is the result of society’s decision, but once that was decided every citizen is obligated to comply. With the Holy One, blessed be He, it is by virtue of His being God.
So much twisting around just to avoid admitting the simple truth that it all stems from fear.
I did not understand.
Is society’s decision what is called a "matter of agreement"?
In the case of the Knesset, is it a matter of agreement, or not even there?
(Of course I do not mean specifically the Knesset, but any command issued by one person to another.)
That is just a semantic matter. Bottom line: there is an obligation to obey regardless of your consent.
I wanted to make sure I understand you.
So you are saying that a command exists when there is authority.
The Knesset has authority by force of society’s decision.
And God has authority by virtue of His being God.
That last sentence is baseless.
How do you know He has authority?
What would you say if I told you:
"I have authority by virtue of my being Daniel"?
What would you say if I told you the table in front of you is a frog? There is what is true, and it does not depend on what someone says, nor on whether everyone understands that this is the truth. That’s it. I’m done.
Good that you asked.
I would tell you that there are tools for checking what a frog is. We would go to the dictionary, check the definition of a frog, and see whether the table in front of me matches the definition.
But what tools are there to check whether someone has authority?
How do you know that God has authority?
Check in the dictionary (that I will write) whether God has authority, and you will see.
In short, the question of proof and definition does not determine the question of truth. This is the truth, and if you do not understand, then you do not understand.
In any case, this is the definition of the concept of a command, and that is what you asked about.
Bottom line, you did not answer what tools can be used to check who has authority. And you did not answer the question, "How do you know that God has authority?"
(True, that was not the question I started with, but is there some law forbidding asking new questions about your answers, and does anyone even have the authority to legislate such a law? ;))
You are certainly allowed to ask, and I answered: 1. There is no way to check. 2. I know it by reasoned intuition (my intuition). By the same token, there is also no way to check that murder is forbidden, and I know that by reasoned intuition.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1T94v9z_-lFlUf6yZuZCOv6Zm-9Y-FdlW/view?usp=sharing
(So if it is possible to keep asking new questions)
1. Is this subjective?
2. I do not understand how you are using the words "reasoning" and "intuition." As I understand them, these are words with different meanings, even opposite ones. "Reasoning" is an argument or arguments leading to a conclusion. It has an explanation. Whereas "intuition" is an unexplained gut feeling.
1. That depends on what you mean here by "subjective." It is not apprehended by the senses, but it is objective in the sense that we are talking about a binding truth, not something each person can decide for himself. Anyone who thinks otherwise is mistaken.
2. That is exactly the same meaning. When I offer reasoning X to justify claim Y, the explanatory claim itself (the reasoning X) has no further explanation. So where does it come from? From intuition (it is clear to me that it is true). Every explanation is based on assumptions. What is the source of the assumptions? Intuition.
If so, I have two more questions, the last ones for this thread.
A first question that is philosophical, and a second one that is practical.
1. If human intuition is a tool for clarifying the truth,
what happens when two people have opposite intuitions?
What is the truth then?
And if you say that one of those intuitions is mistaken, then seemingly that means intuitions cannot be a tool for clarifying the truth. Because here we have proof that intuition got it wrong.
2. In the case at hand, I do not have the intuition that God is binding authority. Am I under duress? And even according to your own view, "the Merciful One exempts a person under duress."
1. The truth is whatever it is. That has nothing to do with the question of whether there is disagreement about it or not. Therefore in such a situation it is not relevant to ask what the truth is, but rather perhaps how one can know what it is. That is of course a completely different question. But I already answered that. There is no independent criterion, and that is precisely why we are dealing with intuition. I will follow my intuition, after considering the possibility raised by my interlocutor. See also column 247 on this.
Your conclusion, that this means intuition is not a tool for clarifying the truth, is incorrect. You may conclude that it is not a certain tool for clarifying the truth. Indeed, we do not have and cannot have certainty about anything. See again the above-mentioned column.
2. Yes.
If I understand correctly, it can be summarized like this:
A command = a statement that creates an obligation.
That seems to imply that for a command to be a command, it depends both on the speaker and on the listener. The speaker gives the command, and for the listener an obligation is created.
What happens when no obligation is created for the listener? Does that mean there was no command?
For example, a commander gives an order to a soldier, but the soldier does not accept the commander’s authority over him. Is that not still a command?