HaDerekh Chaim

Greetings again, after a long recess:

2011-02-27T13:12:00.001-08:00

Reviewing the Torah Portions from 2011, Vayera to Vayakhel

This year's first Torah portion began on January 1^st, 2011. That Shabbat, we studied Parashat Vayera. During our time of discussion, we discussed Moses' reluctance to go back to Egypt in Exodus 4:10-17.

Exodus 4:10-17
¹⁰ ¶ But Moses said to the LORD, "Oh, my Lord, I am not eloquent, either in the past or since you have spoken to your servant, but I am slow of speech and of tongue." ¹¹ Then the LORD said to him, "Who has made man's mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the LORD? ¹² Now therefore go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall speak." ¹³ But he said, "Oh, my Lord, please send someone else." ¹⁴ Then the anger of the LORD was kindled against Moses and he said, "Is there not Aaron, your brother, the Levite? I know that he can speak well. Behold, he is coming out to meet you, and when he sees you, he will be glad in his heart. ¹⁵ You shall speak to him and put the words in his mouth, and I will be with your mouth and with his mouth and will teach you both what to do. ¹⁶ He shall speak for you to the people, and he shall be your mouth, and you shall be as God to him. ¹⁷ And take in your hand this staff, with which you shall do the signs."

Moses had to choose whom he would fear. Would he fear God only or would he bow to the fears he had about speaking to Pharaoh? God did not really give Moses a choice. Moses had just handled snakes and had been cured from a leprous hand" God was very persuasive. Moses chose to fear God. Moses knew that if he went to Egypt, he would have to face the leaders of Egypt, with whom he most likely had had personal relationships. Perhaps they would want to have him killed. However, in verse 4:14, when God gets angry, Moses realized he had no choice. Better to die in Egypt than reap the wrath of God.

On January 8^th, we read Parashat Bo. During this passage, we read about how God plans to save Israel, and at the same time, discipline Egypt. In order for Israel to be saved, they had to prepare for celebration. How ironic that the celebration came BEFORE the deliverance. And this day—Passover—was to be commemorated for all generations. We commemorate it still.

Exodus 12:14 ¶ "'This will be a day for you to remember and celebrate as a festival to ADONAI; from generation to generation you are to celebrate it by a perpetual regulation."

So, those Israelites who put the blood on their doorframe and remembered the words of God received a supernatural deliverance. Yet, they could not see what was coming. They could not understand what an Angel of Death was. By trusting Moses' words, they obeyed, and that was their choice in the deliverance. In spite of how odd putting blood on one's door must have been, it was the difference between life and death.

Later, in Egypt's history, during the time of Jeremiah and Judah's being sent into captivity by Babylon, Egypt suffered the same fate:

Jeremiah 46:13-17
¹³ ¶ The word that the LORD spoke to Jeremiah the prophet about the coming of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon to strike the land of Egypt: ¹⁴ "Declare in Egypt, and proclaim in Migdol; proclaim in Memphis and Tahpanhes; say, 'Stand ready and be prepared, for the sword shall devour around you.' ¹⁵ Why are your mighty ones face down? They do not stand because the LORD thrust them down. ¹⁶ He made many stumble, and they fell, and they said one to another, 'Arise, and let us go back to our own people and to the land of our birth, because of the sword of the oppressor.' ¹⁷ Call the name of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, 'Noisy one who lets the hour go by.'

The word "the hour" in this verse is the same word as in Leviticus 23. The word is "moedim." So, in this case, it appears that Jeremiah is prophesying that Egypt is going to be destroyed because they had forgotten the Passover. It is interesting to think that through the consistent celebration of the Passover by the Israelites, that this would have served as a reminder to the Egyptians, even generations later. Moreover, it served as a reminder to Judah about trusting in a military alliance with Egypt to save them from the destruction of Babylon. Who would Judah trust? Their military and alliances with foreign powers, or would they trust God alone? This message is still strong for us today. We believe strongly in the US's alliance with Israel, but how long will that last? We must trust God alone.

On January 15^th, we read Parashat Beshlach. In this portion, we read about a kind of process that God's people go through as they move from an attitude or spirit of fear to an attitude or spirit of praise. In Exodus 13, God brings Israel to a dead end at the Red Sea. Egypt was bearing down on them from the west, and they were pressed up against the sea with nowhere to go. Their fear turned to anger when they cried out complaining that God had brought them there to die. No one had thought that God brought them there so that He could let them walk on dry land through the Red Sea (Ex. 14). Many times, when we are pressed up against problems, we never think about the possible miracle that God had planned all along, we just complain about what we see with our eyes. But, fear and anger give way when they are presented with the miracle. Imagine the Israelites' disbelief as they walked through the sea. "Is this really happening?" Even once they were on the other side, could they believe what had just happened? This disbelief is reinforced by the fact that they complained again about thirst in hunger within the same week of having walked through the sea (Ex. 16-17). God will test even our flesh. They were also tested again when the Amalekites came to attack them. But when the Israelites defeated them—again by God's miracle—their disbelief is reinforced with assurance, and that assurance gives way to belief. Finally, our belief will lead to victory, and our victory will lead to praise (Ex 15). So the process looks like this: FearàangeràMIRACLEàdisbeliefàassuranceàbeliefàvictoryàPRAISE!!!

On January 22^nd, we read Parashat Yitro (Ex. 18, 19, and 20). In it, we discussed the relevance of the 10 commandments, not only on the culture of Moses' day, but on hundreds of world culture everywhere. We compared on contrasted the ancient Israelite's use of the 10 commandments, the use during Yeshua's day, the use of the Rabbinic tradition, the use by historical Christian theology, the use by Americans and its reflection in the American constitution, and even the use by Muslims. All of these cultures base much of what they do on the concepts in the 10 commandments (or 10 Words). Most cultures are against killing people.

In our discussion, we discussed the use of the 10 commandments in a legalistic way, in a liberal way, and in a way that shows our love for God and our neighbors.

Matthew 22:36-40
³⁶ Master, which is the great commandment in the law? ³⁷ Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. ³⁸ This is the first and great commandment. ³⁹ And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. ⁴⁰ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

As we apply the 10 commandments, we learn that love is what guides what we do, not just keeping laws, fulfilling obligations. However, love does not free us to do whatever we feel leads to love, because we are bound by how the Words define love. Keeping the commandments not only shows us what love is and is not, but it is the love itself.

1 John 4:20-21
²⁰ If anyone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. ²¹ And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.

On January 29^th, we expanded on this topic of loving God and loving our neighbors through the study of individual commandments (mitzvot) listed in Parashat Mishpatim. One of the examples we discussed was the example of the servant who loved his master. Once the servant has a wife and children whom he loves, knowing that they belong to the master, the servant offers himself to his master for life. The commandment for when one does this is the piercing of the servant's ear upon the doorpost of the master's home.

Exodus 21:5-6
⁵ But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,' ⁶ then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.

Imagine the allusion here, of Yeshua offering up his blood upon a doorpost for the sake of his wife (or children). Yeshua often refers to His Father has His Master.

We also discussed the logic that the Jewish sages have developed over the years in regards to these commandments/mitzvot. We looked at the Shabbat and the 39 actions of work that were prohibited on Shabbat. We discussed the purpose and function of Talmud, and the logic behind how the sages derived their interpretations from the Torah. What we saw was that the parallel structures of Hebrew create a pendulum of interpretations where there are sets of actions that can be derived from a single Torah commandment. For example, the commandment about Shabbat not only says that on the seventh day, they were to refrain from working, but also that 6 days they were to work. What is work? The 39 types of creative work were derived from the 39 types of works that were done in the creation of the Tabernacle. Thus, all work today is filtered through the 39 prohibitions of what is work.

Now, in American culture, American individuals simply take what they read more linearly, so that when they say that they are not to work, they define work by whatever each individual "feels" is work, and thus refrain from doing that. In reality, they violate this whenever it "feels" right to do so. Individualism wins out over tradition. Some overdefine work, it there might be who refrain from doing ANYTHING on the Sabbath, which tends to be more of a legalism than a proper interpretation.

There is no conclusion to this issue regarding Talmud, regarding the pendulum swings of interpretation, or regarding liberalism versus legalism. However, Yeshua established the sieve of love by which to filter the commandments of Torah. In Jewish thought, motivation matters as much as the action itself. Sometimes, believers what to have good motivations, but then they refrain from even doing the commandment at all. "Well, I meant to keep the Sabbath holy, but I had a bad day, and then I yelled at someone, so I gave up." This is not a Biblical way of thinking. Mishpatim offers many examples of what believers must live up to in order to show their neighbor that they are loved.

On February 6^th, we read and studied Terumah (Ex. 27-30). We read about the fantastic details which God asked for in creating the Tabernacle. The obedience and contributions of the Israelites were an expression of their love for God.

During this study, we also read Matthew 13:24-30 and 36-43. In this Scripture, we read about the wheat and the tares.

Matthew 13:24-30
²⁴ ¶ He put another parable before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, ²⁵ but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. ²⁶ So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. ²⁷ And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, 'Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?' ²⁸ He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' So the servants said to him, 'Then do you want us to go and gather them?' ²⁹ But he said, 'No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. ³⁰ Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"

Yeshua explained that the weeds amongst the wheat could not be removed without also harming the good wheat. It is clear that there are those who do not believe in God are mixed in with those who do. There are those who live a liberal life with no rules, creating their own laws unto themselves, disobeying God.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, ¹⁰ nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. ¹¹ And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

And there are those who believe that following all of the rules, but without love or compassion for others will inherit his kingdom.

Matthew 19:16-22 And behold, a man came up to him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?" ¹⁷ And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments." ¹⁸ He said to him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, ¹⁹ Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself." ²⁰ The young man said to him, "All these I have kept. What do I still lack?" ²¹ Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." ²² When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

Thus, in the assemblies of believers all across the world, there are those within the walls of our lives that cause great frustration and anger, perhaps. But knowing that the tares must be amongst the family ought to create within us a great sense of mercy. How do we know if someone we may not like might actually turn out in the future to find Messiah? Or, how do we know that if someone we think walks closely with the Lord is in fact faking his or her walk with God so as to stay within a believing culture; but in reality, this person does not really know God. The end result is that we treat each other with great mercy at all times, no matter the circumstance, because Yeshua warned his disciples all along, only HE would remove the tares, and ONLY when it is the RIGHT TIME. So, we treat all people equally, and we show no partiality with ALL who enter.

James 2:1-7 My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. ² For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, ³ and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, "You sit here in a good place," while you say to the poor man, "You stand over there," or, "Sit down at my feet," ⁴ have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? ⁵ Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him? ⁶ But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court? ⁷ Are they not the ones who blaspheme the honorable name by which you were called?

On February 13^th, we read Parashat Tzetzevah, where we read about the priestly garments and the priestly ordination service (Ex. 27:20, 28, 29). The garments of the priests are sacred, or set apart, because they have a godly function. When the priest puts these garments on, the garments are a reminder of his service to God and the commandments that must be performed before a Holy God. God is a God of order, and not just feel-good worship services. Not only did the priest have special clothes, but there were specific sacrifices that were to be made at the initial ceremony consecrating the priests: sin offerings and free-will offerings (See Lev. 1 and 4.) The priest was not to believe that he was special by some virtue, but rather than he, too, was a sinner in need of God's mercy. The bull sin offering was only for the priest, not for the people. Finally, after the initial sacrifices of the tabernacle, there were to be daily sacrifices that would have begun at that time and lasted until the destruction of the Temple in 586 BCE. And then again, the sacrifices resumed until 70 AD. In other words, the daily sacrifices remained from the time of Moses until the beginning of the present era. We still maintain these sacrifices through saying Shema twice daily and praying to God and acknowledging His daily presence in our lives.

In the same way that priests wore garments and offered sacrifices daily, so too are we to take up the full armor of God daily.

Ephesians 6:11-18 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. ¹² For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. ¹³ Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. ¹⁴ Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, ¹⁵ and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. ¹⁶ In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; ¹⁷ and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, ¹⁸ praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints,

Note that the "rulers, authorities, worldly powers and spiritual forces of evil are all references to human agents in the Greek language. Some like to use this passage of Scripture to justify all sorts of pseudo-spiritual demon hunts within churches, casting out of demons, and such, none of which have anything to do with this passage. Without the belt, the pants would fall down. The priest also wore a belt that kept the breastplate which bore the 12 stones of Israel and kept the umim and thurim in place. The truth is the Word. Righteousness is kept in the heart, where decisions are made. (Only in Greek/European thinking has the concept that decisions are made in the brain and that love is in the heart. The Hebraic thought places decisions and thinking in the heart and love in the mind/head. This is a significant difference of concept when applied in real life.) Thus, the righteous actions are determined by what we CHOOSE to do or obey, not by how we feel. In fact, doing the right thing is often in contradiction with how we feel. Our shoes are ready to take us in the direction that our righteousness determines. The gospel (or the Torah) provides completedness (shalom). It does not necessarily mean we will be free of conflict. We take up the shield of faith (or trust) to extinguish the darts (or lies) of the enemy. We believe in God, even though we do not see Him. The enemy doesn't want us to believe and trust that God is there for us, that He loves us. By faith, we reject the enemies' lies. Finally, the helmet of salvation, similar to the headpiece of the priest, consecrates us as holy. It is the helmet of salvation—we accept Yeshua into our mind—the place where we exhibit love. (Again, it's that Greek—Hebraic conceptual difference.) Finally, just like the priests offered twice daily sacrifices, which today we understand is prayer, so too, Paul encourages the believers in taking up their armor for the purpose of prayer. Prayer really does matter, and it must be done daily, twice daily, at all times praying.

One last thought about the priestly garments and the armor. When we believe that Paul chose a Roman soldier's garment to prove that we are to take up arms and fight against evil, I believe that we can overuse this illustration to justify something Paul did not mean. This call to arms is not one of military might, guns, bullets, etc. It is a call to prayer, serious prayer. Are there places in Scripture that allows for people to defend themselves? Certainly, but this is not the point here. To argue about when it is OK to defend oneself is beside the point. We need to be in prayer, both for our families and friends, but similar to the wheat and tares, even for our enemies. God does not wish that any should perish.

Last week, in Ki Tisa, we read about the sin of the golden calf (Ex. 30-34.) Ki Tisa also offers us an important set of bookends. The first half of this portion concludes the instructions for building the tabernacle. The final stanza before the chapter on the golden calf is an encouragement to keep the Shabbat.

Exodus 31:12-18
¹² ¶ And the LORD said to Moses, ¹³ "You are to speak to the people of Israel and say, 'Above all you shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the LORD, sanctify you. ¹⁴ You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. Whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. ¹⁵ Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death. ¹⁶ Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever. ¹⁷ It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.'" ¹⁸ ¶ And he gave to Moses, when he had finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.

While Moses was up on Mount Sinai, the people had created a god that they could see. Now, some interpret this act of idol making a rejection of God as though He did not exist. However, others recognize that these actions were not really a rejection of God, but rather a lack of trust in a God they could not see. They preferred to establish God in an image that they would be able to understand, thus confining God into a limitation that they could handle. Remember, in Ex. 19, the Israelites had met God. Idolatry does not have to mean worshipping a false god, but rather to worship God falsely. God commanded the people not to make graven images, because graven images confine God in unnatural ways. We choose not to represent God with images because we recognize that He is infinite and cannot be contained by anything. The Israelites were guilty, and perhaps they were going to receive greater judgment than a pagan kingdom because God was ready to wipe them out and start over with Moses.

Exodus 32:9-10
⁹ And the LORD said to Moses, "I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people. ¹⁰ Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them, in order that I may make a great nation of you."

But the important lesson here Moses' willingness and desire to intercede on behalf of his people. Some of the Jewish sages actually indicate that this is the crux of the test: not that the people were weak and unsuitable for God, God already knew this; but rather, the test was to see if Moses would respond in love for his people; would he willingly give himself on behalf of the people. The Jewish concept of Messiah has always included the act of self-sacrifice for others due to a great love. Moses showed this great love.

This great love is the great conflict that each of us have in our lives at this moment. Can we love one another enough to form a true community? There are already churches and synagogues in the world that go through motions. Perhaps the greatest tragedy in American religious life is that because of American culture, people are only interested in a surface relationship with God and with others. Meanwhile, there are activities of pleasure by which we can distract ourselves. (Most of you are probably reading this on-line because you spend a good deal of time here, both talking—perhaps gossiping—with others, watching movies or TV, or playing games, or looking up crafts, or reading news, or any manner of other activities that require internet access.) The question is whether or not someone, anyone, will put what they are doing down and intercede with the Almighty God in an act of mercy.

Exodus 32:11-14 But Moses implored the LORD his God and said, "O LORD, why does your wrath burn hot against your people, whom you have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? ¹² Why should the Egyptians say, 'With evil intent did he bring them out, to kill them in the mountains and to consume them from the face of the earth'? Turn from your burning anger and relent from this disaster against your people. ¹³ Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants, to whom you swore by your own self, and said to them, 'I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have promised I will give to your offspring, and they shall inherit it forever.'" ¹⁴ And the LORD relented from the disaster that he had spoken of bringing on his people.

I challenge you to pray these words above again, but personalize it for us, for our communities, for Jews, for Christians alike, even for Muslims and the whole world. Forgive us, God!

Finally, yesterday we did not meet because of the glazing of ice throughout the city. I didn't want to see anyone hurt, which I understand was possible throughout town. This week, we were to read Vayakhel (Ex. 35:1-38:20.) In this passage, Bazalel and Oholiab are put in motion, and they work to finish the tabernacle, with all of their workers, and begin the process of the tabernacle ceremonies. The haftarah reflected the same theme in I Kings 7:40-50, as Solomon finished the construction of the Temple.

But there is a different direction to consider, as can be read in I Cor. 3, especially 3:11 and 19.

1 Corinthians 3:10-20
¹⁰ ¶ According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. ¹¹ For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. ¹² Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw-- ¹³ each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. ¹⁴ If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. ¹⁵ If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. ¹⁶ ¶ Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? ¹⁷ If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple. ¹⁸ ¶ Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. ¹⁹ For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their craftiness," ²⁰ and again, "The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile."

In this passage, we realize that there is a calling not just to "build" a Temple, like God had commanded Moses. Instead, we realize that we "are" the Temple, being fit together. Notice also that we are unable to use any other foundation other than the foundation that Yeshua already laid. What does that mean? Consider many of the past conversations from these last few weeks. We must balance the notions of Torah liberalism and Torah legalism against the Torah commandments motivated by love. If Yeshua died on for His people, then He also died for the whole world. This is the message that must go out through the whole world. Not a theological "you can only have grace through Jesus" message, but rather, a pragmatic, "Jesus is the only way you can fix your life now" message. Our hope isn't that Yeshua will come and destroy the world, but like Moses, that we will intercede on behalf of our world and say "Let's do something NOW!" Now read this next passage:

1 Corinthians 6:1-20 When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? ² Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? ³ Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! ⁴ So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? ⁵ I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, ⁶ but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? ⁷ ¶ To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? ⁸ But you yourselves wrong and defraud--even your own brothers! ⁹ ¶ Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, ¹⁰ nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. ¹¹ And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. ¹² ¶ "All things are lawful for me," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful for me," but I will not be enslaved by anything. ¹³ "Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food"--and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. ¹⁴ And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. ¹⁵ Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! ¹⁶ Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, "The two will become one flesh." ¹⁷ But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. ¹⁸ Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. ¹⁹ Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, ²⁰ for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

This is quite humbling, really. First, we must realize that we have sinned, and that we used to be under no one's law. Many believers accept Yeshua for salvation, but they do not live under His law, they live liberally, however they feel like it. Others, in response to liberalism, decide to sue everyone, and they bring even their brothers before worldly courts, trying to prove they are the more righteous organization. We must stop this crazy competition!

Second, we must realize that if we live according to Torah, we have authority to rule over the world. I don't think that means we can take up arms, but I think it does mean we do not back down about truth and sharing the truth. There are trivial differences between believers right now, but isn't it better to be slandered and live with that than to destroy the view of God before those who do not believe? If believers would not stand against each other, but rather stood up for what is right in the world, and would be humble and generous and merciful with our fellow believers, then the world would have less to accuse us of. It doesn't matter if this context is Jewish or Christian or Messianic, all need to find that common ground now, or a greater persecution will cause us to find it out of necessity.

Third, we live in an oversexualized and greedy culture. This is not new, this is exactly why Paul wrote Corinthians. The Corinthian congregation lived in an sensual and touchy-feely culture that permitted everything. The world culture is coming to this. I can no longer say this is an American phenomenon, because we are witnessing the birth of liberalism everywhere in the world, mostly fueled by the young. Do we expect this to go well for people of faith? The movement we see developing in the Middle East has been picked up in China, but also in places like Wisconsin. And the fuel to the fire is added by CNN and media outlets pushing for anarchy. What is this freedom that they seek? …freedom to live how they want, free, without rules—but also—without Torah, without Jesus? The US was originally founded to protect people's freedom to worship God. These movements seem aimed at freeing the world from the worship of God. It's not the same, and we need to be aware. This passage is also very clear about the place of the homosexual culture in Corinth. God at no point sanctions this behavior, so much so that in Greek, there are two terms for the homosexual actors, which make this behavior more explicitly rejected by Paul; but to be clear, it is just as much to be rejected as is greed, thieves, drunks and the rest. We must work to help those who are hindered by these sinful lifestyles. We aren't to reject people because we are all sinners, but we need to be careful not to sanction these lifestyles.

Finally, we need to continue to seek to be one people, a unified people, a single Temple. If there is any theme that returns from all of these passages, it is that God has had a plan for this small group of believers here in the KC Torah Community—and that is that we behave as one people, loving each other, loving others, and growing the community. We are in a place against the Sea, not knowing how God will deliver us from the approaching enemy, but we need to prepare ourselves for a miracle. What a wonderful thing that Passover is almost here. We need to be in preparation not just for holding a Seder, but for God's coming deliverance. We need to have our bread ready to go. We need to live out the 10 commandments, not in a liberal or legalistic way, but in love for God and love for our neighbors. We need to understand that we will be able to keep the commandments perfectly when we see Yeshua reigning from Israel, but right now, we need to be patient with ourselves and others. We need to live rightly, but in patience, because we do not know who are tares and who are wheat. We need to enter at all times in prayer, both for our own nourishment with the Father through His Son, but also we need to pray on behalf of our brothers, even if they are falsely worshipping God. (We cannot turn aside the many Christians who are struggling. God is the judge, not us. We need to be available for them.) We are to put on the armor, but also the priestly garments, preparing ourselves for when others are ready to bring their offerings to God, too.

God bless you all this week. I will be praying for you. Pray for Marjie and I, and all of c+hildren, too.

Parashat Re’eh, Deuteronomy 11:26-16:17

2010-08-04T10:12:00.001-07:00

There is an unusual progression of topics in this portion. I thought that it might be helpful to have a little bit of a map, and then a summary:

In the first part, Dt. 11:26-32, God reminds the people that they have a choice regarding obeying God. If they obey, there is a blessing; but if they disobey, they will receive the curse. A blessing is a supernatural gift that God gives those who live according to the Torah, or the Word. But the curse is also a supernatural withholding of the blessing in which the natural consequences of not living according to the Torah have its effect. Thus the blessings appear to us as supernatural gifts, but the curses appear to us as natural events.
In Dt.12, God establishes how the Israelites are to receive the land. They must remove all idols from their inheritance, and also they must establish the Temple as a place of worship. The place of worship must be holy (set apart) and the land it is in must be holy; in other words, it cannot be mixed with other forms of worship. Our lives need to literally and spiritually be holy, not mixed with other interferences that keep up from worshipping God. In the land, people lived according to the commands of God, and thus were a testimony to all the nations about God. Our lives can reflect this as well.
However, Dt. 13, God warns us of how people begin their walk away from God. It begins with a dream or a prophecy or something placed within the mind or heart of an individual. This person believe that they have heard something special, but what they say does not line up with God's Word, but instead leads back into slavery, the kind of slavery Egypt represented. In Israel's history, there were people such as Ahab and Jezebel who exemplify how this works. Today, there are groups and individuals who lead people into believing that their dreams or visions or feelings have equal weight as God's Word, and they label this as having "listened to the Holy Spirit." We are not to show mercy to such people. In Torah, they are immediately stoned. For us, if the individual is not willing to repent, we would do well to stay far, far away from such people. Notice that in Dt, 13:18, it is the commandments that we obey, not visions, hopes, and dreams.
In Dt. 14, God reiterates what is clean and unclean, as well as how to bring the tithe to the Temple. This may not seem like an act of worship, but in fact, it may be one of the most neglected acts of worship that we miss—the act of eating. We are reminded to put only clean food into our bodies, and we are reminded to give the tithe of the produce. Finally, we are reminded to not forget the Levites within our midst. All of these are basic acts of worship, and they are practical things that can be done, they are not mystical or highly spiritual. We need to remind ourselves that "being spiritual" does not mean that we must act in some super-pious, holy way that puts us at odds with the culture around us. Instead, our behavior must stand out in such a way as to cause others to desire to seek out God. Thus, our differences do not make us stand out for the purpose of feeling superior, which would be a false feeling; but rather, we do things differently because God asked us to, and if we do them, then perhaps others will want to do them, too. God receive the glory, not man.
In chapter 15, how we treat those in need is discussed. Every seven years, there is to be debt redemption. For the most part, this chapter deals with those who have received the blessing. Notice that the one who is in debt has received this natural consequence for having lived in disobedience to something. It's not super-spiritual curse, it is just a natural consequence for living outside of God's design. Sure, there are those who appear to have great wealth and do not follow God's Word; they steal from widows and orphans and the poor. But it must be remembered that these are temporary conditions and judgment will one day come. When godly people have wealth, than there are no poor. The fact that there are poor is a reflection of disobedience on a cultural level. It seems odd that a commandment to let land lie fallow for a year would actually cause greater wealth, but this seems to be the supernatural consequence to obeying God…we don't actually work as hard.
Finally, this Torah portion is closed with the reminder to keep Passover, Shavuot, and Sukkot. Again, this is a reminder that this whole section is about worship. During these festivals, we have a whole week that we set aside for doing different acts of worship. People were created to have fellowship with God and with others, and these are times that God asks us to set aside to fellowship with Him and with others.

In conclusion, this Torah portion is about proper acts of worship: When we are in fellowship with God and are worshipping Him according to the commandments, we receive the blessings—the inheritance of the land, the setting aside of the Temple, the cleanness of our bodies, the general wealth of the people in the land, the absence of the poor and a party set up by God three times a year. However, if we disobey God, we have a tendency to worship God falsely, in a way that we make up, we follow our own dreams and vision, or listen too closely to false prophets and worship something false, we skip paying our tithes, we ignore the widows, orphans, and poor, we ignore the Levites, we eat everything-even that which is not food, we hold our brothers debt in higher regard than our brother, and as a result, we don't even meet with God at the times He set aside for us, to fellowship with Him. This is the choice we have-to worship Him and receive supernatural blessings as a result of having a relationship with Him; or we can worship in a false way, listening to false prophets, and miss out on a relationship with Him, and receive the natural consequences of not knowing Him. This is the blessing and the curse.

Parashat Devarim: Parallelism between Deuteronomy 1:8-13 and Acts 1:6-12

2010-07-18T13:42:00.001-07:00

Parashat Devarim, Torah : Deuteronomy 1:1-3:22
Haftarah : Isaiah 1:1-27
Gospel : Acts 1-2

Deuteronomy 1:8-13
See, I have set the land before you. Go in and take possession of the land that the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give to them and to their offspring after them.' "At that time I said to you, 'I am not able to bear you by myself. The LORD your God has multiplied you, and behold, you are today as numerous as the stars of heaven. May the LORD, the God of your fathers, make you a thousand times as many as you are and bless you, as he has promised you! How can I bear by myself the weight and burden of you and your strife? Choose for your tribes wise, understanding, and experienced men, and I will appoint them as your heads."

Acts 1:6-12 So when they had come together, they asked him, "Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, and said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven." Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away.

Deuteronomy and Acts are both very unique books when compared to the four books that preceded them both. From Genesis to Numbers, there is the telling of the story of Israel, along with the Torah mitzvot, given to Israel by God. From Matthew to John, there is the telling of the story of Israel and her Messiah, along with the Torah interpretations of the miztvot, given by Rabbi Yeshua. Deuteronomy, then, is the retelling of this story to a new generation of Israelites. This new generation of Israelites was charged with judging the nations that were within the land, and establishing the land of Israel as a beacon of the light of God as described by Torah. Similarly, Acts was written by Luke to Theophilus at a time when a new generations of believers was being charged with carrying the Gospel message of Yeshua as the Messiah to all of the nations. As we read in the book of Joshua and Judges, Israel fell significantly short of what God could have done, but they did bring about the conditions that God needed by which to come as Messiah. Similarly, the story of early Christianity and the acquiescence of early Messianic Judaism also fell short of what God could have done, for the early believing Gentiles withdrew from their Jewish counterparts, as is attested in early Church historical data.

But God is faithful to accomplish His work, even in the failure of His people. In Isaiah, God foretells the destruction of Israel and Judah that is coming, but that he will be faithful to save Israel yet again from their sin: Isaiah 1:21-26 How the faithful city has become a harlot, She who was full of justice! Righteousness once lodged in her, But now murderers. Your silver has become dross, Your drink diluted with water. Your rulers are rebels, And companions of thieves; Everyone loves a bribe, And chases after rewards. They do not defend the orphan, Nor does the widow's plea come before them. Therefore the Lord God of hosts, The Mighty One of Israel declares, "Ah, I will be relieved of My adversaries, And avenge Myself on My foes. "I will also turn My hand against you, And will smelt away your dross as with lye, And will remove all your alloy. "Then I will restore your judges as at the first, And your counselors as at the beginning; After that you will be called the city of righteousness, A faithful city." This day came when Judah was restored, and Jerusalem was rebuilt. But Israel again proved to be unfaithful, for the Temple was destroyed again in 70 AD and the all of Israel scattered. However, the beginning of that exile began in Acts 8:1-4: And Saul was in hearty agreement with putting him to death. And on that day a great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. And some devout men buried Stephen, and made loud lamentation over him. But Saul began ravaging the church, entering house after house; and dragging off men and women, he would put them in prison. Therefore, those who had been scattered went about preaching the word. How ironic that the man responsible for the dispersion of early Jewish believers into the Diaspora was also responsible for bringing these same Jewish people into the understanding of their role in sharing the Gospel with the nations. Furthermore, how ironic that these first non-Jewish believers were so quick to turn against the one whom brought them the message of their salvation in Yeshua the Messiah. This only goes to show that what we see in Joshua and Judges, what we see again in Acts, and is still what we see today: "Each man does what he seems is right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25).

There is still hope, and there is still judgment to come. In Obadiah, we read what happens to the people of Edom as a result of their persistent persecution of Jacob, their brothers. Yet, in the end of this book, there is a promise: Obadiah 1:15-21 "For the day of the LORD draws near on all the nations. As you have done, it will be done to you. Your dealings will return on your own head. "Because just as you drank on My holy mountain, All the nations will drink continually. They will drink and swallow, And become as if they had never existed. "But on Mount Zion there will be those who escape, And it will be holy. And the house of Jacob will possess their possessions. "Then the house of Jacob will be a fire And the house of Joseph a flame; But the house of Esau will be as stubble. And they will set them on fire and consume them, So that there will be no survivor of the house of Esau," For the LORD has spoken. Then those of the Negev will possess the mountain of Esau, And those of the Shephelah the Philistine plain; Also, they will possess the territory of Ephraim and the territory of Samaria, And Benjamin will possess Gilead. And the exiles of this host of the sons of Israel, Who are among the Canaanites as far as Zarephath, And the exiles of Jerusalem who are in Sepharad Will possess the cities of the Negev. The deliverers will ascend Mount Zion To judge the mountain of Esau, And the kingdom will be the LORD's. It may seem like the promise of Edom is eternal damnation, but instead the judgment leads to belonging to God. Scripture seems to be clear regarding Edom that there is an eternal promise given to them, distinct from the promises given to Israel, but in the end, they will belong to God, as all of the nations will one day belong to God. We read a similar account of God's restoring Israel from the account above in Isaiah 1.

What we see here, some term the progressive revelation of God's salvation. But this is really not progressive at all, because God is continually doing the same things. And God's people perpetually do the same things in working against God by NOT doing what He has asked of them to do. This never-ending cycle, though, will one day come to an end. There will be a great judgment of all the nations on the earth, as we read about in Obadiah. There will also be an eternal judgment, which we read about in Revelations. But the counterpoint to all of this is that we have a mission to accomplish. Just like the Israelites had a mission to accomplish by establishing Israel as a beacon of light to the nations; we similarly have a mission to be the light to the nations here in the Diaspora. Our future hope is to go to Israel to greet the King; but until that time, we have the urgency and responsibility to share with those around us the message for hope and of a future with Yeshua as King of Israel.

14 July 2010: God Hates Me

2010-07-14T10:04:00.000-07:00

Please read the following post at the following link:

www.ffoz.org/resources/edrash/devarim/god_hates_me.php

If you cannot get there, go ahead and sign up to receive their newsletters.
It is free, and it is a great resource to read every week.

Learning to accept victory: Numbers 31 and John 21

2010-07-10T07:35:00.001-07:00

In Numbers 31:31-50, there is this strange passage of a disclosure of an amount of booty collected after having defeated the Midianites:

³¹ And Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses. ³² ¶ Now the plunder remaining of the spoil that the army took was 675,000 sheep, ³³ 72,000 cattle, ³⁴ 61,000 donkeys, ³⁵ and 32,000 persons in all, women who had not known man by lying with him. ³⁶ And the half, the portion of those who had gone out in the army, numbered 337,500 sheep, ³⁷ and the LORD's tribute of sheep was 675. ³⁸ The cattle were 36,000, of which the LORD's tribute was 72. ³⁹ The donkeys were 30,500, of which the LORD's tribute was 61. ⁴⁰ The persons were 16,000, of which the LORD's tribute was 32 persons. ⁴¹ And Moses gave the tribute, which was the contribution for the LORD, to Eleazar the priest, as the LORD commanded Moses. ⁴² ¶ From the people of Israel's half, which Moses separated from that of the men who had served in the army-- ⁴³ now the congregation's half was 337,500 sheep, ⁴⁴ 36,000 cattle, ⁴⁵ and 30,500 donkeys, ⁴⁶ and 16,000 persons-- ⁴⁷ from the people of Israel's half Moses took one of every 50, both of persons and of beasts, and gave them to the Levites who kept guard over the tabernacle of the LORD, as the LORD commanded Moses. ⁴⁸ ¶ Then the officers who were over the thousands of the army, the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, came near to Moses ⁴⁹ and said to Moses, "Your servants have counted the men of war who are under our command, and there is not a man missing from us. ⁵⁰ And we have brought the LORD's offering, what each man found, articles of gold, armlets and bracelets, signet rings, earrings, and beads, to make atonement for ourselves before the LORD."

Defeating the Midiatintes had to bring no pleasure to Moses. The Israelites had had cordial relations with this tribe until the whole Balak & Balaam episode. Moses had lived with the Midianites after fleeing in Egypt. His wife was Midianite. Yethro, his father-in-law, had been a Midianite priest. Once Yethro left Moses while they were in the wilderness, some tension developed between Moses and the Midianites. A couple of generations had passed from the time of Moses left Egypt and the present wandering of Israel in the wilderness. From the text, we see that most of the Israelite fighters were those who were younger than 20 years old at the time of the tragedy of the 10 spies. The context of this passage lends us to believe that this whole set of circumstances was very grievous for Moses personally, as well as for Israel.

As a result of the Balak & Balaam episode, as well as the evil worship of Baal Peor, the Israelites were required to render a military judgment upon the Midianites. In battle, the Israelites were victorious. In 31:49, the text reads that not one Israelite was killed. Yet, every Midianite fighter had been killed. Not one remained. Yet, the Israelites were not pleased to have killed them all. They had mercy and they left the women and children. In 31:14-15, Moses was angry, and he reminded them that these women were the same women who caused the Israelites to sin in the matter of Baal Peor. Thus, Moses had all of the boys, all mothers, and all remaining widows killed. Only unmarried women were allowed to remain alive. In today's political correct rhetoric, one could say that the Israelites would have been accused of a very serious crime against humanity. But God was not as concerned about the humaneness of rendering his judgment; He was concerned about the righteous actions of a young nation. Our self-righteousness is not the same as God's true righteousness. We must beware that when God acts in His righteousness, that often there is judgment. His judgment in the world often is fatal for humanity. When we ask for salvation, there is certainly a double meaning when we say, "Salvation is from the Lord." The Midianites sinful practices could not be tolerated in Israel, and the women may have been very unlikely to have adapted to the Israelite way of life and their trust in the One True God.

But what was Israel to do with all of the captured spoils of war? In other situations, the Israelites destroyed everything; but in this case, the Israelites were allowed to keep much of the booty. The only conditions were that a certain amount was to be presented to the priests and Levites as an offering. (In 31:40 we read that 32 people were set aside for the Lord.) It is interesting the large quantities of booty that Israel acquired. While it may seem that the Israelites were a desperate group of wanderers in the wilderness, they had a mission and vision for what needed to be done. Furthermore, God had always provided the resources by which to accomplish His purposes.

In John 21, we read that the disciples were pulling on all-nighter on their fishing boat: John 21:2-3
² Simon Peter, Thomas (called the Twin), Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples were together. ³ Simon Peter said to them, "I am going fishing." They said to him, "We will go with you." They went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing.

After the death of Yeshua, the disciples seem to have felt defeated. In John 20, we read about Thomas's doubt. In every interaction with Yeshua after His resurrection, the disciples do not appear to have fully accepted that was in fact alive. They spent the whole evening fishing, but to with no success. Perhaps they were not even really concerned about the fish. When people are depressed, they will often find solace in doing something that is comfortable. In fact, therapists often recommend this as a positive course of action. However, there is no greater therapy than a personal encounter with Yeshua. When this man on the side of the lake tells them to cast their net on the other side, and when they do this, they suddenly have more fish than they can drag into the boat. The disciples may have not recognized His new form, but the certainly recognized His miracles. In verse 12, it appears that they were beginning to accept this concept of resurrection as reality: John 21:12
¹² Jesus said to them, "Come and have breakfast." Now none of the disciples dared ask him, "Who are you?" They knew it was the Lord." So they sat down to eat breakfast with the Lord, accepting that everything they had known up to this point had permanently changed. Yet, at the same time, Yeshua was still concerned for their physical needs. He provided fish for them to eat. Of course, we are familiar with the text about Yeshua telling Peter to "feed His sheep." While Peter had failed Yeshua, Yeshua was still going to use Peter for the God-given purposes that he was created for. The commission to the nation of Israel was no small calling, but that was Peter's commission. Yeshua's last words in the book of John were the commissioning of Peter to do the work that God called him to do. The book of Acts proves that Peter achieved God's purposes. Not only that, but the fact that you are reading this blog proves that Peter achieved his purpose. God has purpose for each of us is not the same, but when we are faithful to God, He will use us.

This is a strange reality for most of us. We read in the Bible about God's miracles, we believe in the resurrection of Yeshua, and we believe that soon He is returning to accomplish the next phase of His purposes. But we seem to be like Thomas when he doubted. We are like Peter and the disciples who have gone fishing. We are like many of the Israelites wandering in the wilderness who never made it into the promised land. We act as if we have lost a war. But the reality is that the war has already been won. But how do we lift ourselves out of what we see every day, from being exhausted from the daily devastation that we experience in our life? The answer is that we have to fight! We may not be physically fighting Midianites, per se, but we do have to fight some things in our life that we may actually be fond of. We may have to fight our doubting friends or family members who put us down. In our context, we may be fighting against Jewish people criticizing us because of our belief in Yeshua. We may be fighting against Christian people who fight against us living out our faith in the Jewish context or against following Torah. It doesn't really matter, our focus in on proclaiming that Yeshua is the light of the Torah and that He is the Way, the fulfillment of the Tenakh. He is the Messiah. The reality that we need to accept is that there is much booty to have. While there may be many who are figuratively slain, ones who live as though they are dead, there are those who will be saved. If we will engage in the purposes of God, the needs that we will have will be taken care of. I'm not sure how many people 675,000 sheep will feed, nor how many steaks can be made from 72,000 cattle, but as we defeat enemies, we can be assured God will provide for those He saves.

As it says in the book of Joshua, "Be strong and of good courage." I believe we are entering a difficult time, but I also believe that these difficult times lead to ultimate victory. So let us be strong and let us take courage!

Parashat Balak, June 23, 2010

2010-06-23T16:03:00.001-07:00

B'midbar/Numbers 22:2-25:9

Vocabulary:

Balak=devastator Balaam (Baal=lord, god + Am=people, tribe, family)

Zippor, from the verb Zapar=tweet, twitter, whistle; (noun=sparrow; bird)

Also, "to return"

Beor=burning, a torch; the verb is Ba'ar, meaning to burn, consume; also, to be brutish (stupid, dull heartd, unreceptive, or inhummane, cruel, barborous)

Baal Peor=a mount in Moab; the verb Pa'ar means "open wide" (the mouth); more rarely, "open bowels", "go to stool"; "voracious greed"; (in a couple of Scriptures, it is used in a good way for "an eager desire," Job 29:23, Ps. 119:131)

"the edge of the people"- Midrash explains this phrase to mean that the people were enclosed in the Shikinah or the glory of the L-rd. The non-Jewish peoples could not see what took place inside the camp because of the Cloud. All that Balak and Balaam could see was the cloud.

Summary information from the previous Torah portion, "Chukat":

Israel has arrived at the other side of Arnon in the wilderness Nu. 21:13. This is the border between Moab and the Amorite. In a previous time, the Amorites had defeated part of Moab, and they were settled into that land, 21:29. The Israelites then came along and defeated Sihon aand all the Amorites. Israel only asked to pass through the land, but Sihon brought out all his people against them, and they were defeated. (21:22-23.) Then they defeat Og and all of those from Bashan. SO at the end of this portion, Israel is now in possession of new land, and Balak, king of Moab, thinks that he is next.

Outline

Balak attempts to convince Balaam to come to Moab and curse Israel so that they might be successful in defeating Israel. (22:2-19)
1. Moab joins with their enemies, the Midianites as well
2. G-d and Balaam have conversations. If Balaam has a relationship with G-d, then this makes sense. But if Balaam is a sorcerer of sorts, how and why does G-d communicate with Balaam, reveal things to him? And why does Balaam regard so much that he never goes against the word of HaShem?
Balaam finally goes with the officers of Moab and is stopped by his talking donkey. (22:20-35)
1. Who is the "Angel of the L-rd?"
Balak tries to get Balaam to curse Israel (22:36-24:25)
1. The first blessing at the heights of Baal.
2. What were the meanings of the seven altars, seven rams, seven bulls? These were called "burnt offerings." Why was Balaam hoping to hear something from HaShem with which to tell Balak?
3. The second blessing at the "field of the lookouts."
4. The third blesing at "the height that overlooks the face of the wasteland." This is known as Peor, as seen at the end of this parashat.
The Moabites and Midianites develop a plan to seduce Israel (25:1-9 and into the next parashat.)
1. What is Baal Peor?
2. What was the consequence of these people attaching themselves to this god?
3. Who was Phinehas?
4. How did the slaying of Zimri and Cozbi by Phinehas atone for the people? This is not a traditional type of Day of atonement, and it certainly was not an act of worship or a ceremony.

Comments

This year, as many of us look at the news, the concept of pride and arrogance come to mind. It is dangerous to mix modern politics with the Torah portion, so this will not be the subject of this comment. However, when one looks at what occurred with Balaam and the donkey, and then with Balak in his dealings with Balaam, it is inescapable to notice how arrogant both men were in their connection to God and in their hatred of Israel. With Balaam, there is a picture of those who do believe in God, who seem to be able to communicate with God, but at the same time, he does not desire the things that God has to offer. Balak, on the other hand, doesn't care what God says, but only cares for his desired outcomes.

Here is Balaam's arrogance: First, he does seem to be able to communicate with God, and he does seem to listen. He repeatedly tells Balak's officers, as well as Balak, that he was not free to say anything but what the Lord would reveal to him. So, he does regard what God says. However, Balaam does not desire what God had to offer. Fine, he was able to be a great communicator of God's message, but he had no interest in God's message. If he had, after seeing the beauty of Israel's tents, he should have run down to see what was required to join Israel and be a part of the community. As believers, we need to recognize that there are those people in our lives that can see that being a believer in Yeshua the Messiah is the most beautiful and necessary aspect of living life. But they are not interested. Why? Arrogance alone can explain this. This either takes the form of outward arrogance, the ones we recognize their arrogance by their constant parading of themselves and puffing themselves up. But we can also recognize some who are constantly downgrading themselves and trying to explain how their lives are so much worse than ours. In either case, the focus is on "self." (Just as an aside, but the English meaning and concept of "self" comes directly to us out of Hinduism. All of these "self-help" books all pretty much say the same thing: god is in you and part of you and you are part of god. This is called Monism, the belief that God is in everything; not to be confused with monotheism, the belief that there is One God, and He is distinct from creation.)

Here is Balak's arrogance: First, Balak knows the importance of offering the "Olam" offerings. In other words, Balak knew how to approach God. His purposes may not have been self-serving. He perhaps was legitimately taking care of Moab. (However, the Midrash says to the contrary. It says that he was not even a Moabite, but rather was asked to become the King of Moab because Moab was so scared of Israel. He was already a conniving thug before he was made king.) In whatever the case, he heard the message of God through Balaam three times, and each time he was angry and determined to go against Israel. There is an arrogance that leads to the desire to destroy Israel. This arrogance is almost supernatural. We need not unnecessarily puff up the Israelites in such a way as to believe that they were sinless and without error. The Torah is explicit describing the errors of Israel. However, the Torah is explicit about the humility of His people when they are behaving according to His ways. God has chosen Israel, not because of their righteousness, but because of His righteousness. Balak typifies the opposite of this.

We each have struggles with either type of these arrogances. If we are like Balaam, we are focused on our "selfs," and we are not listening to God. God is talking to us, we may even be telling others what God is saying, but we are not listening to Him and doing what He says. Or, we often find ourselves like Balak, we hear what God is saying, and then we do everything in our power to go against this. The worst version of this is when we move into anti-Semetic thinking, where we blame Jewish or Christian people for our problems. Some may move to hating all religious people equally. Rather than dealing with God in humility and confessing our sins and repenting, we blame religious people. We would be better served if we focused on asking ourselves what the judgment that we are under is all about. We would be better to ask for God's mercy, and receive the forgiveness that He promises to give. Arrogance is dangerous. As they adage goes, "Pride comes before the fall."

Our solution is always the same: Receive Yeshua by praying and asking for a relationship with Him. Don't pray and then not listen. Repent, and then receive forgiveness and His mercy. It isn't a religious thing. It is about having a relationship with our Creator. There is no arrogance before the Almighty God.

Who is he that you grumble against him? Parashat Korach, Numbers 16-18

2010-06-08T06:33:00.001-07:00

There was an important difference between Moshe, Aaron, and Korach. Korach represents one who was hungry for worldly power and authority. Moses and Aaron represented ones who would have preferred to have not been given their positions. In Numbers 12:3, the Torah states, "Now the man Moses was very meek, more than all people who were on the face of the earth." This is in contrast to the view that we have of most politicians. At the very beginning of Moses ministry, Moses declared to God that he did not want to go. Exodus 4:13-14
"But he said, "Oh, my Lord, please send someone else." Then the anger of the LORD was kindled against Moses and he said, "Is there not Aaron, your brother, the Levite? I know that he can speak well. Behold, he is coming out to meet you, and when he sees you, he will be glad in his heart." After this time, Moses stood against Pharaoh, and he saw the wonders of God as the greatest kingdom on the earth fell before God, witnessed by Israel, in a very short time. Moses leads the people out of Egypt and stops at a dead end by the sea. Here, God destroys the greatest army on the earth in a single day, while the Israelites cross through the Reed Sea, again, in a short amount of time. Within days of this catastrophic event, the people grumble about thirst and hunger. Again, God delivers water from rocks and manna that appears with the dew in the morning, enough for everyone to eat and be full. Then God takes them to Mt. Sinai, where they are to receive the Torah, but also where they build a golden calf to worship God falsely. Moses intercedes on behalf of Israel and seeks God's forgiveness. Following a plague that kills many people, God relents. In relenting, he delivers to Moses a second time, the Torah written upon the tablets. Then, the Israelites set out from Mt. Sinai for the purpose of entering into the land, but they grumble again about not having meat. At this point, even Aaron and Miriam grumble against Moses regarding Zipporah. Miriam is stricken with leprosy, but is then healed. Next, they come to the land, where they send in spies, who come back with huge grapevines and other produce. They then turn and give false testimony about being consumed by the land and the people in it. This discourages most of the people. (Apparently, when they took their polls, a majority decided that they were against going into the land…so much for taking polls.) God sends the people back into the wilderness where he gives them their saddest news yet—God was promising them that they were going to die in the wilderness, but that their children would be able to take the land. Could anyone imagine being in the shoes of Moses during this time? Sure, he like no other prophet in Israel, save Yeshua, had direct access to God the way that he had. But it seems that this interaction with God, while it may have been more glorious than any other type of interaction any of us can dream up, this interaction was filled with sadness and discouragement. Everyone seemed to stand up against Moses at one time or another. Well, they weren't standing against Moses, they were standing against God, but Moses certainly ended up spending a great deal of time before God on his knees, begging God not to destroy Israel because of their faithlessness. Numbers 16:4 "When Moses heard it, he fell on his face…"

Moses leadership of the Israelites must have been the most unique leadership that we could have ever seen. While many of us think in terms of politics and policies, these are such worldly ways of thinking, it would be difficult for us to comprehend how Moses led, and even why he did it. This is not just some native people group from Indonesia, or Africa, or rural America, these are the Israelites. The Israelites, one could say, literally lived out the Torah. And how did that work out for them? I think we can draw some encouragement that living out the Torah is not necessarily a beautiful or idealistic thing. It is difficult and very unromantic, and even in many cases, very unspiritual.

At that very difficult moment, and at absolutely the worst possible time for Israel, along comes Korach. Korach was a first cousin to Moses and Aaron. Their fathers were brothers. Moses and Aaron's father was Amram, and Korach's father was Yitzhar. Amram and Yizhar' father was Kohath, the second born of Levi. If there were a line of succession to the priesthood, one could suppose that Korach would have been next behind Aaron, had Aaron not had sons. But this was not how God cuased this to work, and for whatever reason, at this worst possible time, Korach decides it was his time to stand against Aaron. One would figure that after Pharaoh, his army, the complainers about food and water, the golden calf worshippers, the 10 spies and the 70 elders who were just consumed, one would think that Korach should have been a little frightened. Yet, he goes and gets two fellow lead complainers from the tribe of Rueben. Certainly, they understood what is must have been like to have been set aside for a younger brother to have taken the family birthright. These three men led quite a few people against Moses and Aaron.

However, the response to Korach and his followers was pretty abrupt, and perhaps worse than all of the rest of the destruction of those who complained before. The Scripture says that Korach and his followers were swallowed by the earth directly into Sheol (16:30). On one hand, this could be a reference only to the ground or earth, which is a literal translation of Sheol. But could it be possible that this is a reference into hell, as well? The end result is that these men and their families existed no longer in Israel, and not even their descendants would go into Israel. This is such a warning about so many groups that go against God's leadership. Of course, by "God's leadership," I am not speaking about individuals who elevate themselves above all others for their own sake, their own glory. However, there are leadership structures out there, for example, the entirety of the Southern Baptist Convention, that have a certain type of halachic authority on the earth. Not that it is to be worshipped nor is it to be considered infallible. But this kind of organization, so long as it stays the course following God, is a type of leadership that we need to support, or at least, not rise up against for the sake of destroying it. The same could be said for the UMJC or the MJAA or other such groups. God does not bring people together without purpose, and within large groups such as these, there is a structure and there are leaders. Again, not like Moses. But they are there, and these leaders need prayer and support and encouragement. If there is any lesson we need to draw from Korach: Now is NOT the time to abandon our various institutions that God is using to spread the message of Messiah and hope for the lost. Now is the time to dig in and help.

Consider again what Moses said about Aaron to Korach: Numbers 16:11 "Therefore it is against the LORD that you and all your company have gathered together. What is Aaron that you grumble against him?" This may not seem very encouraging to Aaron, but by this point, Aaron understands what Moses is saying. He has already been scolded by God, along with Miriam. Aaron, too, was humble. We all have our areas of leading in which God is or should be calling us to. The Great Commission is a calling for all. But we are not anything in regards to what our calling is. If God is, who are we? Even the high priesthood of Israel was nothing before an Almighty God. Korach missed that point. There is no power in leadership that is not from God. Man can create a false type of power, of course, as we see on the news every day. But it is an illusion, and it is nothing more. Power lies with God alone, and there is no leader who can have that. Let us be faithful and let us be obedient, for who are we?

The Light of the World, the Father, and the Son of Man: John 8:12-59

2010-06-05T05:59:00.001-07:00

This chapter has long confounded many who are believers in Yeshua. Not only that, but it has also caused a great deal of concern for modern Jewish people who look at this verse from the perspective that Yeshua condemns their Jewishness. Because this text is one of several that are a type of proof text for the Trinity, many modern Jewish people dismiss texts such as this, and the New Testament as a whole. Modern Jews also look at passages such as this and see what sounds like Yeshua rejecting the Torah and declaring Himself to be above the Torah. While neither of these arguments properly express what Yeshua is talking about, it is absolutely imperative to understand the Yeshua IS proclaiming to be Messiah. In Yeshua's declaration of Himself as Messiah, He also describes how Messiah is the Yod-He-Vav-He, or Adonai.

First, there is a textual concern that must be mentioned: Neither the Aramaic texts, such as Peshitta, nor the earliest Greek manuscripts contain John 7:53 through 8:11. For those who have the translated Aramaic English New Testament Bibles with commentary, you may want to read "The Woman of John 8" in the appendix. This is not the main idea here, though. What can be seen is that if one reads from John 7:52 and immediately then reads John 8:12, it can be seen that Yeshua directly responds to the criticism that no prophet could come out of Galilee. Yeshua responds with "I am the Light of the world."

In a very enlightening interview, there is a book by John Ronning called The Jewish Targums and John's Logos Theology. IN this book, Ronning discusses that the book of John was most likely written to the audience of non-believing Jews who used Targums as their primary source text. Ronning explains well what are the Targums, how Yeshua explains that He is Messiah using the concept of the Aramiac phrase "the Word of God." This phraseology signifies that God is the Word. Whatever Yeshua says about "the Word," this is a euphemism for God. Read http://blogs.christianbook.com/blogs/academic/2010/03/12/jewish-targums-johns-logos-theology-an-interview-with-john-ronning/ I believe you will learn something new not only about Jewish literature, but also the origin and audience of the book of John. His thesis is that the Greek term "logos," which is the word for "word" has a different connotation when considered from an Aramaic point of view. The Greek would have been the translation. But as you read the article, pay attention to the examples that he gives from John, then specific wordings that he finds interesting from the Torah. Ronning compares the translation John to the Targums. (The best way to explain the Targums is that they are themselves both translation and interpretations of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Aramaic. The Targums do not translate word-for-word, they translate concepts and stories in a modified way. What is interesting is that the Targums were written BEFORE Yeshua, so it helps us to understand some of the academic traditions of the 1^st Century scholars.) So when John was being written, his Scriptural text was more likely the Aramaic Targums and the Hebrew Torah rather than the Greek Septuagint. (Granted, all three say the same thing in different languages, but the vocabulary of John matches best the Targums.)

With this understanding, phrases and words in John can be better explained. First, there is the discussion of "the light of the world" in John 8:12. In John 7:2, we learned that Yeshua's brothers were heading to Jerusalem for "the feast of booths," otherwise called Sukkot. One term for Sukkot was "the festival of lights." The menorahs would have been lit and all throughout Jerusalem, people were camped in their sukkot and there would have been a great amount of light at night all throughout the city. In addition, we remember that Chanukah was also called "a festival of light." Remember, Chanukah was a late Sukkot, because once the Maccabees cleansed the Temple and began to make offerings, they reenacted the festival of Sukkot, just a couple months later. In the context of Sukkot, though, the "light of the world" refers to Israel's purpose to be a light to the nations. As just one example, we read in Isaiah 2:5, "O house of Jacob, come, let us walk in the light of the LORD." In context, Isaiah 2:3
"…and many peoples shall come, and say: 'Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.' For out of Zion shall go the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem." Thus, the context for "the light" has something to do with being a light to the nations. That light also represents truth, which also fits this context.

In John 8:13-20, we see that the Pharisees and Yeshua were debating what constitutes an appropriate witness in Jewish court. (One must understand, they are not in court yet. At Yeshua's trial before His death, we see that the false witnesses stand in contrast to the two witnesses that Yeshua is discussing: Himself and His father.) The question about how Yeshua could be His own witness is very profound to the Pharisaical leaders. They did not understand how Yeshua could testify about Himself. They also did not understand how Yeshua was using the term "father." This is also confusing for us today as well. In this text, it is usually assumed that "father" refers to God. But if the Jews were God's chosen people, and these Pharisees were keeping the Torah, how then was it that they did not understand what He was talking about? Didn't they know the Father? In this passage, what Yeshua is talking about is the Torah. The witness of the Father comes through the Torah, and the Pharisees did not "know" this because they had turned the Torah into something different than the Word of God. Their Torah was legalistic rulings, often called "the Traditions." However, Yeshua was saying that if they had understood what was in Torah, than they would "know" Yeshua. In both cases, "knowing" is an experiential knowledge, not simply understanding of information. If the Pharisees understood Torah, than they would have seen that Yeshua was Messiah. In conclusion, Yeshua is a witness due to the signs and miracles that He has shown, specifically, the healing on the Sabbath miracles. "The Father" is a reference to God's Word, more specifically, the Torah. Only John do all of these terms mean the same thing.

In John 8:31-47, again there is a discussion about truth, God's Word, and the father. Again, what underlies the discussion is the Torah. However, Yeshua is also explaining something further about the Pharisee's teaching, namely that they were sinners. Yeshua explains that the only way to be free from sin is through belief in Him. He says this very plainly in 8:34-36. This was a surprise to the Pharisees because they believed that simply being a child of Abraham caused them to be free. They believed that their obedience to traditions was necessary, but their salvation was assumed. The nations had to be saved, but Abraham's descendents were covered. But Yeshua all throughout His teachings show that all man has sinned. (Paul had to explain this, too, in Romans 3:23.) It was profound to think that the Jews who were practicing their religious faith were sinners. Their teachings about salvation were superficial and were based upon ethnicity. Yeshua's message not only made them look bad in the eyes of the people, but His message also scared them a great deal, because He has removed their false security in their salvation. In John 8:42-44, Yeshua points out that the reason they do not understand what He is saying, which is in accordance with Torah, is because they do not hear the Torah. They are more interested in worldly status and outwardly religious expressions. Yeshua tells them that their father is the devil. So Yeshua's Father is the Torah and truth, their father is the deceiver and lies. In other words, they were guilty of using Torah for their own selfish purposes and lying about words of Torah to gain worldly status. They had reduced the meaning of Torah to nothing, which was the function of the devil, to lie, cheat, deceive, and murder.

Yeshua concludes this whole discussion in 8:58 by accepting the fact that He was greater than Abraham. He equates Himself with God, "before Abraham was born, Iam," which is clearly why in 8:59 they picked up stones to stone Him. Yeshua was explaining Torah throughout these passages. "The Word," "my Father," "the truth," "testify," and other words led people to understand that He was Messiah as described in Torah. But Torah must be properly understood in order to apply the use of this Scripture. Reading Torah/Bible is not enough. Having external actions that cause one to look religious does not lead to salvation. Only belief in Messiah as described in Torah leads to freedom. Many Jewish people understood what Yeshua was talking about. In 8:30, it says that "many came to believe in Him." Believing always comes from the heart, not from understanding. In order to believe, simply studying Torah is not enough. To understand Torah, knowing Yeshua as the Messiah is necessary. Otherwise, Torah becomes a way to lie and deceive others.

An Example of Disunity: Overcoming Meaningless Disputes Such as Origin of Oral Torah

2010-05-28T13:31:00.001-07:00

It has come to my attention that within the context of the Messianic Jewish and Hebrew Roots communities, that there is a divisive issue regarding a particular teaching of the "Oral Torah." This debate has led to a great sadness on my part, and the part of many people who have become divided over this supposed issue. I call this a "supposed issue" because the debate that is going on really is not central to the life of a follower of Yeshua. Certainly, understanding what the debate is and what it means can cause confusion. However, at this time, this debate has gone far beyond what is acceptable amongst a community of believers and much healing and forgiveness is going to be required for us to continue to be a light of Yeshua and the way of Torah amongst both the Jewish and Christian communities:

First, what is the "Oral Torah?" I will simply refer to a fairly unbiased explanation that comes from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_oral_Torah

"According to Rabbinic tradition its [the oral Torah's] transmission came from Mount Sinai, where it is believed the prophet Moses had God revealed the Oral Torah along with the written. He then recited the information to the 70 elders and selected Levites. Many centuries later hundreds of scholars attempted a thorough reconstruction and wrote it down what was remembered of the oral law to record the debates over what it is and how it is to be interpreted.

Critics have rejected the idea Oral Torah as being "the word of God." As did tenth century Karaite author Salmon ben Yeruham who wrote his belief regarding recorded Oral Torah: "your deeds are but falsehood and rebellion against God…There is no true Law in them."

Historically speaking, the Pharisees composed the Orthodox rabbinic party and were its supporters.Whereas, the first century Jewish Historian
Flavius Josephus reports its opponents included: both the Sadducees party and the Essenes community.

Some of the first century common Jewish people were sometimes looked down at for not following or fully understanding the rabbinic oral code. The Samaritans
community still to this day, regret the authority of the Mishnah. In addition to the followers of John the Baptist, and the followers of Jesus of Nazareth (a first century Jew) later known as the "Christians," and the Karaites parties."

Historically, what can be said is that this was a contemporary debate, even amongst those in the first century. This is NOT a Christian debate, but a specific Jewish debate.

As believers in Yeshua, we need to understand where we fit into this discussion on a broad scale. First, Yeshua was more closely associated with the Pharisaical sect than with the other sects. If he were a Sadducee, then he would have been part of the Levites who worked in the Temple. He would not have gone to a synagogue and he would never have spoken in favor of resurrection. Also, he would not have been an Essene because he did not withdraw from the impious, nor did he live exclusively in the wilderness. He often interacted with "the regular person" and was even accused of tolerating tax collectors and sinners. The Pharisee sect was very numerous, they interacted and had debate in synagogues, they were not in alignment with themselves, and used a teacher-disciple organizational structure. Obviously, Yeshua had disciples. By using these cultural markers, it is clear that Yeshua was most closely aligned with the Pharisees of his day.

Now, when we use the term "Rabbinic" today, we are in fact using a term that refers to this sect of Pharisees. However, by 90 AD, Pharisaical Judaism began to be unified and codified. The Sadducees were eliminated in 70 AD, along with the Second Temple. The records of the Essenes also seems to die out by the end of the first century. After the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, the only remaining lines of Judaism were primarily the Pharisaical sect of those who did NOT follow Yeshua and those that did believe in Yeshua. By 90 AD, the rabbinic/Pharisaical sect had been dealing with a very specific strain of thought that had taken hold within Judaism—Jews who believe that Yeshua was the Messiah. All of the New Testament writings had been in circulation for 50-60 years by 90 AD, and so these Jews who did not believe in Yeshua as the Messiah had to develop a rationale for rejecting Yeshua. These leaders from Javneh, where Rabbinic Judaism originated, were second and third generation Jews living post-Yeshua. Furthermore, the Acts 15 Council of Jerusalem had been resolved for more than 40 years (roughly 50 AD.) So believing Judaism was a strong force in Jewish life following the Temple's destruction, both within Israel and within the Diaspora.

Where is there evidence that there was a Pharisaical backlash against followers of Yeshua the Messiah? Consider some of these verses: In Acts 21-25, the text says "the Jews" wanted to bring Paul to trial in the Temple. However, Paul understood, as did the Romans to whom he continuously appealed for years, that "the Jews" were going to kill him. Obviously, "these Jews" did not follow Torah very closely because they violated Torah commandments, as Paul mentioned frequently in his defense. What were they primarily accusing him of? First, they were offended that he suggested that Yeshua was the Messiah; but this debate had been left unresolved in Jerusalem for the time, because there were enough believers that offset those who did not believe. A type of status quo had been reached, where believing Jews were able to remain part of the Jewish communities. However, what Paul told them next was a further offense to the Jews of his day: that non-Jews, or Gentiles, were able to become part of the family as well. Acts 22:21-22 " And he said to me, 'Go, for I will send you far away to the Gentiles.'" Up to this word they listened to him. Then they raised their voices and said, "Away with such a fellow from the earth! For he should not be allowed to live." Later on, Acts 24:10-21 ¶ And when the governor had nodded to him to speak, Paul replied: "Knowing that for many years you have been a judge over this nation, I cheerfully make my defense. ¹¹ You can verify that it is not more than twelve days since I went up to worship in Jerusalem, ¹² and they did not find me disputing with anyone or stirring up a crowd, either in the temple or in the synagogues or in the city. ¹³ Neither can they prove to you what they now bring up against me. ¹⁴ But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets, ¹⁵ having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust. ¹⁶ So I always take pains to have a clear conscience toward both God and man. ¹⁷ Now after several years I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings. ¹⁸ While I was doing this, they found me purified in the temple, without any crowd or tumult. But some Jews from Asia-- ¹⁹ they ought to be here before you and to make an accusation, should they have anything against me. ²⁰ Or else let these men themselves say what wrongdoing they found when I stood before the council, ²¹ other than this one thing that I cried out while standing among them: 'It is with respect to the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you this day.'"

So, Paul was on trial for being a follower of Yeshua (called "the Way,"). The Way believed in resurrection, as did the Pharisees, but the Way believed in a particular resurrection, which Paul was defending. He also proclaimed that his ministry was with Gentiles. Since Felix was a Gentile married to a Jew, this was of particular interest to him. This is evidenced by the fact the Felix kept Paul in prison for over two years, never allowing him to be sent to the Sanhedrin for trial. So, we can see that there were believing Jews, and these Jews were part of the mainstream of belief during that day. We also see that there were persecutions by some Jewish leaders against the believers.

We also read about another situation, prior to the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). In Galatians, there were some non-believing Jews who were stirring up the non-Jewish believers. Jews were trying to convince the non-Jews that becoming Jewish (being circumcised) was necessary for salvation. In other words, non-Jews could not be saved apart from becoming Jewish. Paul defends against this idea, as we read in Galatians 5:1-9,
"For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. ² ¶ Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. ³ I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. ⁴ You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. ⁵ For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. ⁶ For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love. ⁷ You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? ⁸ This persuasion is not from him who calls you. ⁹ A little leaven leavens the whole lump." To be clear, "the law" is not exactly connoting "the Torah" in the way that we think of this, but rather some other sets of laws accepted in that time. This is where the issue of "the Oral Torah" comes into the picture. To be clear, Paul says that a person does not need to become a Jew to be saved. (Now, as Christians and some Messianic Jews might say, he doesn't prohibit it either, but this was never the issue in Galatia.) The issue was that there was pressure by non-believing Jews on believing non-Jews to become Jews in order to be saved. And in Galatia, that meant a denial of Yeshua as the Messiah. Already, before 50 AD, there is a movement amongst Jews to prevent people from believing in Yeshua as Messiah. But Paul rightly explains that Messiah was for all, not just Jews alone.

So, in this section, we understand that some Jews made some "laws" that they expected others to follow. Yeshua Himself says that these "laws" were not from God, but were man-made and cannot be considered equal to the Torah laws given by God. Consider the whole discussion of what Yeshua says in Matthew 23. Here is just one sample, Matthew 23:23-24
²³ "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. ²⁴ You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!" There was the Torah, which describes the important issues of justice, mercy, and faithfulness. These are the aspects of Torah that Yeshua emphasizes. But he criticizes the Pharisees (those closest to him he says harsher words) for their legalisms regarding how they tithe. In other words, the man-made laws added to the Torah was not the point of the Torah.

Here is the point. As believers, we understand that Yeshua and Paul and the authors of Scriptures had issues with those from the other Jewish sects that called certain man-made laws or traditions, "Torah." These man-made laws were not part of Torah, nor accepted as Torah. In today's terms, many of these "man-made" laws are part of the Rabbinic tradition, even today. And today, there may be even more man-made traditions from Torah than there were in the days of Yeshua. First, man-made traditions are not "Torah." By Torah, I mean "written Torah." These man-made traditions are often found in Jewish writings such as the Talmud. Because Yeshua and Paul are very clear about specific man-made traditions found in Judaism, this does not mean that Yeshua and Paul were abolishing all man-made traditions. This simply is not the case.

Having established this background, we can now discuss what the Oral Torah is:

First, we do not have any idea what the Oral Torah is conclusively. There is not agreement amongst Jews if Oral Torah is from God through Moses or if they are traditions established by the ancient Sages. Second, the Talmud is not equal to Oral Torah. The Oral Torah ceased being Oral when it was written down. Also, the ones that wrote it down were biased against the believing Jewish point of view. Third, if Oral Torah did come from God, it is impossible to discern for sure which parts of Talmud and other writings are part of the Oral Torah and which are not. Fourth, Oral Torah is different from Written Torah. Written Torah is the WHAT to do aspect of Torah. The Oral Torah could simply be considered "HOW to do it." Today we have all sorts of interpretations that explain HOW we keep Torah. At the very least, an Oral Torah perspective could be considered "an interpretation." If not contradicted by Written Torah, it may or may not be helpful for understanding certain aspects of Written Torah. As believers, we have the Holy Spirit Who can help us discern Truth. Finally, in regards to understanding the context of Scripture, there are very few academics who do not find some aspects of Talmud at the very least explanatory to the understanding of Written Torah.

Having concluded that there is no agreement about what is Oral Torah, one must consider what we ought to do with this information:

First, as believers, we are bound by the whole of Scripture, which includes the Torah, the Prophets, the Writings (TeNaKh), and the New Testament (B'rit Chadashah.) We agree that the Torah tells us about the Messiah Yeshua and we believe the account from the apostles of who Yeshua is. He is the Messiah. And we also affirm that the Torah explained that Adonai, HaShem would become man, and this man would be Messiah, and this man was Yeshua. Messiah is not less that Adonai, Messiah is Adonai.

Second, as Jews, we have a rich tradition of literature. As Christians, too, we have an additional tradition of literature. (This sounds as if we could have a double identity, which in our contexts is exactly the point.) As either Jews or Christians, no one accepts ALL forms of literature, or all books within a corpus of literature to be equal, correct, or even valid. They are just man-made attempts to understand the One who does not require us to understand Him. This would include Talmud. A believer is not bound by the authority of the Talmud, nor the authority of Orthodox rabbis nor the rabbinic tradition. See Matthew 16:18-20. Yeshua Messiah gave "the keys" (a euphemism for halachic authority) to His disciples. In other words, believers are bound by the authority of the New Testament, not man-made interpretations of Scriptures.

Finally, in regards to the Oral Torah, since it is not written down in Scripture, and since it may or may not be contained in Jewish literature, it simply is a mystery as to what it is and where it is. This difficulty also carries along with it cultural baggage that must be explained: The Eastern European Jewish mindset has always been that the Oral Torah was equal to Talmud. This is how the American and European Jewish/Christian scholarship explains Oral Torah. However, prior to the writing down of all Scripture, all Scripture was at some point oral. In Africa, all traditions have been handed down orally. Even to this day, when African children learn in school, their teacher is very likely not to use books, but rather oral recitation, rhythmic songs or chants that recite information, or oral storytelling. Missionaries in Africa often use oral storytelling when they encounter a people group without a native orthography. African Americans tell story using rap music or other forms of music and poetry. An Oral retelling of Scripture (i.e. the Bible), when done accurately, is equal to a Written retelling of Scripture. For that matter, a translation of Scripture into English is a written "retelling" of the Hebrew or Greek original language. Furthermore, it is clear that the New Testament was retold orally for some number of generations before it was compiled into cannon. So, one must understand if they are referring to Oral Torah in a European sense—the Talmud—or are they referring to the Oral Torah in an African sense—an oral retelling. These two connotations are not the same. If one understands Oral Torah in a European sense, then they would believe that everything in Talmud (Oral Torah) did not come from God, but was created by the rabbinic tradition. This is true because Yeshua Himself declared judgments by the Pharisees to be invalid. However, if Oral Torah is viewed in an African way, then the Oral Torah refers only to what God gave at Mt. Sinai. It is a theoretical construct which may or may not be true. It is reasonable to believe that when God said to make a mixture of oils for the Menorah that He gave what the mixture was to Moses and how much of each ingredient. We don't have this explanation in Scripture. This would be an example of Oral Torah, or an oral tradition. As to whether or not that has equal weight as Scripture is irrelevant because we have neither the Menorah, nor the Tabernacle, nor the oil. However, when there is a Tabernacle or a new Temple and a Menorah, someone will probably make the required oils. And they probably will glean this information from Jewish literature, primarily Talmud. Again, Oral Torah is the HOW to do something, while Written Torah is WHAT to do. An African view of Oral Torah is simply a different way of looking at this issue. It does not mean Talmud equals Torah.

In conclusion, this great sadness has descended upon our community because one set of leaders has accused another set of leaders of mishandling Scripture. This sort of behavior must come to an end. This sadness is causing an unnecessary division in fellowship. There are situations where friends are set against other friends simply because they must choose which leader that they desire to follow. The reality is that any Jewish community has a multiplicity of leaders, a "beit din" for those who understand that concept. (Beit din is an accurate concept which in Greek is rendered ekklesia, or in English "church.") There are no dictatorships, no theological monarchies in the kingdom of God. In Numbers, we read that each tribe was set up in its own tribe, and that each tribe had leaders of tens, hundreds, and thousands. The Sanhedrin described in Deuteronomy 16 was made up of judges and officers. There is great danger when ascribing one's loyalty to one leader only. Even Moses established other leaders to do varying ministries. When he died, Israel was grieved, but there was a plurality of leaders in place—Joshua, Eleazar, the heads of tribes, the heads of the Levites, prophets and judges. No one was just loyal to one person. When we get tied down by interpersonal disputes, we waste a great amount of time. When one person calls another person a heretic, it serves no purpose. We are kept from doing the great work that Messiah commissioned us to do, to go out into all the world (not just Israel and Jewish communities), to make disciples of ALL nations, preaching about the kingdom of God, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, teaching them all of the commandments (i.e. the Torah). When our community can lift itself out of this great sadness, then we can pool our resources together to proclaim a true Good News from the Torah, we will have unity in the community, people from the nations will desire to know God and be baptized, become disciples, and learn God's Word. We are His servants, and we need to behave as His servants. God loves all of us as we are, and we need to learn to love Him as He is. Only then can we love our neighbors as ourselves. When will this happen? When we repent!

Notes about the Shofar and Chatzotzarot. Numbers 10

2010-05-27T06:55:00.001-07:00

There's a difference between the shofar ( שפר ) and the chatzotzarot ( חצצרת ).
1. The shofar:
  1. It must be from the horn of a kosher animal; but, it cannot be the horn of a bull because of the sad incident involving the golden calf.
  2. The first usage of the term "shofar" is in Exodus 19:16, 19. In response to the "voice of the shofar", the people "shuddered" ( חרד --harad). This term is used again in the context of the shofar in 1 Kings 1:32-53. This will show up later in the outline.
  3. Shofar has a relationship with the word Shafat ( שפת). Shafat is the word for "to judge."
  4. Shofar is often mistranslated as trumpet, which in our mind has a different connotation and look. Our concept of trumpet is closer to the term chotzotzarot.

The chatzotzarot (The –ot ending lets us know that this is plural, because they were blown as a pair):
1. Read Numbers 10:1-10. The chatzotzarot are made of hammered silver.
2. The tekiah (long blasts) and teruah (short blasts) are listed here. Listen to some paragraphs from HOREB, pgs. 136-137.
3. They are used in war, 10:9. Teruah is used.
4. They are used at the festivals, at Rosh Chodeshim (New Moons), over elevation-offerings ( עלה ), and festival peace-offerings ( שלמים ).
5. Note: Read HOREB pg. 140, note 232.

The Meanings of the Blowings on Rosh HaShanah
Leviticus 23:24
Literally: The DABAR (word) towards [the] children of Israel saying, "In the CHODESH (month, new) seventh on [the] first to the month, there shall be to you a SHABBATON (great Shabbat) of REMEMBERING a TERUAH (blowing/blasting), a MEETING (or CONVOCATION) HOLY (SET APART).

Perhaps the TERUAH word indicates why SHOFAR should be primary here, and not CHATZOTZAROT, which sound primarily TEKIAH.
1. Meaning of TEKIAH: Listen to selection from HOREB, pgs 138-139
2. Meaning of TERUAH: Listen to selection from HOREB, pg. 138.
3. Meaning of SHEVARIM: this is a form of a TERUAH, pg. 139.
4. Meaning of TEKIAH HAGADOL: an ending TEKIAH, an extra emphasis on disbanding, or that something is over.

Selected passages regarding Shofar:\
1. Genesis 22 (the Akedah). 22:10-14. The ram's horn is mentioned.
2. Exodus 19, which we already read.
3. Not mentioned in Leviticus 23, for Rosh HaShanah. The term "Feast of Trumpets" should properly be translated, "Feast of Blowing."
4. Lev. 25:9 Sound TERUAH for Yom Kippur, for the Year of Jubilee, the year of setting free.
5. Numbers 10. This is about the Chatzotzarot, not the Shofar, but the application of the "blowings" comes from here.
6. Joshua 6:3-5. The priests blow the TEKIAH while marching around seven times on the seventh day. At the final moments, they blew TERUAH (6:5), the people shout, and the walls come tumbling down.
7. Judges 6:34. Gideon blows TEKIAH, and people gather behind him. Judges 7:16,18. Gideon and the men blew TEKIAH and their enemies defeated each other.
8. I Sam. 13:3. Saul blows TEKIAH to get people to hear him.
9. II Sam. 6:15. David had TERUAH sounded while carrying the ark back to Jerusalem. This sets a more sad tone, a repentant tone to the celebration of the return of the ark to Jerusalem.
10. *** I Kings 1:32-53 The anointing (משך -Meshech) of king Solomon as King, and the capitulation of Adonijah. The Shofar was sounded, and those that associated with Adonijah, including the general Joab, "went their own direction.
New Testament
1. Mt. 6:2 Corrupted use of Shofar
2. Mt. 24:31 Compare this with the anointing of Solomon.
3. Revelations 7 trumpets. What do we make of this? Are these TEKIAHs that are sounded, or TERUAHs? Because of the Greek, and because of the shifting cultural contexts, it is hard to see the Hebraic understanding.

Commentary on John 3:1-21: Yeshua and Nicodemus’ discussion about being born again

2010-05-17T12:00:00.001-07:00

John 3 is not an easy chapter of Scripture to understand. Yet, for some reason, evangelicals have made John 3:16 the all-encompassing verse by which one must believe in order to "be saved." To be clear, if we believe in Yeshua the Messiah, we indeed will be saved and we will inherit eternal life. However, this is not everything that Yeshua was saying to Nicodemus. When we take John 3:16 out of the context of Yeshua speaking to Nicodemus, we miss the meaning that applies to us for THIS life, not just for having eternal life. We also miss important connections to obedience to the Torah. The western rhetorical approach causes us to place limitations on the meanings of Scripture. A rhetorical approach is a method that a culture uses to communicate. It is more complex than grammar, which is the basic system by which a language is organized. Grammar deals in words, rhetoric deals in sentences and paragraph organization. As Christians, people often think in terms of our present life versus our eternal life. While we are living, we are not living eternally. Or, when we get to eternal life, we will not be living, we will be physically dead. This type rhetorical organization is called dualism. A dualistic approach says that if one thing is true, then another thing must be its opposite. If you are dead, than you are not alive; or if you are alive, then you are not dead. However, a Hebraic approach is more complex. While there could be contrasting parallel statements where two ideas could be each other's opposite, this is actually less common than when two parallel statements are coexistent, without being in conflict. This type of parallelism could be called coordinating parallelism. Thus, if a person has eternal life, they do not have to be dead presently. Similarly, a person who is living is not necessarily alive, he could be dead. While this appears to be a paradox in Western rhetoric, this kind is one of the most common types of rhetoric in Scripture. This is necessary to understand, as coordinating parallelism underlies Yeshua's response to Nicodemus. Not only that, but there are other external cultural practices that need to be understood as well.

John 3:1-2 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. ² This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him."

First, we see that Nicodemus is seeking truth and that he must not be satisfied with the life that he is living. If he was, then why is he seeking out Yeshua who was presenting different teachings about Torah? Now, we learn later on that Nicodemus is a member of the Sanhedrin. As a member of the Sanhedrin, he would have been one of seventy leaders of Israel. He would have been an accomplished Pharisee. As a Pharisee, he would have been expected to have been well studied in Torah; he would have been an expert, belonging to one of many different schools, perhaps even a leader of one of the different schools. None of this is specifically in Scripture, but we do have an understanding that there were dozens of Pharisee sects, a couple different Sadducee sects, and varying fringe sects, including the zealots, the Essenes and the Qumran community. Yet, even with all of his educational and leadership background, he was still seeking something else.

Second, we see that Nicodemus came "at night" or "toward the night." This could mean he came at midnight or that he came during the first quarter of the night. It could also be an allusion to "death." In addition, when tied with the concept of "born again" and all of the "light" verses later in John 3, there could also be a connotation of "Rosh Chodesh," or the celebration of "new moon." With any of these possibilities, Nicodemus did not want to be seen. It can also be implied that there is some sort of connection with death. This is where the Hebraic rhetoric comes into play. Nicodemus may be physically alive, but he recognizes that he is connected to death in some way. In the connotation of Rosh Chodesh, the "night" term could refer to the night before the official judgment of the New Moon, where that first sliver of light is seen, rendering that evening as the first day of the new month. The night prior would have been considered when the prior month was "dead." The month would be "born again" or "renewed" when the moon was then seen, and then Rosh Chodesh would be declared. In Judaism, Rosh Chodesh is seen as a "mini-Rosh HaShanah," thus shofar would be blown. There would have been a theme of judgment and atonement during these celebrations. Through repentance, t'shuva, people could be forgiven of sins and begin living this new month refreshed and renewed. The term chodesh means "new" or "renewed." The word chadashah in "Brit chadashah" carries the same connotation, the "renewed covenant," otherwise called the "New Testament."

Finally, Nicodemus makes the connection to Yeshua being Messiah, because he accepts that Yeshua has "come from God" since he is able to do miracles. It was understood that Messiah would be able to perform specific signs and miracles, so Nicodemus accepts this. In addition, one could imagine that Nicodemus may have already been familiar with Yeshua. Yeshua would have already been well known dating back to when He was twelve years old. Even then, he astounded "the teachers of the law." The problem for Nicodemus was not whether or not Yeshua was Messiah or not, but rather, "what did it mean that the Messiah had come?" What were people supposed to? What was he supposed to do? He wanted to understand what "the kingdom of God" was going to be about. The problem was, he couldn't "see." Something was missing.

John 3:3
³ Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Nicodemus wanted to understand what "the kingdom of God" was going to be about. The problem was, he couldn't "see." Something was missing.

John 3:4 Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"

It is possible that Nicodemus was being literal. But was he really asking Yeshua if a man could crawl back into his mother's womb? Or, was he really discussing something else? He could have been referring to resurrection, a marker of the beginning of the Kingdom of God. Was Messiah going to bring about the completed resurrection at that time? If he was Messiah, why wasn't the kingdom being restored immediately?

John 3:5-8
⁵ Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. ⁶ That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. ⁷ Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' ⁸ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."

Yeshua was explaining to Nicodemus the reality that believers today already understand: that being "born again" is a spiritual change within a person's heart. Yeshua was explaining that the kingdom had already come. In Ezekiel 36:25-28 "I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God." The Kingdom of God was not going to be a political system. The kingdom of God began with people being forgiven of sins and their hearts being clean. Nicodemus and the Jews were practicing physical cleanness, but the cleanness of the heart had been accomplished by means to keeping the Torah. Yeshua said that this was not possible, but they needed to believe in Him.

John 3:9-12
⁹ Nicodemus said to him, "How can these things be?" ¹⁰ Jesus answered him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? ¹¹ Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony. ¹² If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?

First, let's be clear that "we" is not referencing a Trinitarian doctrine. A more contextually correct answer was that Yeshua was not the only prophet proclaiming Himself to be Messiah. John the Baptist proclaimed it. The apostles had been sent out to proclaim this. Others in Israel were proclaiming that the Kingdom of God was at hand. Yeshua was telling Nicodemus that if he wanted to "see" the Kingdom of God, he needed to believe in Him. Belief is required to receive.

John 3:13-15 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. ¹⁴ And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, ¹⁵ that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

There are two relevant verses here that serve as a background for what Yeshua was telling Nicodemus.

Proverbs 30:4
⁴ Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son's name? Surely you know!

Numbers 21:8-9
⁸ And the LORD said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live." ⁹ So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.

The first idea presented is the idea of "descending." This concept has more than one connotation. First, God Himself descended from heaven onto Mt. Sinai at the giving of the Torah. There are definite Messianic connections when Moses "saw" the "hand of the Lord" in Exodus 33, as God's glory passed before Moses. In Exodus 19, God descended, and all of Israel "saw" thundering and lightning. "Descend" in this case means "to come down" from heaven. However, very few Scriptures refer to God ever "ascending" back into heaven. This verse in Proverbs declares that Messiah would "ascend" first. However, in Matthew, we learn that Yeshua "descended" from King David, who also "descended" from Judah. "Descend" also carries the connotation that man begets man, which the essence of a son comes from the essence of his father. A Hebraic way of understanding this is that David was Judah. Certainly, they were different people, but the authority, the blessing, the inheritance that belonged to Judah eventually came to belong to King David. So, too, the essence of God "descended" through man until God became incarnated through Yeshua. Don't be deluded, Judah and David were not God; but Yeshua did descend through them. However, Mary's unique experience with the Spirit of God in order to beget Yeshua certainly differentiated Yeshua from other men. Nevertheless, the idea of "begetting" is highly significant in John 3. Yeshua was a man, and He was begotten of God. In terms of the Israelite covenant, all of Israel was begotten of God, and Yeshua was begotten both of Israel and of God. Israel's chosen status here is as important as Yeshua's chosen status. Nicodemus needed to recognize that Adonai had descended in man, and His name was Yeshua.

The other idea presented here is that just as the fiery serpent had saved the Israelites from death, so too would Yeshua save the Israelites and the whole world from death. However, the fiery serpent story carries another connotation that is often overlooked. What was the sin that caused God to send the fiery serpents in the first place? Numbers 21:4-5 From Mount Hor they set out by the way to the Red Sea, to go around the land of Edom. And the people became impatient on the way. ⁵ And the people spoke against God and against Moses, "Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we loathe this worthless food." The people had complained against Moses and God. Nicodemus needed to be careful, because just as the Israelites were punished with the plague of the fiery serpents, so too would God punish those Jewish leaders who stood against God because of Messiah. Nicodemus would not have missed this warning. Eternal life would be dependent upon belief in Messiah. This was true for the Israelites, too. Their living was dependent upon their belief in Moses. In either case, belief was in God. God was just specifying whom their belief was in. Believing in Moses was required to live according to the Torah. Believing in Yeshua was necessary to be cleansed from uncleanness and forgiven from sin eternally, or in their spirits, or souls.

Thus, Nicodemus misunderstanding of the purpose of Messiah and the Torah underlies John 3:16-18:

John 3:16-18 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. ¹⁷ For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. ¹⁸ Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Belief in Yeshua was necessary for eternal life. Eternal life could also be connected to the issue of resurrection into the Kingdom of God, which is what Yeshua and Nicodemus are primarily talking about. Belief in Yeshua was also the purpose of Torah. Keeping individual commandments according to the Pharisaical traditions did not bring about eternal life. Yeshua explains this further in this discussion about the "works" of the Torah, light, and darkness:

John 3:19-21
¹⁹ And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. ²⁰ For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. ²¹ But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God."

The connotation to Rosh Chodesh returns to the discussion. The Jewish leaders were following the Torah in darkness. In the same way that the phases of the moon pass from slightly light, to fully light, back to darkness, so too had the teachers of Torah served as light to Israel, but had been growing back to darkness. The Pharisee's teachings were often in violation of the Torah commandments. Thus, the Messiah would bring about these corrected teachings, i.e the light. Belief in Yeshua meant to follow the teachings of Messiah. Through Messiah, the teachings of Torah would bring about life. But the Pharisaical Torah teachers were complacent in their lives and did not desire to turn (t'shuva) to the proper teachings. They had set the religious life of Israel to benefit themselves, which was disobedience to God, or "darkness." The Israelites needed to "renew" the light, which means to follow Yeshua, who was Messiah. Throughout the New Testament, the teachings that the disciples of Yeshua followed were different than the teachings of different Jewish sects. According to Yeshua, belief in Him was the correct "work of the Torah." Any other "works" would not be accepted, and led to condemnation. "Not believing" in Yeshua is considered "missing the light of the Torah."

In conclusion, Nicodemus was seeking how to inherit eternal life. As a teacher of the Torah, he knew that what he had been doing in his life according to the teachings that he was following did not bring about eternal life. He recognized his own misunderstanding of Torah and sought out Yeshua to understand what He was teaching and Who He was.

We learn later that Yeshua's interaction with Nicodemus carried great weight him. In John 7: 50-53, Nicodemus is credited with stopping the chief priests from bringing an accusation against Yeshua early in Yeshua's ministry. After Yeshua's death, in John 19:39, Nicodemus brings 75 pounds of myrrh and aloes in which to bury Yeshua. It is not conclusive that Nicodemus became a believer in Messiah, but the likeliness seems arguably convincing that he was. When we keep the context of John 3:16 in a Jewish context, we not only learn what it takes to "be saved and obtain eternal life," but we also learn how to properly carry out good works, according to Torah. As believers, we have a Hebraic understanding of Torah, and our understanding has Yeshua the Messiah at the core.

Numbers 3:11-13. The Firstborn and the Levites

2010-05-14T12:10:00.001-07:00

The name of this book is "B'midbar," which means "in the wilderness." However, it is derived from the word "debar," or "the word." Literally, it means "in the place of the word." Isn't this true about "B'midbar?" Wasn't this the place where Israel received the Word? The term "Numbers" comes of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Torah. But why did they call it Numbers?"

In Numbers, there are a lot of numbers. Most of us begin reading this chapter and immediately just tune out. If we don't skip it completely, we at least often skip it mentally. There isn't space to explain about the meanings of all of the names, but if one translates each of the meanings of the names mentioned throughout these first few chapters, there are some interesting things to pick up. Names in Hebrew are not just a collection of phonemes; each word or part of the word has a semantic meaning. For now, though, skip to the text after all of the accounting of names and numbers of the 12 tribes preparing for war. Let's focus on the tribe of Levi.

Numbers 3:11-13
¹¹ And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, ¹² "Behold, I have taken the Levites from among the people of Israel instead of every firstborn who opens the womb among the people of Israel. The Levites shall be mine, ¹³ for all the firstborn are mine. On the day that I struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, I consecrated for my own all the firstborn in Israel, both of man and of beast. They shall be mine: I am the LORD."

The Levites were not supposed to serve before God at the Tabernacle alone. Each tribe was supposed to have its firstborn children serving at the tabernacle. Because of the sin of the Golden Calf, according Exodus 32:25-29, the firstborn lost their priesthood status in Israel. However, there is an interesting miracle that takes place regarding all of this numbering. Numbers 3:44-46
⁴⁴ "And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, ⁴⁵ "Take the Levites instead of all the firstborn among the people of Israel, and the cattle of the Levites instead of their cattle. The Levites shall be mine: I am the LORD. ⁴⁶ And as the redemption price for the 273 of the firstborn of the people of Israel, over and above the number of the male Levites…" The total number of firstborns is just slightly more than the total number of Levites. The Levite family was very small compared to any of the other tribes, yet it was a number that was needed.

What can we learn from this? We can learn of the importance of being a servant within our family structures. The "right of the firstborn," which we read about in the story of Jacob and Esau, was about being the priest for the family. However, both because of the sin mentioned above as well as the regular uncleanness of the armies fighting in battles, the Israelite firstborns were not eligible to serve as priests. They were more needed for their families. As believers in Messiah, it is our job to pray for our families, and as often as possible, to serve our families as they need it. The amount of sin in the US is incomprehensible to us. Moreover, many of us have become tolerant of sinful lifestyle or we have acquiesced about sin because those who call sin good have become louder than those of us who call sin evil. These sinful lifestyles exist in our own lives, as well as the lives of our families. Sinful lifestyles are not just tolerated now, they are encouraged. Those who stand up to declare what is right and good are laughed at, mocked, sued, beaten, or worse. However, God only tolerates people remaining in sin for a short time. Just like with the sin of the golden calf. He did not tolerate the Israelites living in this sin for even a day. God immediately judged his people, and he used the Levites to bring about this judgment. As "Levites" for our families, we must continue giving warning to our loved ones, because God's judgment on sin may be much closer than ever before.

How to read John

2010-05-13T21:52:00.001-07:00

Have you ever heard someone tell a new believer that they should start reading the book of John first?

Why does anyone say that? Of all four of the Good News books, John is by far the most complex book to comprehend.

First, as one read this, don't automatically assume that this goes with Matthew, Mark, or Luke. John is completely a different point of view. I'm not sure how else to say this. There is a lot of mystery in John that when you really try to understand what he is saying, you really don't get it. Don't try to understand everything at once. It is very important not to draw absolute conclusions, but simply ask questions, and realize that once you believe that you have an answer figured out, it really only leads to more questions.

For example, why does John begin with discussion "the Word." In Greek, this is the term "Logos," which carries a multiplicity of connotations. In Hebrew, the term would be translated as "Devarim," which is the Hebrew word for "Deuteronomy." So, now we can only begin to ask the question, "What does 'the Word' mean? Are we talking about "the law," or "the Torah?" Are we talking about Yeshua? Are they the same? How? Why? It's fun to read all of the different commentary on John 1. People's creativity on this chapter is out of this world. Google it. See for yourself.

Only one other piece of information I think is most relevant to understanding John. Everything in John connects to a Jewish festival. When you are reading, look for the clue words:

In John 1, there is an understanding that this is a Rosh HaShanah passage, because the language is a reference to Genesis 1:1. The creation account was the beginning of everything, thus the terms "in the beginning" used in both books. In addition, the reference to "Light" in John 1:4 and Genesis 1:3 have a connection.

In John 2, we see that there is a wedding, but then the text immediately jumps into Passover. John 2:13.

In John 3, we see that Nicodemus "came by night." There is a discussion about "born again" and "Light." Both of these concepts are Rosh Chodesh (New Moon) terms, especially the "born again" phrase. Each new month, the moon is "born again." This Rosh Chodesh could either be the one BEFORE Passover (Nissan) or the one AFTER Passover (Iyar).

From John 4, we could understand that this took place during the Counting of the Omer, because in John 5, we understand that it is "a feast," most likely Shavuot, but perhaps Sukkot.

John 6:4, it was the Passover again.

John 7:2, it was the "feast of booths," or "tabernacles," or Sukkot. This seems to be the context through chapter 9.

In John 10:22, we learn that this chapter takes place at the Feast of Dedication (Chunnukah).

In John 12:1, we read that it was Passover. Since both chapter 11-12 deal with Lazarus, it is safe to assume chapter 11 was a Passover passage, and not a Chanukah passage.

The whole rest of the book is Passover, unleavened bread, and Firstfruits.

Only chapter 21 may be difficult to place. We know it is during the Counting of the Omer, prior to Yeshua's ascension on the 40^th day of the Count.

Therefore, as you read John, see if you can make connections to the feast on which He is discussing something.

Good Slavery and the Jubilee?

2010-05-05T19:48:00.001-07:00

Leviticus 25:47-55 "If a stranger or sojourner with you becomes rich, and your brother beside him becomes poor and sells himself to the stranger or sojourner with you or to a member of the stranger's clan, ⁴⁸ then after he is sold he may be redeemed. One of his brothers may redeem him, ⁴⁹ or his uncle or his cousin may redeem him, or a close relative from his clan may redeem him. Or if he grows rich he may redeem himself. ⁵⁰ He shall calculate with his buyer from the year when he sold himself to him until the year of jubilee, and the price of his sale shall vary with the number of years. The time he was with his owner shall be rated as the time of a hired servant. ⁵¹ If there are still many years left, he shall pay proportionately for his redemption some of his sale price. ⁵² If there remain but a few years until the year of jubilee, he shall calculate and pay for his redemption in proportion to his years of service. ⁵³ He shall treat him as a servant hired year by year. He shall not rule ruthlessly over him in your sight. ⁵⁴ And if he is not redeemed by these means, then he and his children with him shall be released in the year of jubilee. ⁵⁵ For it is to me that the people of Israel are servants. They are my servants whom I brought out of the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

The laws of slavery in Scripture are nothing like the kinds of slavery that we have heard about in the American past or in modern Africa today. Today, slavery is in all cases, a very grave concern for all of us to consider. It cannot be tolerated.

Thus, when we come to this passage in Leviticus, one must be a little curious as to why slavery was sanctioned in Scripture. In all of its cases, slavery was a result of becoming poor. One can only imagine what kinds of situations caused this terrible bankruptcy to overcome this man and/or his family. Perhaps his crops failed for a number of years. Perhaps he made a poor trading decision. One can imagine. In Leviticus 25, there is a thorough discussion of the Jubilee year (hayovel). In the Jubilee year, property is redeemed. In other words, if a family plot of land was sold, either to a fellow Israelite or a stranger in the land, the plot was returned to the family of inheritance. Thus, each Israelite was guaranteed his perpetual inheritance, in theory, forever. (Obviously, the commandments about whose inheritance land belong to which Israelites today is impossible to determine.) The purpose goes beyond just a financial means of protection; it also is a means for families to reconcile, for the families to come back like some sort of a year of family reunion. However, not only is the land redeemed, but so are the Israelites who have become slaves.

This chapter is very explicit about how Israelites were to treat fellow Israelites. Lev. 25:39 explicitly states that a fellow countryman is to be treated not as a slave, but as a "hired servant" (v. 40). Even so, in the year of Jubilee, his property is returned to him and he is reunited with his whole family. The purpose of this temporary "slavery" is to illustrate redemption. That redemption could be brought about by a kinsman redeemer (v. 49). On one hand, this illustration serves as a word-picture of what Messiah would one day do for all of mankind. On the other hand, the more practical application, both for the Israelites and us today, is that G-d puts the responsibility of helping the poor, especially the poor relatives, onto one's family. There is no welfare system, no clothes closet, no food pantry. Not only that, but poverty was only temporary, for in the normal life span of every person, there would be at least one jubilee year. G-d purposefully built into the Torah, "the do-over" button.

However, there is a particular case that required a very particular resolution: What would happen if an Israelite had become the legitimate slave of a stranger in the land (ger). Consider the implications of what this means. In the Artscroll Chumash, Sforno consider this situation to be very bad indeed. It is assumed that the ger is automatically considered an idolater. Yet, in other places, the ger is translated to mean "a proselyte." (Tim Hegg does a very good job explaining why associating ger with "proselyte" is achronistic, meaning the term and concept of full proselyte, a Greek word, is a 2^nd-3^rd century CE rabbinic concept, and not used in this way in the Torah nor the 1^st Century CE. See "articles" at www.torahresource.com .) The point here is that a "stranger-in-the-land" living in Israel would not necessarily be a pagan, as is presupposed. In fact, it is unlikely that this is the case at all, since the Torah binds the non-Israelite to also treat the Israelite as a "hired servant" (v 53). Furthermore, the other Israelites are to pay attention to make sure that the Israelite is "not treated with severity (v 53). Finally, the stranger-in-the-land is obligated to release the Israelite at the year of Jubilee. Based upon these statements, it is more likely that the "stranger-in-the-land" abides by Torah and is included amongst those in the land.

There is a greater significance here that can be alluded to by Paul and James in the New Testament. Romans 1:1, "Paul, a bondservant of Messiah Yeshua…" In Phillipians 1:1, "Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Messiah Yeshua…" And finally, James 1:1, "James, a bond-servant of G-d and of the L-rd, Yeshua Messiah…" Is it possible that Paul and James understood their status as slaves to Messiah in the context of a slave, but only until a type of "Jubilee year" which would then set them free? Yeshua says something about being a servant/slave in Matthew 20:26-28 "It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." Later, Paul says, 1 Corinthians 7:21-22 "Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ." Of course, in the first century context, the Roman style slavery is not to be confused with the Torah-style slavery. There was no Jubilee in the Roman context. Yet, in all of these cases, there seems to be a promise of release. While it may seem to be oxymoronic, slavery to Yeshua the Messiah is actually freedom.

Now consider a mind-set today. Though many of us consider ourselves "free," we are in fact more slaves today than in many other times in history. People are enslaved to jobs, to credit cards, to bad family situations, to drugs, to alcohol, to the internet, to playing games, to their cars, to the government social programs, and on and on that list can go. Yet, what if we were to leave all of that alone and become bond-servants of Yeshua only? What would that look like today? What is certain is that one day, there is a final Jubilee, a year of release. Even though Paul, Timothy, and James considered themselves bond-servants to Messiah, it seems implied that they knew their service was temporary. In 2 Timothy, Paul refers to having "fought the fight, having finished the race, and having kept the faith." Our prayer should be similar. Let us endure until the end. Meanwhile, let us put ourselves in the position of a slave, for Yeshua and for each other. What better way to show our love for one another than through being one another's servants.

An Eye for an Eye and Loving Your Neighbor as Yourself: An Example of Properly Interpreting the Torah

2010-05-03T12:54:00.001-07:00

Emor - אמור : "Say"
Torah : Leviticus 21:1-24:23
Haftarah : Ezekiel 44:15-31
Gospel : Luke 18-20

In this week's Torah Portion we come across one if the most misinterpreted passages of Scripture. Read Leviticus 24:17-22^{: 17} "Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. ¹⁸ Whoever takes an animal's life shall make it good, life for life. ¹⁹ If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, ²⁰ fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. ²¹ Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death. ²² You shall have the same rule for the sojourner and for the native, for I am the LORD your God."

The most common interpretation of this verse is that if you do something against another person, that something must be "paid back" against you. Other topic words that are use to describe this section are "retribution" or "vengeance."

This section of scriptures is sometimes classified in Christian commentaries as "civil law," as opposed to "ceremonial law" or "moral law." In other words, these are a set of laws that governed how the Israelites were to live during that time. These "civil laws" do not apply to anyone today. Those who subdivide the Scripture in this way will have difficulty figuring out how classify laws under these three headings since no place in Scripture uses any of these terms. Furthermore, there is no Jewish classification system such as this. These three terms were developed primarily around the time of the Reformation, and as such, they are one of many ways by which someone can end up in "replacement theology," whereby the "Law" to the Old Testament are bad and "done away with", and "Grace" and the New Testament and viewed as good and right. As a result of applying replacement theological approaches to this passage of Leviticus, many within the Christian spheres either avoid reading such passages. These "civil laws" are "done away with" because of Jesus gave us a "new covenant" and "new commandments." Once this line of reasoning takes hold within a Christian community, there have been historical instances in which Christian peoople are abused by politically power-hungry Christian theologians and leaders. One can remember how priests and lords of feudalism would abuse their peasants by literally applying Scriptures such as Leviticus 24 in this way. Thus, during that Age, one could imagine people convicted of crimes walking around without appendages and eyes. Throughout Christian history, the Bible has been applied without recognition of the cultural context in which the Bible was written. In other words, the historical/grammatical approach of the Scriptures has been forgotten or neglected. Without making connections to the Jewish understanding of specific Scriptures, the meaning of these verses is negated and any application of the verse would be out of context.

A selection taken from www.grafted-in.com seems to explain very well the Jewish discussion:

That the sages of antiquity had differing opinions as to the meanings behind

these verses [Lev. 24:17-22] is made evident from our Talmudic extract, taken from Tractate

Bava Kama:

MISHNA: One who wounds his neighbor is liable to pay the following five things, viz.: damage, pain, healing, loss of time, and disgrace. "Damage."--If he blinds one's eye, cuts off his hand, or breaks his leg, the injured person is considered as if he were a slave sold in the market, and he is appraised at his former and his present value. "Pain."--If he burns him with a spit or with a nail, if even only on the nail (of his hand or foot), where it produces no wound, it is appraised how much a man his equal would take to suffer such pain. "Healing."--If he caused him bodily injury,he must heal him; if pus collected by reason of the wound, he must cause him to be healed; if, however, not by reason of the wound, he is free. If the wound heals up and breaks out again, even several times, he must cause it to be healed; if, however, it once heals up thoroughly, he is no more obliged to heal it. "Loss of time."--The injured person is considered as if be were a watchman of a pumpkin field, as he was already paid the value of his hand or foot. The disgrace is appraised with consideration of the station and rank of the one who causes as well as of the one who suffers it.

GEMARA: Why so? Perhaps it is to be taken literally, for the Scripture reads [Ex. xxi. 24]: "Eye for eye"? This cannot enter the mind, as we have learned in the following Boraitha: Lest one say, if he blinds one's eye or cuts off one's hand, that the same should be done unto him, therefore it is

written [Lev. xxiv. 21]: "And he that killeth a beast shall make restitution for it; and he that killeth a man," etc. As in case of a beast only the value is paid, so also in case of a man. And lest one say, Does not the Scripture read [Numb. xxxv. 31]: "Moreover, ye shall take no redemption for the person of a murderer, who is guilty of death"? you may say that from this, very verse it may be inferred that no redemption money is to be taken for a murderer, but redemption money is to be taken for one who destroys such members of the body as cannot grow on again. We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Simeon b. Johi said: "Eye for eye" means its value. You say, its value. Perhaps it means literally? Nay, for what should be done when a blind man blinds another, etc.--how should be fulfilled the commandment "eye for eye"? And lest one say that such a

case is an exception, therefore the Scripture reads [Lev. xxiv. 22]: "One manner of judicial law shall ye have"; from which is to be inferred that it means a law which can be applied alike to all human cases. In the school of R. Ishmael it was taught: The Scripture reads [ibid., ibid.

20]: "So should it be given unto him"; and by "given" is meant a thing which is given from hand to hand. If so, how are the preceding words in the same verse to be explained? "In the manner he should give a bodily defect," etc. (hence the word "give" is used also for such a thing as is not given from hand to hand)? It may be explained thus: The school of R. Ishmael deduce it from a superfluous verse, thus: Let us see. It reads already in the preceding verse [ibid. 19]: "And if a man cause a bodily defect in his neighbor; as he hath done, so shall it be done unto him."

Why, then, the repetition in verse 20? To indicate that it means money. But still the above-stated objection as to the use of the word "give" in the beginning of the verse remains? Because at the end of the verse the Scripture desired to use a term from which it should be deduced that it

means money. It used the same expression also here. The school of R. Hyya deduce it from the following: The Scripture reads [Deut. xix. 21]: "Hand for hand" --that means something that can be passed from hand to hand, i.e., money.3 Well-respected Torah scholar Nechama Leibowitz adds her comments on how the Chazal (ancient sages) wrestled with the intended meaning behind this Levitical passage, eventually favoring a monetary interpretation: Few are the verses from the Bible which have been so frequently and widely misunderstood by Jew and non-Jew as verse 24:20, from which our title is taken. This misconception has transformed our text into a symbol, the embodiment of vengeance at its cruelest level. One who wishes to express his opposition to forgiveness, concession, and compensation, insisting instead on his pound of flesh, on retaliation of the most brutal and painful kind, resorts to the phrase: "Eye for eye," a formula which conjures up a vision of hacked limbs and gouged eyes. Even he who is familiar with the traditional Rabbinical interpretation of our text, "eye for eye," i.e., monetary compensation, does not rule out the possibility of this being merely an apologetical explanation, a later toning down of ancient barbarity, humanization of the severity of the Torah by subsequent generations. But this is not the case. On the contrary, our Sages and commentators adduce many and varied proofs indicating that the plain sense of the text can be no other than monetary compensation.

By contrast, the Karaite attacked the Rabbinic interpretation on two counts, first from the wording of the text. The Gaon demonstrated that the two phrases do not necessarily bear out the Karaite interpretation. (Benno Jacob notes that the case of Adoni-Bezek – As I have done, so God has requited me (Judges 1:7) is no proof to the contrary, for there he uses a different verb in each clause of the phrase, and is therefore not comparable to our verse). The proof from Samson is the clearest indication that the phraseology when… implies an equivalent or analogous, but not identical punishment. Again, from Bava Kama: "Eye for eye": Rav Saadya said we cannot take this text literally. For if a man deprived his fellow of a third of his normal eyesight by his blow, how can the retaliatory blow be so calculated as to have the same results, neither more nor less, nor blinding him completely? Such an exact reproduction of the effects is even more difficult in the case of a wound or bruise which, if in a dangerous spot, might result in death. The very idea cannot be tolerated. Ben Zuta (a Karaite) retorted: But surely it is explicitly written: (Lev. 24:20) As he has maimed a man so shall it be rendered to him. The Gaon answered: The word on, implying so shall punishment be imposed upon him. Ben Zuta retorted: As he did, so shall be done to him! The Gaon replied: We have in the case of Samson (Judges 15:11): As they did to me, so I did to them, and Samson did not take their wives and give them to others (as they had done to him), but only punished them. Ben Zuta retorted: What if the attacker was a poor man, what would be his punishment? The Gaon replied: What if a blind man blinded one with normal eyesight, what should be done to him? The poor man can become rich and pay; only the blind man can never pay for what he did! The Karaite then forsook the argument from the wording of the text and attacked the Rabbinical interpretation from the point of view of feasibility of its implementation. Here Ben Zuta evidently did not realize that by doing so he was advancing the objection that could be raised against all judicial fines. Just as he asked: What if the attacker is a poor man, so he could have asked: What if any defendant on whom a fine was imposed was a poor man? He thus played into R. Saadya's hands by showing him that the same flaw in execution that could be pointed out in the monetary interpretation could be objected in the literal one, bringing in R. Shimon b. Yohai's argument.

Conclusions

First a quote from my own commentary to Parashat Mishpatim: [Exodus] Chapter 21 – Verses 22-27 speak about restitution in the event of accidental injury. We are familiar with the saying, "An eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth." We remember that our LORD Yeshua made a comment

about this in the B'rit Chadashah book of Mattityahu 5:38-42. We often feel that his comments reflect the right, enacted by this particular Torah passage, to go out and take "revenge" on the individual who took our "eye" or "tooth." In Yeshua's estimation (we suppose), revenge is not the

correct course of action, and instead, we should seek to forgive our brother. Actually, these verses of our current parashah establish justice in such a situation. For instance, if indeed your brother accidentally (or maliciously) takes your "eye" or "tooth" (these are symbols of your precious commodities), then the ruling says that you are entitled to an equal share of recompense—but not more! This ruling sets the order so that greed and unforgiveness don't become rife in the community. But Yeshua, realizing that the person wronged is owed an "eye" or "tooth" for his compensation, challenges his audience to seek forgiveness instead of compensation. He does NOT contradict the Torah here, rather he establishes it true intent.

If the Rabbis are right that money is the compensation, then it can be observed that one who pays compensation for the loss of sight does not make good the damage as one who damages his fellow's goods. The money only serves to make good the monetary damage involved in the loss of the eye or hand, but the actual loss of the eye can never be made good. Injury to another human being is a crime that cannot be made good by ransom or monetary payment. This is the reason why the Torah did not use the expression, "He shall pay for his eye...." This emerges even more clearly from the verse of our parashah that we cited at the beginning of this section. After the punishment for mortally injuring a man or beast is stated (v. 17-18) comes the punishment of the one who causes bodily injury to which the punishment for the one who injures a beast is not juxtaposed. For in the case of man, the difference between mortal injury (murder) and maiming is qualitative (death—money), whereas in the case of beast, there is merely a quantitative difference between killing it and injuring it (greater or lesser compensation according to the injury).

Our parashah concludes by contrasting both: "He who kills an animal is to make restitution, but he who kills another person is to be put to death." (Lev. 24:12) The verse appears superfluous, a repetition of the previous, unless we bear in mind that it wishes to impress upon us the difference between man's responsibility for his fellow's goods and his responsibility for his fellow's life as a human being created in the image of God.

Using this as an example to establish "Halachah" for the Torah-based believers in Messiah:

Notice the presentation of this argument presented by "Grafted-In.com:"

First, a passage of Scripture is presented. In this case, Leviticus 24:17-22. In order to be Biblical, there must be a Biblical text underlying any discussion. Otherwise, there is no point to any discussion.
The Mishnah from Talmud is explained. The Mishnah is presented as commentary of this passage of Scripture. The Mishnah was written down beteen 2^nd Century BCE until 2^nd Century CE. From the Orthodox Jewish perspective, the Mishnah is "oral Torah" and is viewed as equal to Scripture. This is what it means to follow "the Rabbis." A rabbinic approach is a good approach IN REGARDS TO THE CULTURAL CONTEXT. Much of the teachings in Mishnah are believed to predate the first century, even if they were only written down after the 2^nd Centery BCE. Thus, for those who believe in Yeshua as the Messiah, this is the strain of thought relevant to the discussions of Yeshua and Rav Shaul (Paul). However, as believers in Messiah, our standard of authority is not the Talmud. This is discussed in #4.
The Gemara on the Mishnah is explained. The Gemara is the second half of Talmud, and it is commentary on the Mishnah. Gemara was written down between 2^nd Century CE until 6^th Century CE. In other words, the Gemara is a commentary on the commentary of a Scriptural passage. Within the Gemara, explanations from the Rabbis are specifically distinct from the New Testament. By the 2^nd Century AD, the Rabbis had to contend with the Messianic Jews of the 1^st and 2^nd Century. Specific Torah passages were understood in such a way as to show that Yeshua was NOT the Messiah. (We can come to understand this from the context of the book of Galatians. Those who were "bewitching" the Galatian non-Jewish believers in Galatians 3:1 were non-believing Jews. They were not "Judaizers" as is often described. The point is that non-believing Jews during the time of the writing of the New Testament had already begun to work against both Jews and the nations to keep them away from believing in Yeshua.) Thus, for believers in Messiah, one must understand that Gemara is the correct CULTURAL context for reading the New Testament, but the decisions that the non-believing Rabbis had put upon the Jewish culture of their day is not authoritative for Jewish and non-Jewish believers in Yeshua.
A New Testament passage which corresponds to the Torah is explained: The New Testament is contemporary with the early authors of Mishnah, and most of its writings were already in circulation prior to the circulation of the texts of Mishnah. It must be understood that the only proper way to understand the New Testament is as part of Jewish literature, as its authors were all Jewish, and as the subject matter dealt with the Hebrew/Jewish culture of the first century. Thus the reading of Mishnah and the reading of New Testament are co-dependent upon one another in order to understand the meanings of terms used in both books. However, only the New Testament is authoritative upon both the Jewish and non-Jewish believers in Messiah. In reality, only the New Testament is binding upon all of mankind as it is the proper understanding of the Torah. The Messiah, who is the incarnation of Adonai, had come to "properly interpret" Torah (Matthew 5:17-18). The New Testament is where what Yeshua said is written down, thus is carries authoritative weight. Another way of saying this is that the New Testament is the proper "Halachah" for believers in Yeshua Messiah. There is not another book that is needed, only the New Testament.
Note regarding the early Church Fathers: Most of the early Church fathers has begun to swing "the Church" away from Jewish traditions as a whole, and away from the cultural context of the Scriptures. While there are some occasional early Church fathers who were accurate in their explanations of Scripture, there is simply too much European cultural contexts mixed into their explanations that most of them can be set aside as unauthoritative. Writers as early as Clement of Rome (90 CE) can be set aside as due to their syncretizing the message of the Bible with their preferred cultural bias, which tended to be pro-European and anti-semetic. As a result, their writings only lend to misinterpretations, and not proper interpretations of Torah. This is an overgeneralization, but simply said, the Church fathers are not necessary reading material for proper interpretation of Scripture. The Talmud, however, is necessary, yet also unauthoritative.

As can be seen then, the authors of "grafted-in.com" properly assess the way that a believer is to read the Torah. First, Torah passage is read. In this case then, a corresponding New Testament passage is used to properly interpret the meaning of Leviticus 24. The Mishnah and Gemara properly explain that this passage is not to be taken literally. If someone is killed, or someone's property is damaged, monetary compensation is justifiable. The offender and the offendee need to come to terms, and the offender needs to reconcile with the offendee. However, when the interpretation of Yeshua is applied, not only does the offendee need to take responsibility for his actions, but also the offender needs to be forgiving and restore the fellowship. Whereas the Mishnah and Gemara are not incorrect in their interpretation; however, Yeshua's interpretation goes beyond the Rabbis interpretation because both justice and mercy are applied. The offender properly takes account for what he destroyed, and the offendee is held accountable to being forgiving. If both parties properly understand this message of Torah, than there can be true justice, forgiveness can be possible, and healing can begin. And the concept of "eye for eye" will no longer be misunderstood as some sort of injustice, but from now on will be the standard by which universal justice between all men can be achieved. Man will one day have the capacity to truly "love his neighbor as himself."

The week of April 18-24:

2010-04-18T12:28:00.001-07:00

Acharei Mot-Kedoshim - אחרי
מות-קדושים :
"After the death-Holy"
Torah : Leviticus 16:1-18:30
Haftarah : Ezekiel 22:1-19
Gospel : Luke 14-17

Approaching or Being Removed? Drawing near or Going into Exile? Leviticus 18

Why were the Israelites sent into exile in its historical contexts? In Leviticus 18:3
^"You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes." And also in this chapter, Leviticus 18:24-25 "Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean, ²⁵ and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants."

The reason that the Canaanites were thrown out of Canaan was due to their violation of these particular commandments. Sexual violations are so depraved that there is no other alternative to fix people other than to utterly destroy them. This was the charge given to Joshua upon taking over the Canaanite land. The phrase, "the land vomited out its inhabitants" is quite a sufficient description of what happens. There are two specific words that are very explanatory as to why this vomiting takes place: Leviticus 18:6 "None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the L-RD." First, the word which means "approach" in Hebrew is KARAV. For those who have studied the sacrifices, they understand that the general word for sacrifices is KARBON, which is the noun form of this verb. "To approach" or "draw near" is used in connection to approaching G-d with acceptable sacrifices, and is also used here to discuss a man approaching a woman in order to have sexual relations. So consider the parallels carefully: The way that we approach G-d by bringing sacrifices is similar to the way a husband draws near to his wife for sexual intimacy. The one action is the ultimate expression of love for G-d, an expression of proper horizontal love relationship with the Creator. The other action is the ultimate expression of human love, the most proper expression of love that the two closest "neighbors" could have with one another. In this type of love for a neighbor, the husband-wife relationship is meant to be sacred and set apart. In the same way, our relationship with G-d is sacred and set apart. By understanding both of these relationships, we now understand more fully the concept of KARAV, "to draw near."

The second word that needs to be understood is the word GALAH, which can be translated as both "uncovered," or "removed." Unlike the English grammatical structure, the Hebrew of Leviticus 18:6 reads more like this, "Man, O man, in the direction of each of flesh of your flesh, DO NOT approach for the purpose of uncovering (or removing) [her] nakedness. I [am] the L-RD." Notice two words in Hebrew for the word "flesh" which is translated as "a close relative." Remember how Paul often talks about "the works of flesh." Paul's use of flesh in his writings is very broad and has many connotations, but very frequently connotes sexual immorality. Notice also that with the "approaching for the purpose of uncovering," the two Hebrew words are side by side. The reason for this is because they are grammatically connected. The "uncovering" serves as the OBJECT of the VERB, "to approach." The bottom line is that one should only have sexual relations with one's wife.

Notice also that the commandments seem to be primarily aimed from the man's perspective. That is not particularly sexist, as modern feminists will argue. It is directed towards men for what should be fairly obvious reasons. In modern world culture, these reasons are not obvious because of different cultures' insensitivities to sexual prohibition. Yet, every day, people see the effects and consequences of these indiscretions, from unwanted pregnancies to abortions and from premarital sex to sexual infidelity to divorce. From a cultural perspective, if the U.S. had left abortion illegal, there would be anywhere between 50 to 200 million more people here in the U.S. Can you think of the economic ramifications of having the additional population with which to come up with new ideas and increase our work sector? We'd have half the population of China, and we'd have a greater need to keep jobs here in the U.S. as opposed to exporting these jobs. Instead of having 50% of dysfunctional families, there would be much greater unity in the UNITED States. But, this is a digression from the Torah.

When we look back at the Lev. 18: 24-25 verses, we also get the connection to why the Canaanites were vomited out of the land. In Genesis 15:16, G-d forwarned Abraham that "the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet filled up." When we apply this basic truth, that sexual immorality, "uncovering nakedness," does eventually lead to exile. This is a grave warning to the cultures of the U.S. The cases of domestic abuse are much higher than most Americans want to admit. "Approximately 15% to 25% of women and 5% to 15% of men were sexually abused when they were children" (Wikipedia). Some websites report a higher number. Homosexuality is not just becoming more common, it is actually being promoted as a more elitist lifestyle, one that has prestige and is specially honored in Hollywood and Washington D.C. There are probably more senators and congressman with homosexual tendencies than is reported. Finally, if you have watched any of the new comedy routines in the last 20 years, the jokes about bestiality are becoming common enough that people actually consider this perversity entertainment. Consider also that the humane society gets more air time than do advertisements promoting a Pro-Life view point. If homosexual marriage becomes legalized, it will only be a matter of time before people will begin to legalize marriages with their pets. Gross, but this is the progression that Torah gives us. The progression of the downfall goes from having adultery, to sexually abusing family members, to homosexuality to bestiality. At that point, the land vomits the people out. Consider also these statistics amongst those who say they are believers: The population who call themselves evangelical Christian have a divorce rate that is roughly at or above 50%. For evangelical pastors, the divorce rate is at about 65%, more or less. Add on top of this, with the scandalous homosexual and pedophile accusations against Catholic priests, it can be clearly understood that the sexual immorality of people who call themselves "Christians" has also reached vomit capacity. It is only a matter of time. It is no wonder that people overall reject the notion of going to church. It's not G-d that they hate; it is that the lifestyles of believers do not match what is commanded in the Bible.

The solution to this is very clear: STOP! REPENT! Whatever your sexual immoral behavior is, it must be stopped! One must FIGHT the urges of the flesh. The battle against our flesh is no longer an internal struggle. It is now a national epidemic, and for every immoral act we commit or tolerate as believers puts us one step closer to the day the land vomits us out. To stop the advance of this immorality we must begin somewhere. The place to begin is a renewed commitment amongst all those from a Bible based belief system to agree to keep the commandments that G-d has given. One place to start is with the Shabbat, the Sabbath. We must renew our commitment to keep it. But not just to keep it at all, but also to guard it. And then, we need to keep/guard it as holy, set apart. We need to stop working on Sabbath. We need to stop buying and selling on Sabbath. We need to honor people. We need to stop taking His name in vain. AND, we must stop committing adultery and all forms of immorality as described here in Leviticus. If we are going to be actively promoting a Torah-based lifestyle, it must begin with us keeping His commandments—not just talking about them, but DOING them.

Cleansing

2010-04-15T20:50:00.001-07:00

Leviticus 14:2 "This shall be the law of the leprous person for the day of his cleansing. He shall be brought to the priest…

Leviticus 14:20 And the priest shall offer the burnt offering and the grain offering on the altar. Thus the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be clean.

Let us begin this double portion with discussing one of the main topics that seems to be woven throughout this passage: the concept of "cleansing." The meaning of this term is out-of-context for the native English speaker. We really have nothing in American or Western culture with which to connect the concept of "being clean" as it pertains to this section of Torah. In other words, we will have to accept the terms as they are without trying to relate it to our own experiences.

First, let us dispel the common English connotations of the meaning of "clean" and "cleanse."

I took a shower today; therefore I am "clean."
The doctor had to "cleanse" the wound before he could begin surgery."
Did you "clean" the dishes?
Jesus died so that He might "cleanse" us from our sins.

In the first sentence, "clean" is an adjective, and it describes the state of a person after having applied soap and water. The meaning is clear to us. The second example is a verb, and it implies a more medical connotation. The doctor must decrease the medical contaminants in order to reduce the risk of infection during a surgical procedure. The application here is quite literal. In the third sentence, we have the word "clean" in another verb usage. Here, the action of cleaning can be applied to objects, not just people or animals. Finally, the term "cleanse" here applies to a theological discussion which is common in Christian thinking. While it may sound like a nice thing to say, it may not be accurate according to the Torah usage.

The Hebrew term for "cleansing" is "Tahair." A term for a leper is "M'tzorah." A leper is the worst type of uncleanness that a person could experience. The question that one must ask is what is the purpose of the "cleansing" as discussed in the Torah?

Now, at the basic level of understanding, most people associate uncleanness with specific sins. For example, in traditional rabbinic literature, the "metzorah" is often connected to the concept of "lashon hara." I very recently read that the word "rah," the word for evil, is in both of these words: meztoRAH and lashon HARA. Lashon hara literally means "evil speaking." The rabbinic idea is that if a person is guilty of speaking evil against someone else, than one of the consequences might be the development of leprosy. One common story is found in Numbers 12:10 when Miriam becomes leprous for having spoken against Moses. As a result, the connection of "evil speaking" and "leprosy" are often linked within Judaism. During this time of year, it is certainly reasonable for each of us to reflect on whether or not we speak evil against others. If so, it certainly is a good time of year for us to repent of using evil words against others, whether to their face or behind their back, we should enter into repentance.

However, the more literal connection of the terms leper and cleansing has to with a connection to death. Leprosy was such a terrible disease that those who were lepers had to live in a separate colony or somewhere outside the camp, as was described by Torah. Now, some say that the leprosy of that era could not be medically described by our standards today. The descriptions of leprosy as discussed in Torah do not fit the descriptions of what doctors call leprosy today. They most likely are not the same disease at all. The leprosy of Torah implies that the leper, the metzorah, as regarded as "the walking dead." Thus, being cleansed from leprosy, thus carried the connotation of having returned from death, or being resurrected.

Leviticus 14 outlines what the leper was to do in order to become clean. The leper was to bring two turtledoves (live clean birds) on the first day, and then three different lambs in order to be sacrificed for the eighth day. Also, cedar wood, hyssop, and a scarlet thread are brought with the living bird. One of the living birds is sacrificed, and then the living bird is dipped in the blood of the first one, along with the three other elements. Rashi says that this twittering bird was to remind the metzorah that it was his or her chattering that caused the leprosy in the first place, so this is why a bird was chosen. However, this really doesn't get at the heart of the matter regarding the process for which the living dead person is going to be brought back to life. There is something to the idea that death of the one bird brings about the freedom for the other bird. As to the cedar wood, the hyssop, and the red string, there is a significance which can be discussed at a later time, along with the concept of the red heifer. These three things were used during this ceremony as well.

Once the leper has performed these actions outside the camp, then the leper shaves, and then is allowed to come back into the camp, but only to stay for a week outside of his tent. He is to bathe and to shave off all of his hair. Now, there is certainly the idea of being clean which includes the simple concept of the state of not being physically dirty. The application for this ceremony must be seen as both practical, but also spiritual.

On the eighth day, the man is allowed to bring three offerings up to the tabernacle: First, two male lambs and one female lamb is brought. Consider the implications from the meaning of these three lambs. The first lamb is a male, and it is brought as a guilt-offering. Remember, the guilt offering is not a sin offering, it is an offering brought for the sake of one's conscience. We often must deal with the guilt of a sin prior to dealing with the sin itself. The blood of this lamb and a mixture of oil is put onto the right ear, the right thumb, and the right big toe of the former metzorah. Just as Moses did this at the initiation of Aaron into priesthood, so too is this done, to initiate the person back into life. The second offering is the sin offering, which provides the atonement. Finally, the last lamb is brought as a free-will/elevation offering, in order to reestablish that lost fellowship in drawing near to G-d. At this point, the leper has now been cleansed.

Here is the important concept that one must add to the concept of "clean." It is not that outward appearance that makes one clean. (However, if one does not have any hygiene, it would be interesting to describe this person's relationship with G-d.) There is a certain truth to cleanliness is next to godliness. But what is important to note is that in order to approach G-d, we must be clean within our lives. In order to draw near to G-d, we need to let go of certain kinds of things that are related to death within our lives. What is it that causes you to live as a "walking-dead" within your work week? Does your job depress you? Either get a new job, or find out why it is that G-d has placed you in that workplace. Are there difficulties within your family? If you are not clean, you are going to have a difficult time approaching G-d to deal with the problem. We all carry around things and ideas that lead to death, or we have been touched by those around us who have in turn touched death. The concept of clean and unclean does not apply in the American context. But if we know that we are in a bad place in our lives, why not consider the offerings brought by the leper: Make an offering to deal with your guilt, your conscience. Then, our trust in Yeshua as the ultimate sin offering should bring about within us an attitude of humility and gratitude for what He accomplished for our personal lives. We should thank Him regularly. And if you are reading this, and you have never accepted Yeshua as the Messiah of Israel, nor have you allowed Him to be the L-rd of your life, then there is no better time to receive the sacrifice made by Yeshua. Just pray and ask Him to forgive you of your sin. And then, the final offering can be brought: the free will offering, where the once leprous person has been fully restored to the people of G-d, and the leper can draw near to G-d and be in fellowship with Him.

We may not all exhibit the outward signs of leprosy, but we know that inside, we go through times where we feel like the walking dead. So, during this particular time, you can be invited to bring your offerings to G-d--read to Torah, sing praises to Him, pray—and renew your relationship with the G-d of the Universe! Let the L-rd cleanse you, and be clean!

“On the eighth day”

2010-04-08T12:45:00.001-07:00

What was it that Aaron did on the eighth day? I will discuss this in one moment, but first one must also ask, "When is the eighth day?"
If there are only seven days in a week, how does one have an "eighth" day? The rabbis have always described an eighth day as a day outside of time. There are different things that are done on eighth days, such as the eighth day after Passover is an extra day of rest, as is the eighth day of Sukkot. Also, the day that babies are brought to the Temple for circumcision is on the eighth day. This day represents a father and mother's commitment to the covenant of Israel, an eternal covenant. By performing this mitzvah, the family is making a connection to eternity. They are also agreeing to live in the present by actually performing this action.

Aaron has a specific duty that was commanded of him in order to bring about the "glory of the L-rd." This occasion could only be done once, as it was the inauguration of the Temple services. It was his and everyone else's first time. Glory means something like weightiness, honor, rich in appearance or abundance in possessions. Exactly what the people were to experience is contained in this word, but to understand this word, one must experience this. Quickly, here is the order and the sacrifices that Aaron brought:

Sacrifice	Animal/Grain	Purpose
Sin offering	Young bull	By bringing this sin offering, Aaron is first seeing that his sin has been covered over. (See Lev. 4) The value of a young bull is perhaps the most valuable animal in Israel. One young bull could recreate many more animals in its lifetime. Thus this sacrifice was valuable. For Aaron, unless he has dealt with his own sin, how can he bring the rest of Israel's offerings?
Whole Burnt Offering	Young ram	(See Lev. 1) An whole burnt offering allows Aaron to "draw near" to the L-rd. This is its name—the "Olah.) A ram is also an expensive offering, but more than a bull? What can be added is that two shofars could be taken from the head of a ram. This signifies the sacrifice that Isaac was willing to make. There is a connection to these consistent renewals of the covenant.
Another sin offering	Male Goat	This sin offering parallels the above sin offering, but this one is brought on behalf of all of corporate Israel. It has the same purpose, except that the value of the goat would have been less. Notice, though, these are all male sacrifices.
Another whole burnt offering	A lamb and a calf	This whole burnt offering is brought on behalf of corporate Israel. It allows all of Israel to draw near to the L-rd. Again, these are less expensive animals. One thought: the lamb is only mentioned in the context of ALL of Israel, not just Aaron.
Grain offering mixed with oil	Unleavened bread	This sacrifice reminds us of the fruit of the ground that is provided for Israel. It is unleavened to remind us that we must remain before the L-rd without our sin. We must work to continue to remain sinless. Obviously, the L-rd knows of the futility of man being without sin; however, it is the responsibility of man to continually take up the contention against sin in one's life and within Israel, and stop the sinning.

All of these sacrifices taken individually for Aaron, and corporately for Israel are an "avodah" to the L-rd, or an "act of service." By doing this, the L-rd is pleased, and His glory can stay with Israel. When His glory arrives, Moses and Aaron then go into the tent of meeting with the L-rd. When they come out, the two of them bless Israel. When they receive the blessing, the glory goes out, which then lets the people know that the glory has arrived, because they all fall down in His presence (Lev. 9:24).

Do we really want significant change in our lives? Are we really willing to take a stand against the sin in our life, and the lives of others to bring about G-d's glory? Consider this parallel to our lives:

When we need to approach G-d, we need to approach him with a valuable sin offering—in this case, our lives. We need to repent of our sin, and we need to approach Him with our drawing near to Him (our burnt offering.) Next, we need to offer of sacrifices of prayer for those in our lives that G-d has allowed us to be in contact with. In this case, we serve in the role of priest for others, bringing their lives before Him. Only one sacrifice will suffice—the blood of the goat, and then the blood of the Lamb. Finally, we must continually work out the sin (leaven) in our lives, as well as stand in for others, helping them to rid sin out of their lives. If we will take seriously our responsibilities, both for ourselves and for those around us, we will see the glory of the L-rd. When will we know that He has arrived in this way? We will know when we as a community are face down before His glory.

This is not an act of "waiting for the Messiah." This is an act we can start any day. We all need to have a dedication of our temples to G-d, even if it is a rededication.

Shabbat Shalom!

Ezekiel 37:1-14 and the Valley of Dry Bones

2010-04-04T17:10:00.001-07:00

For those of you who have read last week's haftarah portion, here is an opportunity for us to have an interesting discussion. I hope many of you who read this will take an opportunity to type in your reaction to the following question:

Has the prophecy from Ezekiel about the dry bones in the middle of the valley a past tense occurrence, a present tense occurrence, or something that we are still waiting to see?

First, it is important to read the text given above. The basic passage is the L-RD told Ezekiel to prophecy to these bones, to hear the word of the L-RD, and to live again. They need to have breath given to them again. The L-RD explains the prophecy to mean that Israel would return from having been dead, and that they would be placed in their own land.

Here are a list of questions to work through:

Read alsol Ezekiel 36:22-38 and 37:15-28. How do these passages explain about Israelites being placed in their land?
Are the bones real, or are they figurative to something else?
What or Who is the "hand of the L-RD"? 37:1
What does it mean to "prophesy"? Obviously, prophesying to some dry bones does not imply some sort of future forecasting. Prophesying must means something else, not about the future.
Is the Son of Man (Ben HaAdam) a reference to a man or to Someone more than a man?
What is the "breath"?
Does Israel receive the land once they receive the breath, or before?
Are there any allusions to resurrection in this passage?
In 37:24, who is the servant David?
In the reunion of Ephraim and Judah, is this a past occurrence or a future one?
1. When Yeshua was in Israel, where did He do His ministry? Look at a map in your Bible and take note of ALL of the places Yeshua visited.
2. Look at a map that shows where Galilee is, and where the tribe of Ephraim would have been during the books of the Kings and Chronicles. Do you see the intersection?
Read Jeremiah 7:32-8:1. Why did G-d allow there to be bodies thrown into this valley? What did the Israelites do that caused G-d to allow this disaster to happen?

Check back later this week for some other discussions will be posted to continue this discussion. Please, feel free to post some of your discussions!

The 5 Kinds of Sacrifices

2010-03-20T08:10:00.001-07:00

Parashat Vayikra

I wonder why it is that this portion is the one that a child would be taught from the beginning of his teaching at the age of three? Leviticus is usually the first book that is read to a child when he begins to learn the Torah. At first glance, the idea of bringing sacrifices to a Temple may seem secondary to properly worshipping the L-rd; however, for the Jewish people, it is central to the daily devotion of Adonai. The reason for this should become clear.

First, one must understand the meaning of each of the Hebrew terms which are all short-changed by the term "sacrifice." When English speakers think of a "sacrifice," they typically think of giving something up. "I am going to sacrifice eating meat for a week so I can lose weight." "My son sacrificed his life so that we can maintain our lifestyle here in the U.S." Neither of these examples really brings across the meaning of the terms as they are used in Leviticus. Without properly understanding the sacrificial terms as used here in Leviticus, it is hard to understand what G-d required of Israel, why G-d was angry with Israel regarding the sacrifices, and ultimately, the nature of what Yeshua did when He died as a sacrifice.

Here are the names and the meanings of the Hebraic terms related to the sacrifices:

Hebrew Term	English terms	Meaning
Korban	Sacrifice Literally, it means "gift" or "offering"	This is the generic term for all of the other sacrifices. All of the following terms are korbanot.
Olah	Freewill/whole burnt offering "to draw near" derived from "going up"	This offering was brought by the worshipper of his own free will. He brought this for some personal expression to G-d.
Minchah	Meal/grain offering Literally, "a gift" or "a tribute" or "an offering"	This offering was brought by those who were poor; it was also brought along with many of the other meat offerings. It is an olah, too.
Shlamim	Peace offering Literally from the term "Shalom," or Peace. Shalom does not mean "freedom from conflict" but rather "completedness."	This offering is brought to express happiness with Adonai. It is brought in order for Adonai and His people to express their completedness with G-d.
Chatat	The sin offering	This is the sacrifice that was bought for sin. It was brought individually and for the nation. This offering ONLY covers UNINTENTIONAL sins. There is no offering for intentional sins.
Asham	The guilt offering	This sacrifice is often brought alongside the chatat. Guilt is the residual effect on a person's soul as a result of sin, it is not the sin itself. Often, this offering is brought by someone who is uncertain of having sinned in order to cleanse one's conscience. The offering of the leper is like this. A sin was committed because all mankind has sin; but the specific sin is unknown, yet the guilt is present; thus, the guilt offering serves the purpose to remove the guilt, and not the sin.

Once it is understood what the meaning of these offerings were for, then a study can be done as to the application of each occurrence throughout the Torah. Which korban was brought for the Shabbat? Which one was brought for Passover? Which was brought for Yom Kippur? Once these questions begin to be answered, then the ultimate question comes: which one(s) did Yeshua's death fit? It is unlikely that the death of Messiah was meant to fulfill each item of these korbanot. If this is true, then the death of Yeshua the Messiah did not abolish these sacrifices mentioned. In fact, we still maintain these sacrifices every day in the form of prayer. When Jews pray in the synagogue, or when they pray specific prayers on special occasions, these sacrifices are in the background as the antecedent to each of the prayers. The sacrifices are what the prayers refer to. This will not be laid out here, but it is sufficient to say that we will have much to learn when Messiah returns and again the sacrifices are laid out upon the altar. (See Ezekiel 40 through the end of the book.)

The week of March 14-20th

2010-03-14T13:11:00.001-07:00

Vayikra - ויקרא : "And he called"
Torah : Leviticus 1:1-5:19
Haftarah : Isaiah 43:21-44:23
Gospel : Luke 1-3 (Note: the readings for Luke are much longer than in Mark.)

In this week's portion, we learn about the sacrificial system. First, name the 5 different types of sacrifices. What are they? What are their Hebrew terms, and what English terms do we use with them?

It is important to note that the generic term for the English term "sacrifice" in Hebrew is the term "Olah." The term "Olah" has a different connotation than "sacrifice" does. An "Olah" refers to the process of drawing near to the L-rd. "Sacrifice" in English can range from pagan practices of killing animals and even human sacrifice. Also, we think of "sacrifice" when one gives up something for another. The ultimate sacrifice one could think of is when a person fights on behalf of another, even to the point of death. We often say that our military soldier "sacrificed their lives" for our country.

The term we use for "sacrifice" and "offering" in Hebrew has 5 specific terms, and 1 overarching term. We do not have enough words in English do properly translate the Hebrew terms, much less their connotations. We must be careful not to oversimplify the concepts described in these passages. We must also recognize that the purpose of these offerings did not bring about eternal effects, but were only temporary acts of worship. They were progressive actions that over time taught the Israelites what the consequences of their sins were, but they did not affect their eternal status in the eyes of G-d. Only the condition of their hearts and their acceptance of G-d (Elohim) as their L-rd (Adonai) produced an eternal effect. They were forward-looking toward the future redemption through Messiah. One must understand that even Yeshua brought these prescribed offerings as acts of obedience. These sacrifices were still being done during the writing of the book of Acts by the believers. Only when the Temple was destroyed 40 years after Yeshua's resurrection did these sacrifices end. So to connect Yeshua's death and resurrection with these sacrifices listed here misses the point of the sacrifices. Temple sacrifices were not acts of salvation, they were actions of discipleship. When the Messiah returns and the Temple is rebuilt, these sacrifices will be done again. (See Ezekiel 43-44, 46.) On the other hand, each sacrifice may very well allude to eternal actions of Messiah's death, but one must not extend their meanings beyond the literal meanings of the text.

Check back later for some more details about each of the significances of the sacrifices.

Week of March 7-13th

2010-03-11T10:13:00.001-08:00

Vayakhel / Pekudei - ויקהל/פקודי : "He gathered/Countings"
Torah : Exodus 35:1-40:38
Haftarah : Ezekiel 45:16-46:18
Gospel : Mark 15-16

These last two portions are usually read together, except during certain leap years.

The portion begins with a short addendum to the celebration of Shabbat: Six days you are to work, and on the seventh day, you should rest. The punishment of death is added here. But the other addendum which we find in this passage is the command not to light fire on Shabbat. There are two common interpretations, which lead to very different applications. The first interpretation is more literal. One should not light fire, for cooking, for light, or for any other purpose. The only exception would be the fire that was kept lit at the altar for sacrifices. This is often interpreted by the more Orthodox Jewish to include prohibitions of cooking on Sabbath on one side, to not even turning on electrical appliances or light switches on another side. There are many reasonable explanations as to why this should be prohibited, but for many who are striving within the American context, this application of not cooking is neither easy to do nor does it really teach any particular Torah truth. Turning on or off a switch or pushing a button on an elevator does not exert a great amount of effort or work. At some point, it becomes more likely that this turns into a legalistic application whereby one who doesn't turn on and off switches holds his status higher than those who do not.

A more interesting explanation is that this "fire" (ESH, in Hebrew) refers to conflicts and fighting between men and women (and by extension, all family and community functions). The way that this was determined is by the letters that make up the word "fire" in Hebrew. The word man (ISH) contains an Aleph, Yod and Shin. The word woman (ISHA) contains the Alpeh, Shin, and He. When the yod and the he are removed (YAH, or Adonai) from the man and woman (which also means "husband" and "wife") then all that is left is the Aleph and Shin, which spells the word "Fire" (ESH). The application here seems to allude to a deeper meaning, which for all of us contains many more applications: Don't fight with people on Shabbat, especially your spouse and/or children.

I would love to say that this has been applied in my personal life, but in fact, the opposite has generally been true. Because of the pressures of the other six days, the Shabbat becomes a day in which my family can catch up. In turn, it is also the day that many of the conflicts which have remained undiscussed are at that time discussed. If they were not, then they never would be, either. Not only that, but I have seen this to be true in other families as well; and I have seen this problem in many of the Shabbat-meeting congregation as well. Whenever people get away from the Torah discussions, and other practical topics are discussed, there is often some heat or some fire.

Should we as congregations of believers try to uphold this standard of not fighting on Shabbat, and refrain from conflicts? Does this include heated, yet helpful Torah discussions? What would be the parameters of acceptable discussions or what would be outside these parameters? It is important to understand how these applications are determined within Judaism. If a beit din (a local Jewish court) existed within a Jewish community, these elders/judges would determine the boundaries as described by Torah. As a community, we would be bound by Torah to accept their decision. Without beit din, we as believers do not have this authority structure. Often, believers will say that "the Holy Spirit will guide me." However, in my experience, when people attribute their actions to the movement of the Holy Spirit or G-d, they most often are attributing whatever their opinion is to G-d and not really having any rationale for their statements. Let us be honest, when people say "the Holy Spirit told me____" they are usually lying for their own gain. This is not universally true, but it does seem to be more true than not.

The answer to such a discussion in and of itself is a discussion that will lead to some "fire." Nevertheless, it is an interesting practice of interpreting Scripture. Ultimately, we are each accountable for how we keep the Shabbat holy, and as we each are individually convicted of our need to be free from conflicts on Shabbat, then we must each take the first step: we must take apply our self-control, and fruit of the Spirit, and we must engage this person we have a conflict with in love. Does that mean there is not fight? Or does that mean that whatever the fight is, that the resolution will bring about peace (shalom) to each other? Each circumstance is different, but if we act in love, apply self-control, and the result is shalom, then we may be onto something about not lighting fire on Shabbat.

Continue having a good week!

The Idolatry of the Golden Calf: Exodus 32

2010-03-06T10:10:00.001-08:00

Thesis: The story of the golden calf does not teach us about the types of idolatry that we often associate with paganism. The idolatry of Israel at this point in time needs to be contrasted with the texts regarding the tabernacle. By doing so, it can be understood that what Israel did was not an act of paganism, but in actuality yielded a much more offensive insult to Adonai.

What do we think of when we think of paganism?

In today's English terminology, the concept of paganism has a couple of different connotations. First, there are people who are involved in the modern practice of wicca, or witchcraft, the sort that makes Harry Potter look rather tame. We find examples of this type of worship in various pockets around the US. In Haiti or Mexico, the practice of the witch doctors or "burjaria" is often a model of what we are talking about. In the vaguest of senses, the Masons and Ararat Shriners could also be classified into some sort of paganism. The basic notion in these occult practices is that they recognize some sort of a "Mother" or "Father" in their practices. The worship of their deity is often included with HaSatan and demons. A second sort of paganism is the sort that we think about when we think of ancestral worship. This type of paganism is exemplified by different religions that make shrines to the dead. The different forms of Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, and other Far Eastern religions do this. The ancestral worship is also associated with different Native American practices as well. In what is classified as the "Classic era" of world civilizations, the Romans, the Greeks, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Egyptians, the Canaanites, and many others has worshipped some sort of a polytheistic realm of deities. This sort of polytheism has evolved in many ways into something else. In reality, these polytheistic religions have mostly faded from existence. However, many of the practices have syncretized into different practices that appear in other religious faiths, including Judaism and Christianity. It must be noted that Buddhism and Hinduism are classified as "monistic" and are not to be confused with "polytheistic" religions. However, it is unimportant for the purpose of this article to make the distinction between those who believe that there are realms of deities that we answer to, or if the whole universe is itself the deity, and all of nature including us are one with the deity. The point is that these "theologies" are a rejection of the reality that "the L-rd our G-d, the L-rd is One."

Now, if the G-d of Heaven, the G-d of Israel, is the Creator of all things, how was it that all of the different culture and religious groups in the world came to a conclusion that there were other gods to be worshipped? Remember back to Genesis. Many things occurred, even at the beginning of the story of humanity, which led people away from G-d's presence. From Adam's fall to Cain's exile from the rest of humanity, mankind has been moving in a direction away from G-d.

Here is one historically speculative example; however it exemplifies how paganism evolves over time: Most people are familiar with the three Great Pyramids in Cairo, Egypt. Actually, there is one Great Pyramid, and two lesser Pyramids. In secular studies, these pyramids were built by King Khufu of the Fourth Dynasty of Egypt around 2100-2000 BCE. This took place a number of years after the building of the Tower of Babel, which is dated to around 2250 BCE. Now, the name "Egypt" in Hebrew is "Mitzraim." The father of Mitzraim was Ham. Mitzraim had a brother named "Cush." We often associate "Cush" with Ethiopia; however, it would be a fallacy to associate any of these ancient names with the modern societies and cultures which carry the same name. Remember also, during the age of Noah and his sons, people often lived several hundred years. At some point, Ham, Mitzraim, and Cush all die.

One of the religious (non-secular) theories about these pyramids is that one of the later kings might have been paying homage to their great patriarch, Ham. (This would not be the name found in hieroglyphics because the names in the Bible were given in Hebrew, and the ancient Egyptian language would not necessarily sound anything like its transliteration.)

In any case, when the patriarchs died, the people who remembered them, i.e. their family, would have mourned them. They might have even made yearly pilgrimages to visit their dead relative, even to contact his spirit in some way involving sorcery. Over time, the name of the patriarch becomes associated with another name, such as Ra. This ancestor is said to be watching over them from the heavens. In fact, perhaps this patriarch is the one who provides the sun, and moon, etc. It is their grandfather who is in fact a diety. Thus is born a new pagan religion. It is necessary to note that the people were not intentionally disregarding the One True G-d, it is just that their natural tendency to worship one they knew, a relative who has passed, was stronger than their knowledge of G-d.

In most of the ancient priest-based religious systems, the religious leader holds a great deal of political power. For example, in the story of the Exodus, Pharaoh was thought to be a god in his own rights. He was above the priests only because he himself could control the heavens. With this type of socio-religious system, people had to accept the pharaoh-is-god scenario in order to function within the society. If someone rejected Pharaoh as the deity of Egypt, imagine how difficult it might have been to own a business, to farm the fields, to trade goods, etc. Being religious was just a means to an end, their end being survival.

Does any of this sound different than our religious systems today? In many ways, Christianity resembles many pagan religious systems simply because the power structure that exists does not affect the worship of G-d, nor the people who are seeking G-d. Rather, the religious system in some way benefits a political structure, most frequently where the religious leader/priest is overly elevated above the people. Mainstream Jewish and Messianic Jewish circles are not exempt from this type of religious downfall into paganism.

Having explained what paganism looks like, both in the ancient and the modern sense, the question can be asked, was the Biblical account of the building of the golden calf similar to lapsing into paganism (or idolatry)?

What the Biblical text says about the incident with the golden calf

In order to establish the context of the fall of Israel at the sin of the golden calf in Exodus 32, one must first remember the experiences of Israel in Exodus 19 and 20. In Exodus 19, Israel had "seen" and come to "know" G-d. Each Israelite could have easily remembered the experience of the great thundering, the shofar-like blasts, the voice from heaven, and the physical and spiritual presence of G-d. Unlike any other generation on Earth, the Israelites experienced G-d in a unique way. Furthermore, in Exodus 20, each of the Israelites heard G-d say each of these commandments. In response, the Israelites say, "all that G-d says, we will do." At some point, the Israelites negotiate with G-d about their process of negotiation. The people were afraid that if they continued to hear G-d directly, they would die. So, they agree to allow Moses to mediate between G-d and Israel. This is highly relevant to the story of the golden calf, since its building was instituted not because of the removal of G-d's presence, but because of the lapse of time regarding Moses' being on the mountain.

This brings us to the text. The story could be summarized like this: The people felt that had waited too long for Moses. Some of the people ask for gods that can lead them. Aaron acquiesces and asks people to give them their gold rings that belonged to the women and children. (Imagine that Aaron was asking them to remove wedding bands and special jewelry given to children in order to make this idol. The purpose was to cause the Israelites to think again.) Yet, the people brought this gold quickly.

Seeing that the people were determined, Aaron again acquiesces, and forms the golden calf. The Midrash explains that Aaron's intentions were to make something unrecognizable, yet because of those from Egypt who had been practiced in sorcery, through demonic means they caused a calf to come out. Or, perhaps Aaron formed the calf because the first letter of the Hebrew alef-bet is alef. The shortest spelling of G-d's name, Adonai, begins with alef. Thus, by creating a calf, Aaron is reminding the Israelites that G-d is their God. Certainly this is a poor excuse; however, it is clear that Aaron is never held accountable for the act of creating this calf. In can be concluded that Aaron's intentions were to delay the people's intent on this style of false worship, but he alone was not wise enough to stop the people from their evil desire.

Once the golden calf is made, the text says that they offered elevation-offerings and peace-offerings. This is significant. There are no pagan practice that includes these kinds of offerings. To be more specific, the purposes of the elevation-offering (the olah) and peace-offering (Shlamim) were to bring Israel close to G-d and to worship Him. Both of these offerings were free-will offerings, and not required offerings for a sin. The odd part of this Scripture is that somehow, this causes the people to revel (L'tzachaikh). In Hebrew, one might make the connection between Isaac's name (Yitzchakh) and this term, which both come from the same root. Both the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew lexicon and the sages agree that this term is used to imply idolatry, adultery/fornication, and perhaps murdering. The plain meaning here is absurd, but we have to work this out: The people were in a lewd way in order to worship the L-rd. This whole scene is outside of most Christian and Jew's understanding. As a result of this event, we are not used to thinking in these terms, but these people thought that their worship would somehow be accepted and be pleasing to G-d. It is NOT what we think of when we think of paganism, nor is it what we think of when we properly worship Adonai. The idolatry at the golden calf was NOT that they were worshipping a FALSE god, but rather, they were worshipping The G-d in a FALSE way. Read the rest of this passage, and it is clear that G-d was NOT pleased with this manner of worship.

What is the application for us today?

G-d is often NOT pleased with how we worship Him. Clearly, we cannot recreate the tabernacle nor the Temple out of mere desire to do so. Nor can we worship the Messiah Yeshua at the Temple or in Jerusalem. This is because there is no Temple, and Jerusalem is not under the control of the Jewish Messiah, Yeshua.

Consider how churches or synagogues go about worship today. Perhaps there are songs. Perhaps there is a sermon. Perhaps there are liturgical prayers, both from Scripture or man-made prayers that have survived the ages. There is nothing wrong per se with these acts of worship. At the same time, G-d never prescribed them in the Scriptures either, at least in regards to format of a worship service. Does simply attending a weekly service qualify as an act of worship of the Almighty, especially if no other part of our week exemplifies our worship of G-d? Or perhaps the worship service we attend was designed to glorify the actors on a stage, perhaps a choir, or band, or the cantor, or the preacher, or the priest, or the rabbi? The worship service is merely a show that allows the actor(s) to be on a stage. Some churches or synagogues are simply a place with a particular political persuasion, and G-d is not even mentioned. Whatever the case may be, G-d has prescribed in Torah the kind of worship that He desires. The Israelites had tired of waiting for Moses, they wanted something now. But G-d always desires patience, and when those who worship Him "jump the gun" so to speak with what G-d wants, they often find ourselves in a situation like the Israelites, just doing whatever feels right at the moment, without regards to what G-d is asking. As we see in the Exodus 32 passage, this may have consequences greater than what people may think.

The reason that this golden calf incident is book-ended between the giving of the instructions of the tabernacle and the actually building of the tabernacle is because G-d wants it to be clear that He has established a prescribed way of being worshipped. Now, in defense of many churches and synagogues, G-d is willing to have fellowship with His people, even when they do lapse into brining man-made forms of worship into His presence. Many elements in the synagogue/church worship style, including singing, praying, playing musical instruments, and other actions were all things that were done in the Temple. So, if a person has a place he/she enjoys worshipping, certainly this is something G-d desires. However, if the worship is lifeless or too chaotic, it is likely that the people have lapsed into their own calf-like idolatry.

In conclusion, the story of the golden calf needs to cause us to consider our worship experiences. Is the place where you attend dry and lifeless? Or, is it too chaotic in which people seem to be reveling? One must be very careful not to be persuaded by some who say, "I heard G-d tell me…." Or, "The Spirit was talking to my spirit today…" And the classic, "...Thus saith the L-rd…" Be wise, and do not follow these groups. When G-d brings about His judgment upon these groups, as He does often and frequently, one does not want to be involved in that process. It is usually messy and heart-breaking for families and friends. Not only this, but also it seems wise to investigate carefully any Messianic/Jewish roots groups as well. Sometimes, one's zealousness for Torah reaches beyond what G-d has ever asked, and then individuals or small groups of people lapse into legalism regarding Torah. These groups go beyond what Torah says in order to force everyone into the same belief system and practical system, with very little acceptance of people who have differing interpretations. These, too, one must be aware of. Yeshua said it best when He warned about wolves coming around in sheep's clothing. Be careful, be wise, and always pray!

Week of February 28th to March 6th

2010-02-28T07:30:00.001-08:00

Ki Tisa - כי
תשא : "When you take"
Torah : Exodus 30:11-34:35
Haftarah : 1 Kings 18:1-39
Gospel : Mark 13-14

Question for the week? WHAT IS IDOLATRY? Post your comments below.

We often think of idolatry as worshipping a false god. But how is it that the Israelites, after having seen G-d's greatness, could have actually thought that a golden calf was who delivered them out of Egypt? When believers fall into idolatry, does it look like paganism, or is it more complicated than that?

Torah Portion for week of Feb 21st-27th

2010-02-21T07:45:00.001-08:00

Tetzaveh - תצוה : "You shall command"
Torah : Exodus 27:20-30:10
Haftarah : Ezekiel 43:10-27
Gospel : Mark 12

Week of February 14th-19th

2010-02-14T08:36:00.001-08:00

Terumah : תרומה : - "Heave offering"
Torah : Exodus 25:1-27:19
Haftarah : 1 Kings 5:26-6:13
Gospel : Mark 10-11

Mishpatim questions

2010-02-10T21:42:00.001-08:00

Mishpatim - משפטים : "Judgments"
Torah : Exodus 21:1-24:18
Haftarah : Jeremiah 34:8-22; 33:25-26
Gospels : Mark 9

Questions that can be raised from Parashat Mishpatim:

Ex. 21:1-11

What is the purpose of a bondsman/slave/servant ? Why isn't his forbidden in Scripture?
How does this passage increase one's understanding of human dignity and our relationships to one another?
Is it stretching the meaning of this portion to compare Yeshua's being pierced upon a tree to the bondsman's piercing of his ear upon the master's doorpost?

Ex. 21:12-34

What do we learn about the value of human life in these passages?
Is the eye-for-eye phraseology referring to killing someone or gouging out their eyes; or does this refer to monetary compensation? Which one is more likely, and why?
How does this passage show the value of women? And of parents?

Ex. 22:1-14, 20-26

According to this passage, what constitutes stealing? And what is exempt from being called stealing?
What are the laws regarding borrowing and repaying? How could something like this be implemented today?
What are the laws regarding the "strangers in the land?" How are they to be treated?
How are the poor to be treated? What ought we do about this?

Ex. 22:15-19

What do these four or five commandments all have in common?

Ex. 22:27-30

What is the connection between NOT reviling a leader, or judge; between bringing the firstborn animals to the priests, and NOT eating animals killed in the field, but allowing dogs to eat them?

Ex. 23:1-13

What is the connection between the seventh year Sabbatical year, not bearing false witness, not persecuting your enemies by withholding your help from them, and not perverting the judgment of a destitute person?

Ex. 23:14-19

What are the three pilgrimage festivals that all men are required to attend? And what is the purpose of each festival?
What needs to be brought to the Temple/tabernacle?

Ex. 23:20-33

What are the conditions by which Israel much conquer each of the different Canaanite tribes?

Ex. 24:1-18

What do we learn from the ceremony played on in this chapter?

Haftarah: Jeremiah 34:8-22; 33:25-26

What was the consequence for violating the laws of shemitta (the Sabbatical year)?
What does G-d desire to do? What does He do instead?

New Testament: Mark 9

What does the transfiguration how the three disciples? What does Peter say he was going to build three shelters? What is Peter talking about?
What is it that the disciples and the Jewish scholars were arguing about?
What does Yeshua say that "this one only comes out be fasting and praying?

What do we learn from the disciples about what it takes to be "first" and "last?"

Why the Midrash?

2010-02-07T14:46:00.001-08:00

Some people have asked me why we discuss things out of the Midrash? Sometimes, they don't really ask, they just say, "Well, that's just the old Jewish legalisms, they don't really apply to us!" People usually dismiss Midrash, and they don't know what Midrash even is.

First, Midrash has a basic meaning. It comes from the base word "DaRaSH," (Search) which can simply mean "a teaching" or "a bringing together of texts." Whenever anyone comments on two Scriptural passages that are not from the same source, they have made a drash. Christian priests and pastors bring what they call homilies all of the time. They take a couple of passages from Scriptures and they make some generic comments on them, hoping that if we listen to them, we can apply these teachings to our lives today. So, basically, a midrash is any teaching from Scripture that is based upon a Biblical text.

Now, the specific Jewish meaning of Midrash is found in the compilations of Mishnah (2oo CE), The Talmud of the land of Israel (400 CE), and the Talmud of Babylonia (600 CE). The writings of the Jewish Sages that have been passed down through Rabbinic Judaism is also called Midrash, and is compiled in the books just mentioned. But, when people often object to using these writings, they often do not know what it is that they are rejecting. Believers in Yeshua the Messiah do have an authority which comes from the Jewish Apostles, and is passed down to us in the New Testament, or Brit Chadashah. So, we do have a set of texts that we describe as "Scripture." But the Talmuds and Mishnah are not thought of as "Scripture" in the same way. Whereas in the New Testament, there is a need to resolve apparent contradictions between the New Testament and the Torah, there is no need to do this in Talmud. In fact, different Midrashim will not always be related to other Midrashim, even if they are based upon the same Biblical text. Herein lies the primary difference between Christian Theology and Jewish Instruction. A Midrash does not need to neatly package all of the loose ends of the Bible. In fact, it does the opposite. Questions are raised, in which more questions are raised. Where one answer may be gleaned, 1o or 100 more questions are asked. Then, often the opposite solution is raised, and then later it is refined or opposed. When Christians find these contradictions in Jewish writings, they believe that they have found many errors in Jewish thinking, or logic. Yet the goal of understanding the Scriptural meaning of a text is not to simplify its meaning so that it can be summarized and categorized. Instead, it is to take the many possible facets of interpretations in order to see just how immense the One G-d whom we serve really is. Christian theology, on the other hand, has a tendancy to narrowly define all Scriptures, to eliminate and resolve all controversies, and then create a nice statement of beliefs or doctrine or creed by which everyone else must adhere to. By doing this, then there is a mechanism by which man can become the judge over all other men, and by which a minority of people can rule over a majority. The problem with this is that the theology usually limits G-d in serious ways and resolves the ambiguity of G-d, forcing people to limit how much they can understand Him, and thus truly KNOW Him.

As to whether or not we all adhere to every Midrashic saying, obviously, this is neither true, nor is it the point. Some Midrashim, written long ago, may seem silly to our modern sensibilities, but again, they may not have been meant for our time, but were simply part of a manner of thinking from another time. But to dismiss them absolves us from the process of understanding, "How did we even get to where we are now?"

If you'd like to learn more about Midrash, let me recommend a couple of books:
First, the author Jacob Neusner is one of the 20th centuries most prolific writers about Jewish texts. He has commented on each of the tractates of Talmud in a Western and English rhetorical style. It is highly academic. Two books that are interesting (and difficult) to read: THE MIDRASH, An Introduction and THE MISHNAH, An Introduction. If you'd like to read a compilation of Midrashim on the Torah portions, I enjoy reading, THE MIDRAH SAYS, 5 Volumes, Bnay Yacov Publications.

Finally, when we get right down to the meanings of words, we do live by Midrash every day if we are studying the New Testament. Rabbi Yeshua and Rabbi Paul both bring to us a great many Midrashim, and as we apply them to our lives, these teachings begin to change us. However, if we do not read even the New Testament every day, much less the Midrashim of the Jewish Sages, then we have no basis by which to make any arguments or complaints. We must remember, from the Jewish tradition and for us, Studying is the highest act of worship. So, this week, I hope you each have a wonder time of worshipping The Almighty in your studies this week. Shavua Tov! RB

Torah Portion for Week of Feb. 7-13

2010-02-07T08:48:00.000-08:00

Mishpatim:
Exodus 21:1-24:18
Jer. 34:8-22; 33:25-26
Mark 9

Weel of Jan 31-Feb 6.

2010-02-04T09:37:00.000-08:00

Parashat Hashavuah
Yitro - יתרו : "Jethro"Torah : Exodus 18:1-20:23 (26)Haftarah : Isaiah 6:1-7:6; 9:5-6Gospel : Mark 7-8
The Impassioned God

Thought for the Week
We should not think of them as rules imposed by an impersonal government. They are more like the wedding vows joyously taken by a blushing bride on her wedding day. If we understand the Torah as a ketubah (wedding contract), we see that it is far more than an ethical system or a moral list of dos and don'ts. Instead it functions as the sacred marriage covenant between God and His people.

This thought comes from www.ffoz.org. All rights to these words are owned by FFOZ:

January 24-30th

2010-01-29T19:49:00.000-08:00

Parashat B'Shelach, "When he sent"
Torah: Exodus 13:17-17:16
Haftarah:Judges 4:4-5:31
NT: Mark 6

In this portion, we see evidence of a see-saw faith that the Israelites have in G-d's provisions. There several sources that refer to this time of Israel's exodus as a time of testing:
First, they travel out of Egypt, but rather than going the most direct route out, G-d brings them to the sea, where they would be trapped. Furthermore, he strengthens Pharaoh's heart one final time to pursue the Israelites, causing them even more distress. The Israelites naturally panic. However, with great drama, the L-rd "saves" them by taking them through the Reed Sea. In Ex. 14:23 we read the words, "Stand fast and see the salvtion of the L-rd..." In Hebrew, this includes the phrase, "Yehuat Adonai." While it might be stretching it to say that they "saw Yeshua," but certainly their coming to "know" the L-rd is described here as "salvation." We can literally say that the Israelites were "saved." For them, the process of being saved even included immersion into the Reed Sea. The Scripture is fairly clear that they did not become wet; nevertheless, they were "in the sea."

Upon exiting the sea, the Israelites see their miraculous deliverance from Egyptians. Not only that, but Egypt as a political power has completely been destroyed. Without their army, they would be completely vulnerable. Yet not only was their security gone, but so was their wealth, as it was being carried away into the wilderness with the Israelites. Furthermore, their land had been severely decimated. Recovery for Egypt was going to take a very long time.

Upon witnessing this miracle, Israel breaks forth in praise and worship of the L-rd. For those who read from the Artscroll Chumash, there is a reference to the structure of this song (Shira) on page 375. The structure reflects the new understanding and realization that Israel has about herself--the reason for the Egyptian captivity as well as the fear of the L-rd that the rest of the nations would have in regards to the people of G-d. The miracles in Egypt were awesome, and no one on Earth could deny them. Even today, people fear of the time when those plagues might reoccur The Israelites were (are) a living testimony to a loving G-d. Their deliverance demonstrates the lengths by which He goes to protect His people. The reaction of the Caananite nations would be fear. At the sea, Israel knew WHERE they were going. They understood their past, they praised G-d in the present, and they knew where they were going. (If any of us in our personal lives can accomplish this level of clarity, we too would praise G-d the way the Israelites did by the sea.)

Yet, Israel did not remain by the sea. Instead, we read about them only three days later grumbling about food and water. Of course, if any of us were in this situation, we'd complain for water, too. Unlike the later complaints that we read about in Numbers, these initial complaints are deemed reasonable by G-d, though He is disappointed in their grumbling. He provides them with sweet water and manna without causing the death of any of the people. In later episodes where the people complain, there comes with these grumblings loss of life by the grumblers.

Embedded within the story about the giving of manna are instructions about the Sabbath. While they were all alloted their heavenly food alotments (unlike our government food assistance programs), there was a certain amount of work expected to be done for this free allotment. They were required to actually go outside and collect it. It is interesting that they learn about the Sabbath while learning how to collect the manna. For 6 days, the people were expected to work. Even if this work was provided by heavenly assistance, they were expected to DO something. Not only that, but they had to prepare in regards to the Sabbath. No allotments were coming for the Sabbath. If you wanted to eat on the Sabbath, you'd better collect double the amount on Friday. What is interesting is that the Sabbath was not just one of the ten commandments. The Sabbath was given to man on the seventh day of creation and has been in force every since. The Israelites kept the Sabbath before the Torah was given. I wonder why it is that many believe that Yeshua's coming has somehow "changed" the Sabbath. The Sabbath was there even before Torah.

Finally, the last part of this Torah portion deals with the battle against the Amalekites. Ex. 17:8 simply states, "Amalek came and battled Israel in Rephidim." There are plently of questions as to why Amalek would come out of its territory into the wilderness just to battle against the Israelites. This is serious hatred. The Amalekites are descendants of the grandson of Esau, Amalek. Rabbi's of many generations simply refer to Amalek as the embodiment of evil, while Israel is the embodiment for good. Thus, the whole raising of the hands by Moses can be seen as a testimony of Torah throughout history. When the Israelites uphold the Torah, than the Amalekites are being defeated; however, when Moses arms are let down, the Amalekites are gaining ground. In our near and present history, we have seen evidence of Jewish people's love for Torah, and the resurrection of Israel; to times when Jewish people disdain or dismiss Torah, following which there are often serious troubles in the world and in Israel.
As believers in Messiah, not only do we need to be supportive of G-d's people, but we also need to be engaged in our level of Torah study and sharing of Torah knowledge throughout the world.

Even now, rather than sleeping after a long week, I stay up to write this short summary of the Torah portion, because I truly believe that we need to be like Aaron and Hur, upholding the legacy of Torah, not because we just like to sit around and eat Shabbat meals and needlessly study, but because the upholding of the Torah brings about the defeat of the Amalekites, or the defeat of evil. One day soon, this war will end, and only the good will remain. Until then, continue studying! Shabbat Shalom.

January 17-23, 2010

2010-01-17T08:18:00.000-08:00

Bo - בוא : "Come"
Torah : Exodus 10:1-13:16
Haftarah : Jeremiah 46:13-28
Gospel : Mark 4-5

Read, and then post comments, questions, thoughts, etc. below.

Va'era

2010-01-11T12:41:00.000-08:00

Va'era - וארא
"And I appeared"Torah : Exodus 6:2-9:35
Haftarah Ezekiel 28:25-29:21
Gospel : Mark 3

How do you think that these signs and wonders that G-d performed in Egypt affect us today?
Certainly, these are well known events, for many cultures have allusions to parting the red sea, hailing fire and brimstone, and many of the other plagues. These events do not just bring about a remembrance amongst those with Hebraic thinkings, but they are reflected around the world, even today. What do you think the warning is? Do you think that many of the naturally occurring events of these past years are warnings to the world today?

Shabbat Shalom, Jan 8-9

2010-01-08T16:56:00.000-08:00

So what comments does anyone have about Exodus 1:1-6:1? The passages in Isaiah 27, 28, 29? And what about the passages in Mark? Finally, does anyone have a comment about fear or dread, as was read from the e-mail that I sent out?

Welcome to HDC blog

2009-12-15T12:21:00.000-08:00

Welcome to the HaDerekh Chaim blog. What does HaDerekh Chaim mean" It means "The Way of Life." Read Proverbs 6:20-23. Proverbs 6:20-23: "My son, keep your father's commandment, and forsake not your mother's teaching. Bind them on your heart always; tie them around your neck. When you walk, they will lead you; when you lie down, they will watch over you; and when you awake, they will talk with you. For the commandment is a lamp and the teaching a light, and the reproofs of discipline are the way of life..." There many questions that people ask in life. Many of these questions seem cliche. "What is the meaning of life?" "Why are we here." "Is there really G-d?" "Who is G-d?" "How do we follow G-d?" And there are so many more questions than this. This blog is really not about asking philosophical questions. What it IS about is figuring out what to do on Monday morning. There is too much in this world that seems uncertain. How do we live life now! Not, "What happens after it all ends?" What about NOW!

My name is ReuBen Emet. This is Hebrew for "SEE, Son of Truth." In other words, I want to be a person who accurately portrays the truth so that others can see it. This is not my real name, but a psuedonym, or a pen name. It is not important who I am. What is important is that you, the reader, seek what is really true. There are many questions. Many people will tell you what the answers are, but how do you know if they are truth or not? If you are seeking honest truth, than this is a blog you might want to refer to. There is no agenda, just honest conversation. So, if you like, come on back.

RueBen