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

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

1. 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.
         

 

1. 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.
      

   
    

1. 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.
      

 

1. 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

    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

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

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?

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

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:"

1. 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.
   
2. 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.
   
3. 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.
   
4. 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.
   
5. 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."