Loving G-d Without Mediator or Veil

Let me admonish you, first of all, to go alone; to refuse the good models, even those most sacred in the imagination of men, and dare to love God without mediator or veil.     (Ralph Waldo Emerson, Divinity School Address)

 The above quote from Emerson is one I might have expected to find upon a greeting card, calendar, bookmark, coffee mug, or any number of inspirational items that inundate the American marketplace and especially the sector aimed at Christians in general.  But to my surprise this quotation was brought to my attention this past week by a most unusual and unexpected source, an observant Jew living in Jerusalem who has been submitting responses to my posts from time to time.  This individual used Emerson’s quote as a concluding point regarding the inherent imperfection in the tzaddik/disciple relationship as a means of drawing close or “cleaving to” HaShem.  Quoting from a Christian source perhaps was a subtle way to show that even those who claim Yeshua as the perfectly righteous intermediary between G-d and man yet realize that a non-mediated love of G-d is superior above all else. 

Ironically this ideal, to love G-d without mediator or veil, is one that presents itself in Parashah Yitro at the giving of Torah to the Children of Israel upon Sinai.  Amidst the incredible scenario of miraculous drama lies a subtle and easily missed desire of the heart that was found among the nation on that most famous of days.  This desire is hinted at beginning in Exodus 19:13b

 . .upon an extended blast of the shofar they may ascend the mountain  (Stone Chumash)

According to Exodus 19 and 20 Israel never ascended the mountain.  Instead, the base of Mt. Sinai was cordoned off and the people were instructed to not touch it or attempt to break through the base of it to see HaShem for “whoever touches the mountain will surely die”.  Yet, in-between these two prohibitions HaShem indicated that when a long blast of the shofar was sounded the nation may ascend the mountain.  As the sound of the shofar grew continually stronger and the Presence of HaShem descended upon Sinai the people were not invited or encouraged to ascend, but instead seriously warned not to break through the pre-set boundaries (cf. 19:19-22).  How are we to understand this?

Before the mountain was cordoned off and HaShem descended to give the Torah to Israel the intentions of the people were considered.  Would they agree to this covenant and to the role of a kingdom of priests and a holy nation for HaShem?  The people responded; “everything that HaShem has spoken we will do!” and Moses related their enthusiastic reply to HaShem (19:5-8).  After the people’s willingness was confirmed HaShem explained the manner in which He would give the Torah to them.  He would speak directly to Moses and the people would hear the sound of His voice.  Moses would then speak the commands of G-d to the people himself.  In this way, Moses would act as their intermediary.  After this procedure was explained the text goes on to say; “Moses related the words of the people to HaShem” (v.9)

What words of the people are being referred to here?  Moses had already told HaShem that the people were willing to do everything He would speak to them.  It would be redundant for Moses to reiterate that same response to HaShem a second time.  Therefore, it would seem that after the people were given the procedure for receiving the Torah they responded in some way which Moses related back to HaShem.  Torah does not reveal what the people said but only that Moses related their words to G-d.

Rashi understands that when the people were told Moses would be their intermediary they expressed a desire to hear from HaShem Himself, and to actually see Him, without a mediator or “veil” of any kind.  This high level of sanctity would require three days preparation including mikvah (washing of clothes) and abstention from marital relations.  Boundaries were set around the mountain during those days for it too must be sanctified for such a holy occasion.  The people were instructed that at the extended blast of the shofar they would be permitted to ascend Sinai in order to interact directly with HaShem.

When that fateful day arrived, the shofar sounded loudly and Moses assembled the people at the base of Sinai.  As G-d’s awesome Presence descended amidst incredible fire and smoke the sound of the shofar grew louder and louder.  Moses alone ascended the mountain and G-d spoke to him directly as the people below overheard the conversation.  Moses then descended to warn Israel not to attempt to break through the boundaries.  Although the people desired direct revelation without an intermediary, they were not to ascend the mountain in an attempt to see G-d.

Rashi understands the reason for the people’s failed aspirations to be found in Exodus 20:15-16.

The entire people saw the thunder and the flames, the sound of the shofar and the smoking mountain; the people saw and trembled and stood from afar.  They said to Moses, “You speak to us and we shall hear; let G-d not speak to us lest we die.”  (Stone Chumash)

Rashi, Chizkuni and Ramban all agree that Exodus 20:15-16 is not given in chronological order but describes the people’s reaction while receiving the Ten Commandments, not after receiving them.  Both Rashi and Chizkuni understand that this reaction occurred after the first two commandments were spoken to the people directly by HaShem. 

Since the numerical (Gematria) value of the Hebrew word Torah equals 611, chazal deduce (BT Makkot 24a) that Moses taught 611 of the 613 mitzvot of Torah to Israel and that the first two commandments were given directly by G-d to them.  This understanding helps explain an oddity within the Ten Commandments not recognized in the English translation.  In the Hebrew there is a change in person from the first two commandments as compared to the remaining eight commandments.  The first two are written in the first person while the last eight are written in the third person.

Being in the first person, the first two commandments were given directly to the people by HaShem without any intermediary involved.  The extreme supernatural intensity of this experience was more than the nation could bear and they feared for their lives. Instead of being eager to ascend Sinai they literally stepped back from their original position at the base of the mountain (20:15).   Therefore they asked Moses to intercede for them in exactly the manner HaShem had proposed at first.  After the remaining eight commandments were given, in the less direct third person, Moses descended the mountain and warned the people not to break through the boundaries.  They were not invited to ascend or to see HaShem because they were unable to bear it. 

This understanding of Matan Torah is also related in Deuteronomy 5:4-5;

Face to face did HaShem speak with you on the mountain, from amid the fire.  I was standing between HaShem and you at that time, to relate the word of HaShem to you – for you were afraid of the fire and you did not ascend the mountain .  . .  (Stone Chumash)

“Face to face” was the heart desire of the people according to Rashi’s view which found fulfillment in the direct speaking of the first two commandments to the nation.  After this Moses related the word of HaShem to them and they ultimately did not ascend the mountain.

Because the people did not ascend the role of the shofar in Exodus 19:13 is questioned by the commentators.  What was its purpose and when was it sounded? Rashbam understands that when the long blast of the shofar upon the mountain ended and the lightning and thunder ceased, the people then could ascend safely.  This is based on the Hebrew word bimshoch (בִּמְשֹׁךְ), translated “long blast” which literally means “pull” as in “the pull of the horn” and understood by Rashbam to describe the end of a long blast.  [1]

Ibn Ezra understands the blast of the shofar upon Sinai to be different than the sounding of the shofar as described in 19:13.  “One long blast” was the quality that would indicate the people may ascend the mountain.  However, at Matan Torah the shofar sound grew “louder and louder”.  This is understood to be a miraculous phenomenon for normally a horn begins loud and grows weaker as it is blown, while the sounding of the shofar in v. 13 describes the natural occurrence of a long blast.

According to Chizkuni, Saadia Gaon distinguishes the shofar of 19:16 & 19 from the shofar of 19:13. This is based on the literal Hebrew in which the trumpet of v. 13 is called a yovel (יֹּבֵל) while the trumpet that sounded upon the mountain is referred to as shofar (שֹׁפָר).  Although both yovel and shofar describe a ram’s horn instrument the different terminology used in Torah alludes to two separate events. [2]  Citing Samuel B. Hophni’s opinion, Ibn Ezra points out the traditional understanding that G-d’s Presence remained on Sinai continuously until it filled the Tabernacle (Exodus 40:34).  Therefore, the long blast of the shofar was likely sounded by Moses at the inauguration of the Mishkan, a time when the people could freely ascend the mountain. [3]  Saadia Gaon and Abarbanel understand the long blast of the yovel to have occurred on the Day of Atonement when Moses descended Sinai with the second set of tablets, indicating an “all clear” signal for the people to ascend the mountain. [4]

Despite the conjectures, the Torah itself does not tell of a time when Moses blew a long blast on the ram’s horn indicating that the people may ascend the mountain either on Yom Kippur or at the dedication of the Mishkan. Although the shofar sounding ceased after the commandments were given, the people were not free to ascend the mountain, as indicated by Exodus 24, in which the 70 elders were invited to ascend and the remainder of the people were forbidden to come up.   

Interestingly, the long blast of the yovel is found again in Torah, in Joshua 6:5.  It was the “long blast with the ram’s horn” (בִּמְשֹׁךְ בְּקֶרֶן הַיּוֹבֵל) that would signal the army to shout, causing the walls of Jericho to fall, after which the people would ascend into the city.  Prior to the battle, Joshua encountered a “man with a drawn sword in his hand” described as “the captain of HaShem’s legion” (5:14).  This angelic messenger instructed Joshua to; “remove your shoe from upon your foot, for the place upon which you stand is holy”, the same instruction given to Moses when encountering the Shekinah in the burning bush.

This parallelism in language alludes to the battle of Jericho as a type of exodus.  Instead of coming to a mountain that could not be ascended, despite the heartfelt desires of the people, the nation would come to a city that could be ascended and that was totally consecrated unto HaShem (as no booty was to be taken from Jericho, for the gold, silver, brass, and iron were to go to the treasury of HaShem, 16:18-19).

Although Rashi’s viewpoint regarding the people’s desire to experience HaShem apart from a mediator at Matan Torah is disputed by some of the commentators, considering this view in light of Hebrews 12:18-29 is quite amazing.  The author of Hebrews describes the event of Sinai as Israel coming unto a mountain “that might be touched” or “that may be touched” (v.18), although the most literal rendering of Exodus 19 indicates that Sinai could not be touched except under pain of death.  Perhaps this wording describes the inner heart of the nation that they might touch the mountain, ascend it, and see HaShem for themselves.  This desire could not be realized for such an encounter with the Almighty would result in death, an unbearable consequence that caused the mountain to be non-ascendable.

But such a mountain is not the experience that Yeshua has brought to his disciples.  Instead, like his namesake (Joshua), Yeshua leads his own to a city that may be ascended, the heavenly Jerusalem, a future reality (Olam Haba) in which G-d will dwell with men, and man can love HaShem “without mediator or veil”.  Although this is indeed the most superior of all relationships, it is one that Matan Torah clearly illustrates, is not possible in this present human existence (Olam Hazeh).  Human mediators can aid individuals in drawing closer to the mountain of G-d’s Presence, but they cannot enable an ascent to Him (experience of direct interaction), even the great teacher Moses could not bring this about for Israel.  Yet, on the other hand, zealous individuals who desire to break through the boundaries on their own and love HaShem without the aid of mediation are helpless but to die trying.  

In this way Yeshua is uniquely both a mediator and an enabler, drawing his own close to HaShem through the giving of the Holy Spirit, while yet enabling them to ascend to Him in an intimate relationship through the re-creation of the body at the resurrection from the dead. To suggest that men “dare love G-d without mediator or veil” presently, may have caused Emerson’s Divinity School audience to sigh and inevitably provided sentiments that are ever so pretty upon cards and mugs and bookmarks, but such words have no basis in the reality of this world.  That’s why they are called “inspirational”, because they inspire the listener or the reader toward greater things.

. . . . . . . . . .

In illustrating his point that a mediated relationship with G-d is inferior to a direct relationship with Him, Mr. Ne’eman used an example of a tour guide in Jerusalem.  How can one know if the guide is giving correct information about the city, for it is possible that he might be in error.  Therefore it is better to explore on one’s own or at least not to develop an “unhealthy reliance and self-dependence” on the guide exclusively, for he is not indispensable.  

Regarding touring Jerusalem, in an eschatological sense, I agree completely!  For the heavenly Jerusalem, the World to Come, is a place void of reliance and self-dependence upon mediators, a place in which one may explore a direct relationship with HaShem as known in Gan Eden and even beyond that experience, in ways that “no eye has seen, nor ear heard”.  But one cannot ascend the city if the walls still remain.  For this a mediator is necessary to gain entry into a place totally consecrated unto HaShem.

If a person is not bound to a true Tzaddik, all his devotions are nothing but twisting and turning and pretending to be something he isn’t, as if an ape were pretending to be a man. Service of God is nothing without the true Tzaddik. (Rabbi Nachman’s Wisdom #111)

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

[1]  Rashbam, as cited in, Michael Carasik (editor), The Commentators’ Bible (Exodus), The Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia, PA, 2005, p. 151.

[2] Chizkuni, as cited in, ibid., p. 150.

[3] Ibn Ezra, as cited in, ibid., p. 151.

[4]  Abarbanel, as cited in, ibid., p. 150.

Bringing Time into Focus

I have always admired grandfather clocks.  The stateliness of their appearance and elegance of their chiming add a touch of serene ambiance to the home.  Recently, I had opportunity to purchase a grandfather clock from a friend whose late parent’s estate was being liquidated.  The clock was delivered on January 15, a Friday.  Being wound and set to the correct time, the last detail necessary was to adjust the moon dial to the appropriate lunar phase.  Ironically, sunset of the 15^th not only ushered in the Shabbat, but also was the beginning of the Hebrew month of Shevat being Rosh Chodesh (literally “head of the month”) of the 11^th month on that very night. 

The hand painted moon dial has two pictures of a smiling orange-faced moon separated by two scenes of a sailing ship upon the open sea.  The new moon is followed by a scene of a ship sailing in daylight under blue skies indicating its increased brightness or waxing.  The full moon is followed by a scene of a ship sailing by night under starry skies indicating its increasing darkness or waning.  With the moon dial set exactly on the day of the new moon, I have watched its subtle movement over the past week as the friendly moon-face  descends clockwise and the scene of the daytime ship upon the sea grows ever fuller. 

The centrality of the moon for fixing calendar dates and times is considered by the sages to be the first commandment given by Moses to the budding nation of Israel just prior to the Exodus from Egypt as presented in parshah Bo.

HaShem said to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, “This month shall be for you the beginning of the months, it shall be for you the first of the months of the year.” (Exodus 12:1-2 Stone Chumash)

Commentators marvel that in the midst of the highly dramatic scenario in which Moses announced the death of the firstborn to Pharaoh followed by detailed instructions to the Israelites regarding the Pesach offering, is found two sentences explaining the reckoning of the months to begin in Nisan according to the appearance of the new moon.  Why would such a scenario be interrupted with instructions regarding the new month, and why would this be the first commandment given to the people via Moses, their redeemer?

Rashi explains that by numbering the months beginning with Nisan, the month of the Exodus, the people would always be reminded of their redemption, the very act upon which their national existence was initiated.  Ramban explains further that although the beginning of the year occurs in Tishrei in the fall, Nisan marks the beginning of the months “for you”, the Israelite nation, and not for “the year”.  In this way Israel reckons both a civil/agricultural year beginning in Tishrei and a “spiritual year” beginning in Nisan.  Rosh HaShanah (Rosh Chodesh Tishrei) marks the birth or creation of mankind while Rosh Chodesh Nisan marks the birth of the Jewish nation.

In Torah, the months are referred to only by number.  The names of the months are of Persian origin being retained by the Israelites after the Babylonian exile.  According to Ramban, the Persian names were retained as fulfillment of Jeremiah 16:14-15 which speaks of a time when G-d’s bringing of the people out of the northland (instead of out of Egypt) would be emphasized.  The northland is understood to commemorate the exodus from Babylon.  The Persian names of the months remind Israel of this second redemption, while the numbering of the months recalls the Exodus from Egypt. 

Although commemoration of the awesome event of the Exodus is a worthy reason for Rosh Chodesh as the first of the commandments given to the nation, Sforno takes a more practical view.  On the verge of freedom from slavery the people of Israel would now have control over their time.  As slaves their days were defined and determined by their masters, but as a nation rescued from slavery by HaShem they would have the ability to decide how each month would be determined and how each day would be filled. 

Rabbi Hirsch understands haChodesh hazeh in Exodus 12:2 to be speaking of “this renewal of the month” rather than “this month” specifically.  His translation is based on the word chodesh which in the most basic sense means “the beginning of the month” rather than “the month” as chodesh comes from the same root as chadash meaning “to be new”.  With this in mind the commandment of reckoning the months by the lunar cycle presents a central lesson in how a Jew should live.  Just as the moon renews itself each month by waxing and waning, the nation of Israel should always be renewing itself by closely obeying the commandments of HaShem. [1] Therefore the fundamental message of the moon pertains to the performance of every command. On the verge of redemption and freedom from Egypt HaShem highlights, through the commandment of Rosh Chodesh, a difference between the Israelites service to Pharaoh and their service to Him.  His people are to serve Him with zeal and renewed inspiration on a daily basis, not just out of rote obedience or obligatory habit as would a slave to a master.  [2]

The Sfat Emet understands that the mitzvah of Rosh Chodesh is also important in distinguishing the Jew from the non-Jew.  The non-Jew who orders his life by the sun, endures only as long as the “sun of fortune” shines brightly on him.  Once the sun sets and darkness comes, once good fortune turns into persecution and pain, the non-Jew gives up, turns from G-d, and “fades from the pages of history”.  The Jew, on the other hand, continues to shine brightly in the darkness, even amidst times of persecution and pain, even despite his waxing and waning spiritually. [3]

But perhaps the most basic and profound difference between a solar reckoning and a lunar reckoning of time has to do with monotony.  In the solar reckoning of days, every day “looks” the same.  The sun’s appearance is the same as it rises and makes its way through the sky back to the horizon day by day.  It is predictable and never changing.  The lunar calendar is not this way, every night the moon appears slightly different, it is never the same on any two nights in a row.  There is no security in monotony with the moon.  There is nothing about its days that might be called “routine”, “habit” or “normal expectations”.  The moon is always doing one of two things on any given night; it is renewing or regressing, getting brighter or getting darker. When reckoning time by the moon one is forced to realize that every day is different.  Every day one is renewing or regressing, improving or declining, and there is no middle ground regarding this, no status quo in which to find security.  [4]

Although the Biblical/Jewish calendar is often referred to as a lunar system in reality it is a lunisolar calendar.  The months are reckoned via the moon but the festivals must occur in their designated seasons as governed by the sun.  For this reason an additional month is added to the calendar seven times every nineteen years.  Otherwise, Pesach would occur earlier and earlier each year until inevitably it would be celebrated in the winter instead of the spring.  Also, the set times of prayer each day are based on the sun, as is the weekly Shabbat.  So, for the nation of Israel the sun and the moon have an influence upon the rhythmn of life for HaShem’s people.

This reality is seen in one’s daily life as well.  No one is at liberty to decide how every minute of their day will be spent.  Everyone has obligations and activities that have been decided for them.  People have to go to work or school; they have to carry out mundane chores and expected responsibilities.  This is the “solar” reckoning of each day involving the things that do not change and are the activities of daily life.  But within this inflexibility is found a choice.  One is free to decide the way in which they will accomplish the routine tasks of the day, either by “renewing” or “regressing”.  By becoming better, moving forward in righteousness and holiness, in love of men and G-d or by remaining static or allowing oneself to be pulled away from righteousness by any number of factors. [5]

Although the solar reckoning of time is an inevitable fact, the lunar reckoning is to be the focus of time for G-d’s people.  To contemplate the sun causes blindness.  To contemplate the moon causes introspection and contemplation.  G-d commanded His nation to contemplate the moon. Yeshua also taught this concept;

Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. “Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.  (Matthew 6:31-34 ESV)

. . . . . . . .

After purchasing the grandfather clock, and before it was delivered, I did a bit of reading about grandfather clocks in general.  Although this style of clock originated in the late 1600’s, the moon dial feature was not added to the design until the 19^th century.  The dial was meant to aid in determining the light of the moon for various activities.  A sportsman might hunt at night when the moon was full and the forest well illuminated.  A farmer might harvest additional crops at night by the light of the moon.  Travel could be accomplished safely at night when the moon was full.  In this way the dial was used as a means to determine when the moon was full and bright, to take notice of it only when it could be of most benefit to people in gaining more things.   The moon was noticed only when it behaved like the sun, allowing activities of the day to continue through the night.

No wonder the moon dial on my grandfather clock contains two large illustrations of sailing ships on the sea with a simple-faced moon appearing briefly in between.  For the subtleties of nightly change, the process of waxing and waning is not considered important in the reckoning of time to mankind in general.  As the moon progresses through its nightly witness, the clock company provides a nice seascape to please the eye of the beholder and add to the aesthetics of the clock in general.  The moon is only taken notice of by appearing  when it is of no benefit (new) and might cause one trouble or harm, or when it is of complete benefit (full) aiding one to accumulate and accomplish more.  The quality and uniqueness of each day’s experience, and the various and ever changing opportunities presented amid usual daily activities, is left behind, painted over, so to speak, in favor of a quantity of things that might be lost or gained instead.

____________________________________________________________________________________

[1] Michael Gros, Wordly Wise, available at:  http://www.tfdixie.com/parshat/bo/028.htm

[2]  Mitchell Scher, Moonstruck, available at: http://www.tfdixie.com/parshat/bo/025.htm

[3] Sfat Emet, as cited in Michael Gros, ibid.

[4] Adapted from Rabbi David Lapin, Bo: Kedushat Rosh Chodesh: Transfer Not Declaration (1986), available at:  http://www.iawaken.org/shiurim/view.asp?id=5642

[5] Ibid.

When Things Don’t Appear As They Seem

One of the nurses I work with recently celebrated her 25^th wedding anniversary.  To commemorate this special milestone her husband had a new wedding ring set created for her.  The diamonds from the original ring were used as accent stones that surrounded a most impressive round solitaire of more than a carat in size.  As a group of us gathered around to admire the new wedding set on her finger, one woman asked, in reference to the large stone, if it was “a Leo”.  Breaking into a big smile our co-worker confirmed; “Yes it’s a Leo”.  Suddenly the ring caused a hub-bub of excitement in the group as the women oohed and aahed over the “Leo”. 

Turns out that “a Leo” is a diamond that is cut in a way that causes superior brilliance and brightness, and that comes at a much higher price compared to diamonds cut in a conventional manner.  Until that morning I had never heard of a “Leo” and had no idea that such a diamond existed.  When admiring my co-worker’s ring I certainly noticed the beauty of the large diamond, but would not have realized the subtleties of additional brilliance and sparkle of a “Leo” unless I had been made aware of it by others.

In considering parashah Va’era I also was made aware of a subtlety that I had never noticed before. This subtlety would have gone easily unnoticed if not for a question of Abarbanel I came across regarding Exodus 7:8-9.  Abarbanel asks, why the phenomenon of Moses’ staff turning into a serpent is called a “wonder” (mofet/מוֹפֵת) when performed before Pharaoh and his courtiers when previously it was referred to as a “sign” (ot/אֹת) before the elders and people of Israel.

 “When Pharaoh speaks to you saying ‘Provide a wonder for yourselves, you shall say to Aaron, ‘Take your staff and cast it down before Pharaoh – it will become a snake!’” (Exodus 7:9 Stone Chumash)

Although “wonder” (mofet) and “sign” (ot) can be used almost interchangeably — for wonders can function as signs and signs can be related to wonders – based on first usages in scripture a “sign” is understood as revelatory, giving evidence of G-d’s will, while a “wonder” is a phenomenon that manipulates or supersedes the natural order, which causes awe and speaks of G-d as creator.

An additional difference between Moses staff as a sign for Israel and a wonder for Pharaoh/Egypt is seen in the literal Hebrew regarding the type of snake that the staff turned into.  In English this is impossible to discern, for the general word “snake” is used to describe both circumstances.  However, in Hebrew, the staff turned into a nachash (נָחָשׁ) before Moses and the elders/people of Israel, and into a tanin (תַנִּין) before Pharaoh and his sorcerers. 

On the most basic level both nachash and tanin describe a “snake” and some commentators understand the two words to be describing the same thing. From a scriptural viewpoint, tanin refers to various sea or water-dwelling creatures throughout the Tanakh while nachash describes snakes that dwell upon the land.  Because Moses was upon Sinai when receiving the sign from HaShem he saw the staff transform into a nachash in keeping with the geographical location.  With Sinai being the destination of the Israelites upon being redeemed from Egypt the nachash, a land snake, was the sign given to them also.  Before Pharaoh and his court in Egypt — a flood plain dominated by the Nile River — the staff transformed into a tanin, a river snake most common to the region.

Yet, additional facets of subtlety that go beyond the mere geographic location in which the phenomenon occurred can also be discerned regarding the snakes.  The nachash appears for the first time in Genesis 3 as the serpent who tempted Eve to sin.  Therefore, the nachash is first found in a setting which focuses upon G-d’s revelation and symbolizes twisted or “serpentine” thinking in relation to G-d’s given commands.  The tanin appears for the first time in the first chapter of Genesis which focuses upon heaven and earth being brought into existence and is used to describe the initial creation of reptiles in general.  [1]

In his first interaction with Moses, Pharaoh states that he “does not know HaShem” (Exodus 5:2).  Naturally Pharaoh would seek proof through a wonder from Moses that his G-d truly exists.  Therefore, the staff turned into a tanin, in an environment in which G-d’s existence as creator was to be proclaimed.  The wonder (mofet) was not that the staff turning into a tanin, for Pharaoh’s sorcerers also produced taninim from their staffs.  Instead, the wonder was that Aaron’s staff swallowed up the staffs of the sorcerers. 

Unlike the Egyptians, the Israelites did not need a wonder in order to convince them that HaShem existed, rather they needed a sign that G-d was about to reveal Himself to them.  In Exodus 4:5 the staff turning into a nachash was to be a sign for the Children of Israel that G-d appeared to Moses and that Moses message regarding the upcoming redemption was a revelation from HaShem.  In seeing the staff turn into a nachash the Israelites would be warned, by means of a living symbol, regarding twisted thinking that might cause them to disbelieve G-d’s message or His messenger, Moses.  [2] The fact that Moses could pick up the nachash by the tail and not be injured showed that the twisted thinking of the snake had no control or influence over him.

The difference regarding the Egyptians (Gentiles) need for a wonder and the Israelites need for a sign is presented by Paul regarding the person and work of Yeshua in 1 Corinthians 1:22-23.

For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; (1 Corinthians 1:22-23 KJV)

In similar fashion to the staff turning into a snake, the crucifixion of Yeshua and his subsequent resurrection from the dead is evidence that G-d alone has power and control over both life and death.  Yeshua himself explained that his death and burial as symbolized by Jonah in the belly of the fish (Matthew 12:39-40, Luke 11:29-30), along with the raising again of the “temple” of his body (John 2:19-22) was the only sign necessary to prove him the Mashiach of HaShem. 

Of course to the Greeks (and by extension Gentiles in general) the resurrection from the dead, as a wonder that defies logic and supersedes the natural order, is often discounted as reasonable proof of Yeshua’s claims.  Although Greek mythology contains stories of individual humans being raised from the dead and obtaining immortality, a general resurrection from the dead was considered impossible.  In Acts 17 the Greek philosophers of the Areopagus were interested to consider Paul’s “babbling” regarding the man Yeshua and his resurrection from the dead (v. 18).  Once Paul explained that Yeshua’s resurrection brought assurance of a general resurrection from the dead, many of the Greeks refused to listen further and considered him a fool (vv. 31-32). 

Yet, how is it that “Christ crucified”, the sign of G-d’s revelation given to the Jews became a stumbling block to them?  Although the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, the term “Jews” as used by Paul seems to encompass a broader/general meaning.  Typically it is understood that Yeshua became a stumbling block because the Jews were expecting a victorious king Messiah who would overthrow Rome and bring Israel into prominence as a world power.  This understanding has been proven suspect through modern scholars such as Neusner based on textual research indicating that there were broad and varied expectations regarding Messiah within first century Judaism.  A Messiah who would suffer and die certainly would not have been an offense, for it is an idea associated with Mashiach ben Yosef as given in the Talmud (Bavli Sukkah 52a) and presented by R. Dosa, a rabbi of the Tannaim period  (70-200 CE).

The book of Acts testifies to the fact that the sign of “Christ crucified” was not at first offensive, but instead widely accepted by the Jews.  A significant portion of Peter’s Shavuot speech in Acts 2 focuses on the one “you crucified and killed at the hands of lawless men” (v.23), and whom G-d “raised up” (vv. 24, 32).  This message pricked the heart of 3,000 Jews who were baptized that day.  In Acts 3, after healing a lame man in the Temple, Peter addresses the “men of Israel” assembled there as those “who killed the author of life whom G-d raised from the dead” (v. 15).  Despite the interference and objection of the Priests and Sadducees to Peter’s witness of Yeshua’s resurrection, 5,000 Jews believed that day. 

What happened between the early days of Acts and the time of 1 Corinthians, some 25 to 30 years later, that caused the sign of “Christ crucified” to become a stumbling block to the Jews at large?  How is it that the greatest sign of G-d’s revelation regarding His redeemer and Messiah so quickly became offensive? 

Remarkably, a similar occurrence is witnessed in parashah Va’era.  The Israelites who initially and reverently accepted Moses’ signs from HaShem as proof that G-d had “visited His people and seen their affliction” (Exodus 4:21) called down G-d’s judgment upon Moses and refused to heed him just a few chapters later (Exodus 5:21, 6:9).  This change of heart was brought on by a change in life circumstances for the Jews which resulted from Moses initial meeting with Pharaoh.  In proclaiming the name of HaShem and His will to release Israel from Egypt, Pharaoh responded by commanding the Israelites make bricks without straw.  This drastic change in circumstance and the severe fatigue it brought upon the people caused them to lose faith in Moses as G-d’s redeemer.

In interacting with Pharaoh, HaShem revealed to Moses a purpose for His redemption of Israel that was not initially given upon Sinai.  Not only would G-d bring Israel out of Egypt by a “strong arm” to worship Him at the mountain, but He also would be proclaimed in Egypt as the one true G-d of all creation.

As the plagues unfolded this initially hidden purpose was made clear, as with each triad of plagues a different goal regarding G-d’s revelation to Egypt is expressed. The goal of the first triad was that Pharaoh would know that “I am HaShem” (Exodus 7:17). The second triad would show “that I am HaShem in the midst of the land” (Exodus 8:18), and third triad would prove “that there in none like Me in all the world” (Exodus 9:14). 

Because G-d’s hidden or unannounced purpose in redeeming Israel was also to reveal Himself to Egypt, the people experienced a drastic change in situation that they didn’t anticipate.  This change caused G-d’s signs and His messenger to become an offense to them.  

The sign of “Christ crucified” also brought with it a hidden or unannounced purpose, a mystery that had not been revealed in the Torah or prophets or in any other way.

 This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.  (Ephesians 3:6 ESV)

Through Yeshua, Gentile believers are “Abraham’s seed and heirs” (Galatians 3:29), “fellow-citizens” of the “commonwealth of Israel” and members of the “household of G-d” (Ephesians 2:12,19).  In this way the death and resurrection of Messiah brought with it a change in Israel’s situation for the Gentiles would now be considered heirs along with Israel as members of one body, and obtained status in Israel without legal conversion (circumcision). 

This mystery is a central focus of debate within the Messianic movement. Is Gentile citizenship in Israel to be understood as a present reality or something future? The Divine Invitation perspective understands this as something yet future, based on the term “commonwealth” used by Paul in Ephesians 2:12.  Since Israel at the time was not a commonwealth but was under the sovereignty of Rome, Paul must be speaking of a future situation which will come to fruition in the Messianic age when Israel is an imperial power over the Gentiles under the rule of King Messiah.  [3] 

As they awaited the fulfillment of this future reality the Gentiles assumed a role of G-d fearer within the synagogue with the four essentials of Acts 15 being required of them in order to partake of table fellowship along with Jewish believers.  Otherwise, the Gentile believer is not obligated to Torah, which is the covenant given to Israel alone, but is invited to participate to an extent that will not blur the distinction between Jew and Gentile.

Yet, if this is true then “Christ crucified” as a stumbling block to the Jews becomes a great mystery in itself, for there seems to be little if any reason left as to why the sign of Messiah would have become an offense to them.  Gentiles coming into the synagogues as G-d fearers with “high hopes” of a future role and status within Israel would surely not have caused offense.  Since Messiah’s suffering, death, and resurrection are details contained within the accepted pale of first century Judaism what aspect of “Christ crucified” would have caused the Jews to stumble? Certainly at the time of Paul’s writing the persecution, anti-Semitism, and lawlessness of the Christian church as a separate entity was not a factor to be considered. 

In Acts 21:21 the believing Jews in Jerusalem understood that Paul was teaching the Jewish believers in the Diaspora to abandon circumcision, Torah practice, and related customs. This misunderstanding seems to be based on the Acts 15 essentials that were incumbent upon the Gentile believers being understood as the “new norm” for believing Jews.  How could this be if Gentiles were participating as G-d fearers within the synagogue?  According to Josephus the G-d fearers were Gentiles who believed in the G-d of Israel but participated in synagogue life in broad and varying degrees without compulsion and apart from conversion.  Based on a historical understanding the practice of a G-d fearer within the synagogue would have no legal influence or bearing on Jews at all. 

It would seem that the only way such a misunderstanding regarding Paul’s teachings would have occurred is if Gentiles were understood to be effectively included in Israel immediately through faith in Yeshua. If the “Israel of G-d” that Paul preached included both Jewish and Gentile believers as constituents of Israel presently, then one can understand the accusation found in Acts 21.   In Jewish understanding all Israel is held to the same legal standard (Torah).  If Paul was teaching the Gentiles to forgo circumcision (conversion) and obligating them to keep merely four Biblical essentials as legitimate citizens of Israel, it could be logically deduced that this was now the standard of observance Paul was advocating for all Israel under Messiah Yeshua. 

This understanding might also explain the hyper-reaction of the Jews in Acts 21 who assumed that Paul had taken Greeks within the confines of the Temple. By merely being seen in the company of a Greek “in the city” this accusation was made against Paul (vv. 27-28). Again, this reaction is nothing short of illogical paranoia if the believing Gentiles assumed the well established role of G-d fearer in the synagogue, for if that were the case such an assumption would never have been made.  But, if the Jews of Jerusalem understood Paul to be teaching that Gentile believers were presently members of Israel through Yeshua, then they could logically conclude that he would attempt to bring an uncircumcised Greek within the Temple.

Also, if Paul’s preaching to the Gentiles brought them into the synagogues as G-d fearers why would the crowd explode and consider Paul worthy of death at the moment he explained that Yeshua had sent him to the Gentiles (22:23)?  Certainly Paul would not have been worthy of the death penalty for preaching salvation through Yeshua and assuring Gentiles of future involvement in Israel during the Messianic age while they assumed a role as G-d fearer in the interim.  But if Paul was preaching that Gentiles who believed in Yeshua acquired a present standing within Israel, apart from conversion, such teachings would certainly be considered blasphemous and worthy of death. 

Based on Acts 21 & 22 it would seem that the Jews well understood a drastic change in their situation to be taking place through the preaching of Paul and “Christ crucified” in relation to Gentile status within the nation.  This mystery unfolded over time as Gentiles came to believe in Yeshua and functioned as a sect within Judaism. For Gentile believers to be considered members of Israel apart from conversion would certainly have presented a change in life circumstance as shocking as making bricks without straw. The very fiber of Jewish life would seem to be threatened by an unanticipated aspect of the Redeemer’s coming which became a stumbling block that many would not recover from. 

. . . . . .

Later in the day I had opportunity to talk with my co-worker about her 25^th Anniversary wedding ring set.  She explained to me additional details about “the Leo” including how the cut of the diamond causes more light to be reflected through the top of the stone and less to escape through the sides.  The light emitted appears bright white producing a superior sparkle.  

 Having worked in a jewelry store during summer break from college back in the 80’s I knew a little about diamonds, but of course this was before the advent of  “the Leo”.  Ironically, during my jewelry store days the Cubic Zirconia was the new product on the market that vied to replace traditional diamonds due to its low cost and superior quality.  It was impossible to discern a CZ from an authentic diamond without magnification, for only by seeing the bits of carbon and natural imperfections inherent in every real diamond and absent from the CZ could an authentic diamond be identified.  But sales of the CZ did not go as well as first anticipated.  Many people thought the diamond looked “too perfect” and found the sparkle of it to be “too bright” as compared with the natural color variations found in a real diamond.  I remember the manager of the store describing the CZ as “lacking fire” based on the bright whiteness of its sparkle.

 How ironic, it seemed to me, that some 20 years later we now have the technology to cut a real diamond in a way that makes it behave like a CZ.  Suddenly the qualities that use to be considered the downfall of the synthetic diamond are now the very qualities desired in an authentic diamond.  On closer inspection the “Leo” looked just like a CZ, except that it’s the “real thing”. 

Sometimes things don’t appear as they seem, in every aspect of life, from signs to wonders, from snakes to serpents, from Jew to Gentile . . . from diamonds to Torah.  

_________________________________________________________

[1] Based on Menachem Leibtag, Parashat Va’eyra, in Divrei Torah from Internet on Parashas Va’eirah (5756) available at:  http://www.parsha.net/pdf/Shmos/Vaeira56.pdf

[2] Ibid.

[3]  D. Thomas Lancaster, Grafted In (Israel, Gentiles and the Mystery of the Gospel), First Fruits of Zion, Marshfield MO, 2009, pp. 4,5.

The Fruit within the Bramble

A little more than 10 years ago I moved out to “the country”.  Before this, I lived in a modest bungalow located in an “inner ring” suburb of a large urban/metropolitan area.  My little bungalow had a “postage stamp” backyard with mature oak trees making it too shady for a vegetable garden.  However, in the tiny side yard was a narrow bed filled with pachysandra which enjoyed full sun most of the day.  I converted that old pachysandra bed into a vegetable garden.  Using the “square foot gardening” method this little plot produced a nice variety of vegetables and fruits each season.  One of my favorite plants in that side-yard garden was a wild raspberry bush I had dug out from among a thicket of raspberries I found growing along a roadside while on a drive in the country.  This raspberry bush thrived and grew quite large upon a trellis at the front of the garden.  Every July for roughly 12 years I enjoyed the sweet red fruit it produced. 

 Curiously, in considering parashah Shemot this past week, I was reminded of that raspberry bush in my former garden.  Although countless volumes have been written regarding the Burning Bush of Exodus 3 and its meaning and importance in both Jewish and Christian literature, both traditions also offer conjectures regarding the plant species of this most famous bush.  Personally, in conceptualizing the bush I had always imaged a dry, brown, and lifeless thicket of branches and thorns blazing with fire from within.

But, surprisingly, according to chazal, the bush was a bramble (Hebrew: s’neh/ סְּנֶה) with berry fruit that was at first red and later turned black, referred to as innevei s’neh or “the berries of the bramble” (Yerushalmi, Ma’asroth 1:2, 3a). This understanding is also embraced in the traditions of St. Catherine’s monastery in Sinai which claims to have a raspberry bush of the species Rubus sanctus that can be traced back to the original Burning Bush.  According to the Midrash Rabbah (Exodus 2:5), the s’neh produced both thorns and roses and therefore is understood to have been a wild rose bush. Whatever the case, when Moses came upon the bush that burned but was not consumed on the traditional date of Nisan 15, one year prior to the exodus from Egypt, it would seem that he did not witness a dry and lifeless bundle of twisted thorns ablaze, but instead came upon a miraculous vision contained within a leafy green shrub filled with thorns and roses or ripening red berries. 

Conjectures abound regarding the symbolism of the s’neh that Moses witnessed upon Sinai.  One line of thinking understands the bush to symbolize Israel.  The thorny, bramble quality of the bush is understood by some modern commentators to represent Israel’s poor spiritual condition, for while in Egypt it is traditionally understood that the people sunk to the 49^th  level of impurity (the 50^th level being the worst possible).  Although Israel was in a time of spiritual downfall and despair, the fire within symbolized the spark of godliness or connection with HaShem that resides in the heart of every Jew.  This “flame” although contained within a nation in the midst of a spiritually “dry and thorny time” would quickly blaze upward and respond to HaShem’s redemption as presented through His servant Moses. [1]

The bush can also be understood to represent Israel in exile, with the thorny bramble symbolizing the harshness and pain that Israel endured at the hand of the Egyptians.  The Midrash Rabbah (Exodus 2:5) explains that just as one can easily place one’s hand into a thorn bush without incident, but finds it impossible to remove it without cutting and tearing the skin (for the thorns bend downward and only grasp the hand when taking it out), so the people of Israel went into exile easily, under the comfort and leadership of Joseph, and without much notice, but would come out of Egypt through a series of plagues that would tear Egypt apart and cause it great pain. Yet, in the midst of such exile, G-d was with Israel, as symbolized by the fire.  Therefore, the bush could not be consumed because G-d does not allow His people to be destroyed.

Sforno understands the s’neh to represent Egypt and the fire within it to symbolize G-d’s judgment through the plagues.  Just as the bush burned but was not consumed, so Egypt would be overwhelmingly affected by the plagues but would not be destroyed as a nation by them.  For ultimately, G-d’s goal in taking Israel out of Egypt was to create a nation for Himself, and not to annihilate the Egyptians as a people.   

Amidst Christian as well as Messianic commentaries the Burning Bush is often likened to Yeshua and seen as a foreshadowing of his suffering G-d’s “burning judgment” on the cross including the “crown of thorns” of humiliation that he bore.  One popular interpretation is to understand the Angel of the L-RD in the Tanakh to be the “pre-incarnate Christ”.  In this way Moses is understood to have encountered the coming Messiah within the Burning Bush, with “types and shadows” of all varieties growing from this conception.  However, this understanding is easily shown to be false based on accounts in Matthew’s gospel in which the Angel of the L-RD announces Mary’s miraculous conception to Joseph, and also directs the couple (after the birth of Yeshua) to flee to Egypt in order to escape the persecution of Herod (cf. 1:20, 2:13).  It would seem that the Angel of the L-RD was still around and active even after his supposed “incarnation” in the person of Christ : )

But amidst all the conjectures, symbolisms, and shadows of various kinds, Yeshua himself refers to the incident of the Burning Bush as a pertinent picture and biblical proof regarding the resurrection from the dead. 

 “And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living. You are quite wrong.”  (Mark 12:26-27, ESV)

 Typically, it is G-d’s words that are focused upon in Yeshua’s response here.  Because HaShem indicated to Moses that he was presently and actively the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob this description indicates that the patriarchs, although deceased, were considered as alive in the eyes of HaShem.  The only way this could be is if a resurrection from the dead was a reality to come. 

But easily overlooked is the beautiful picture of resurrection that the Burning Bush itself presents, especially when considering it as a green leafy thorn bush containing roses or red raspberries, blossoming in the springtime, in the month of Nisan.  G-d’s presence within the bush caused this bush to burn but not to be destroyed.  Although it was on fire, the bush was yet green, fruitful, and continued to exist and not die.  For G-d’s people the fire of His judgment is a reality, but in the midst of that judgment is found life which cannot be extinguished.  Perhaps the raspberries or roses in the midst of the fire exuded a fragrance of sweetness and beauty that pervaded the air.  This reminds one of Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 2:14-16 in which the knowledge of Yeshua is likened to the fragrance “of life to life”. 

The s’neh is referenced five times in Exodus 3 and just one additional time in Torah, in Deuteronomy 33 where Moses, prior to his death, blesses Joseph with “the favor of Him who dwells in the bush (s’neh)” (v. 16).  This favor was to rest upon “the crown of Joseph”, who “was separated from his brothers”.  When considering Joseph’s blessings in Torah as understood in rabbinic eschatology to represent the role and responsibility of Mashiach ben Yosef (see last week’s post for more) this is quite remarkable.  For the favor of HaShem within the Burning Bush is that His fiery presence did not consume or destroy it but instead maintained continued and fruitful life.  Continued physical life in the midst of G-d’s real and intense presence is the message of the Burning Bush.  

The leadership role of Mashiach ben Yosef is understood to involve the perfection of the physical.  This is accomplished in its greatest sense for human beings through the resurrection from the dead.  Only in a resurrected/perfected physical state can one dwell with HaShem and not be destroyed.  Yeshua’s resurrection from the dead makes this a reality for those who believe in Him.  This is an aspect of Yeshua’s kingship regarding the Messianic age to come.  He is worthy to have such a crown upon his head because the favor of the one who dwells in the bush — the awesome living symbol of the resurrection from the dead and everlasting life — is realized through his role of Mashiach ben Yosef.  Being the “firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” Yeshua is indeed one who is separated from “his brothers”, serving as High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary.  Just as Joseph, separated from his brothers knew the favor of G-d’s presence within exile and attained a role of prominence and leadership many years prior to his reuniting with them. 

. . . . . .

In the past 10 years, since I have moved away from my bungalow with the little side-yard garden, I’ve had a handful of opportunities to drive past “the old house”.  Each time I have driven by over the years the condition of the house and the landscape around it has progressively deteriorated.  The last time I drove by, perhaps a year or so ago, the house was in desperate need of painting, the front flower beds, once filled with petunias and meticulously manicured bushes, were overgrown, and the side-yard garden was unrecognizable.  Except . . . for a leaning and dilapidated trellis enveloped by a knotted bramble of raspberry bush that continued to thrive.  A living landmark of fruitfulness rising out of a midst of weeds and grass that threatened to overshadow it.

How similar this is to the topic of the Burning Bush so surrounded by a host of conjectures and various understandings regarding its symbolism, meaning and importance.  A symbol that in essence proclaims a simple yet immensely profound message rising out of the fray; that HaShem will not allow His people to be destroyed but is with them and will deliver them from earthly exile.  A message that looks forward to the final redemption and resurrection from the dead in which G-d’s intimate and intense presence will dwell in the very midst of perfected and abundantly fruitful humanity.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

[1]  Based on Nesivos Shalom as cited by Mrs. Shira Smiles, Parashot Shemot (5769), Fabulous Flame, available at:  http://www.naaleh.com/viewclass/1487/single/

A Sorted End to 2009

On December 31, 2009 at approximately 6:45 pm, a time when numerous Americans were beginning celebrations for New Year’s Eve, I was elbow-deep in clean laundry.  With 15 minutes to go until the end of my 12 hour shift at work, I found myself in the hospital laundry room sorting through the “lost and found”–a  pile of assorted clothing stuffed into a large shopping cart parked in the corner of the room.  The item I was searching for had very special meaning to the husband of one of my patients.  It was a distinctive copper-color silk blend scarf which members of his Pentecostal/Charismatic church had prayed over on behalf of his wife who had suffered a devastating stroke.  This “prayer scarf” had turned up missing over a week ago, and numerous calls to the laundry room failed to produce it.  Having cared for this patient in the past, and being familiar with what the scarf looked like, I decided to go to the laundry room to search for it myself. 

As I explained my mission to the two ladies manning the laundry that evening their eyes lit up with interest.  Both of them agreed that they had not come across such a distinctive scarf and wished me “luck” in attempting to find it among the various odds and ends of personal clothing in the lost and found.  Digging my way down toward the bottom of the cart, as I sorted through a pair of folded pajamas, a streak of copper caught my attention.  As I pulled the scarf from the pile the two ladies smiled with delight.  A different “set of eyes” seemed to be the key in bringing forth a most important item amidst a sea of mismatched clothing.

Oddly enough, the laundry room scenario on New Year’s Eve illustrates how my personal study of Torah and desire to produce meaningful blog posts sometimes ends up. Every week there is much wonderfully “fresh” information I come across and many meaningful thoughts that enter my mind.  But some weeks I have trouble bringing together the details in a cohesive way that would warrant a post on the blog.  During those weeks the various information and thoughts from studying are recorded as notes and put aside, much like the shopping cart of mismatched clothing in the corner of the hospital laundry room.  Items of information are piled together but lack a central focus or inspiration.  My study of Vayechi last week seemed to be one of those “laundry room” weeks.  Although there were many interesting and pertinent details to consider, nothing seemed to “gel”.  I assumed the opportunity to post on the blog would be lost regarding this parashah, until a different “set of eyes” provided an important and most interesting detail that brought some things together for me.  

On another blog site I came upon a most interesting quote from Rashbam (Rashi’s grandson) regarding Jacob’s blessing of Judah in Genesis 49, which focuses on the prophecy regarding the “scepter not departing from Judah . .  until Shiloh comes” (v.10) Although Rashi and the commentators in general understand Shiloh to refer to king Mashiach,  Rashbam understands Jacob’s words to be speaking of Judah’s coming to Shiloh (as a geographical location).  In 1 Kings 12, Solomon’s son Rehoboam comes to Shechem in order to renew and strengthen his kingdom.  Instead, he loses dominion over united Israel when ten of the twelve tribes proclaim their allegiance to Jeroboam as their king.  The ten tribes separate themselves from Judah and Benjamin, the only two tribes that remained loyal to Rehoboam.  Because Shechem is in the vicinity of Shiloh, Rashbam understands this historical event to be the fulfillment of Jacob’s words in Genesis 49:10.  For in coming to Shechem a son of Judah (Rehoboam) lost the kingship over the united nation.  In this way “Judah’s coming to (the vicinity of) Shiloh” was the time when the scepter (of kingship) departed from him.

In considering the blessings of Jacob upon his twelve sons prior to his death, the classic commentators notice that Jacob’s blessings to Judah and Joseph encompass identical elements as the blessing of the firstborn that Jacob received from his father Isaac.  The blessing of the firstborn pronounced by Isaac upon Jacob in Genesis 27, involved both a blessing for material prosperity (v. 28) and a blessing for dominion and kingship over the nations and the brethren (v. 29).  Because Jacob was in the unique position of having two firstborn sons from two wives (Leah and Rachel) he divided the blessing of the firstborn among Judah and Joseph.  With Reuben, Simeon and Levi being disqualified as firstborn sons due to weaknesses in character (as described in Genesis 49:3-7) Judah takes on the role of the firstborn of Leah, with Joseph being the actual physical firstborn of Rachel. [1]

Judah is given the aspects of the firstborn blessing involving dominion and kingship;

Judah – you, your brothers shall acknowledge; your hand will be at your enemies’ nape; your father’s sons will prostrate themselves to you. (Genesis 49:8, Stone Chumash)

 This parallels the blessing of dominion and kingship as given to Jacob by Isaac;

 Peoples will serve you, and regimes will prostrate themselves to you . . . and your mother’s sons will prostrate themselves to you . .  (Genesis 27:29 Stone Chumash)

Joseph is given the blessing of the firstborn regarding material prosperity;

. . . and He (Shaddai) will bless you with blessings of heaven from above, blessings of the deep crouching below, blessings of the bosom and womb. (Genesis 49:25 Stone Chumash)

 This blessing also mirrors Isaac’s blessing to Jacob;

 And may G-d give you of the dew of the heavens and of the fatness of the earth, and abundant grain and wine.  (Genesis 27:28 Stone Chumash)

Both Judah’s and Joseph’s portion of the firstborn blessing are given by Jacob based on their character qualities. Judah receives the blessing of dominion and kingship due to his proven leadership abilities among his brothers.  Joseph is given the blessing of the firstborn regarding material prosperity due to his ability to manage and organize provisions during a time of famine.

This division of the firstborn blessing between Judah and Joseph ties-in with the rabbinic understanding of Mashiach as occupying two aspects of leadership.  As Mashiach ben Yosef he will manage and conquer the material/physical world.  As Mashiach ben David he will provide spiritual kingship and dominion worthy of homage and worship. [2]

 The Rashbam’s understanding of the scepter not departing from Judah until “Judah comes to Shiloh” is very interesting in this regard, for Shiloh as a literal geographic location is in the territory of Joseph. Therefore, Rashbam’s interpretation might be understood as describing a time when Mashiach ben Yosef and Mashiach ben David come together.  For “Judah coming to Shiloh”, in the most literal sense, entails Judah coming to the territory of Joseph.

“Judah coming to Shiloh” may give allusion to a future time when the two leadership aspects of Mashiach will merge — when spiritual kingship and dominion (Judah/Mashiach ben David) is administered in a realm of physical and material perfection (Joseph/Mashiach ben Yosef).  This describes the Messianic age, a time of peace and prosperity upon the earth when “the Torah will go out from Jerusalem”.

Yeshua’s first coming is often understood in a Messianic/Hebraic sense as encompassing the role of Mashiach ben Yosef, for his perfect life and resurrection from the dead are precursors to the coming Messianic age in which repair and perfection of the physical world will take place (Tikkun Olam). The Olam-Haba, which has many aspects of meaning in rabbinic thought, can be understood in one sense, to speak of a time to come after the Messianic age involving a spiritually higher plane of existence, and creation of “new heavens and new earth”.  This future “World to Come” is understood by the rabbis as being made possible and “ushered in” via the Messianic age under the leadership of Mashiach. 

Therefore,  the scepter will not depart from Judah until the Messianic age, the time when Judah and Shiloh/Joseph are together in Mashiach who will exercise both leadership roles of Mashiach ben David and Mashiach ben Yosef.   For the purpose and goal of the Messianic Age is to “usher in” a spiritually higher plan of existence in the World to Come.  In this coming world Yeshua will deliver the kingdom to G-d the Father who then will be the ruling and present monarch upon the earth.  The septer will depart from Judah in order to accomodate the glorious reign of HaShem Himself upon the earth.

Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.     (1 Corinthians 15:24-28 ESV)

. . . . . . .

My patient’s husband was delighted to have his wife’s prayer scarf returned.  With a smile on his face, he commented that although the scarf had been laundered the prayers and thoughts of others had surely not been “washed out”.  As I exited the room I turned back for a moment to see him gently placing the distinctive copper-color scarf upon his wife and kissing her cheek.  I couldn’t think of a nicer way to end my shift at work or to close out the year 2009.

_______________________________________________________________________________

[1]  Rav Tamir Granot, Parashat Vayechi, available at:  

http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/parsha66/12-66vayechi.htm

[2] Ibid.

Of Inspiration and Inconsistency

“I have doubts whether you have been as scrupulous with your research regarding the Inspiration of the New Testament as you have been with the doctrine of the Incarnation”

 In a conversation I had with a sincere individual a couple of weeks ago, the above sentiment was expressed regarding what seemed to them to be  inconsistency in my approach to the Apostolic Scriptures.  While scrupulously researching the doctrine of the Incarnation and concluding that it lacks validity, I yet accept (with little scholarly research involved) the Inspiration of the Apostolic Scriptures as canonized by the Church Fathers.  Admittedly, a claim of inconsistency is valid from a logical perspective.  

 Although I am somewhat acquainted with the viewpoints of textual criticism and debates regarding the validity of the Scriptures and its  inconsistencies as understood by the world of higher academia, I personally find such scholarship to be fruitless.  Inevitably,  considering the apparent logic and criticism of scholars regarding the Scriptural text can only lead to doubting or discarding most, if not all of it.  The outcome of such “scholarship” leaves one without a sure or consistent foundation for faith and practice at all. Therefore, I am of the opinion that G-d is well able to preserve His written instructions and truth despite the failings of His messengers and/or the criticism of His opponents.

Yet, in considering parashah Vayigash, I found myself facing a passage of scripture that presents many questions and inconsistencies.  In Genesis 46, after Jacob receives clear direction from HaShem to undertake the journey to Joseph in Egypt, a listing of the “children of Israel who were coming to Egypt”, is given beginning in verse 8, with the final tally of people listed in vv. 26-27.

All the persons coming with Jacob to Egypt – his own descendents, aside from the wives of Jacob’s sons – sixty-six persons in all.  And Joseph’s sons who were born to him in Egypt numbered two persons.  All the people of Jacob’s household who came to Egypt – seventy.  (Genesis 46: 26-27 Stone Chumash)

By simply adding the number of sons and grandsons listed by birth mother in this passage the total comes to 69 persons; 32 of Leah, 16 of Zilpah, 7 of Bilhah, and 14 of Rachel.  An additional discrepancy is found in the total of Leah’s sons and grandsons (plus daughter Dinah) given as 33 in v. 15 when by actual count 32 individuals are listed. This discrepancy is easily overcome based on the literal (p’shat) reading of the passage which commences with “Jacob and his offspring” immediately prior to listing Leah’s children and grandchildren (v.8).  Therefore, Jacob is counted in the number coming to Egypt along with Leah’s offspring as she is considered his primary wife being mother of the greatest number of his descendents.  Leah’s offspring plus husband Jacob equals 33. 

If Leah’s total is considered 33 then the plain tally of persons comes to 70.  Yet, in verse 26 a tally of 66 persons is given.  A careful reading of the Scripture indicates two details regarding the 66 individuals; a. they were “coming with Jacob to Egypt” and b. they were “his own descendants” (literally “of Jacob’s loins”).  Because Joseph and his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim were already in Egypt, they would not be “coming with Jacob to Egypt” and therefore could not be included in this total.  Jacob himself also could not be included because he was the progenitor and not one of “his own descendents”.  The total of seventy minus four (Joseph, Manasseh, Ephraim, Jacob) equals 66 individuals who accompanied Jacob to Egypt and were his direct descendants. 

With this settled, yet another apparent mathematical difficulty presents in v. 27 in which the sons of Joseph born to him in Egypt are numbered at two with the total individuals who came to Egypt tallied at 70.  In Midrash Rabbah (Genesis 94:9) R. Levi said in the name of R. Samuel b. Nahman; “Have you ever seen a man give his neighbor sixty-six glasses, then give him another three and count them seventy?”.  In other words, the math doesn’t add up, for 66 plus 3 (Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh) equals 69 (not 70).  The identity of the mysterious 70^th person has many opinions among the rabbis who conjecture that this person was Moses mother Jochebed (who was born as the caravan of Jacob entered Egypt), Dan’s son Hushim, or Serah the daughter of Asher. 

But in the most literal sense it is the “people of Jacob’s household” that define the 70 individuals of v. 27.  Joseph, Manasseh, and Ephraim were of Jacob’s household regardless of being already in Egypt.  Logically the household would also include the patriarch or head, Jacob himself (as the seventieth person).  This identical total is also found in Exodus 1:1-5 in which the children of Israel who “emerged from Jacob’s loins” and came with Jacob to Egypt, along with Joseph who was already in Egypt, is given as 70 persons.  In Deuteronomy 10:22 Moses also reiterates; “with seventy souls did your ancestors descend to Egypt”.

For the believer in Yeshua and the Apostolic Scriptures, this most logical and plain understanding of Genesis 46:8-27 hits a snag when compared with Stephen’s speech before the Sanhedrin in Acts 7:14;

 And Joseph sent and summoned Jacob his father and all his kindred, seventy-five persons in all.  (Acts 7:14 ESV)

 Acts chapter seven is a veritable minefield of inconsistencies and errors in the precise minds of the textual critics.  Various scholars have listed from five to fifteen deviations and/or inconsistencies in the details of Stephen’s speech as compared with the record of the Hebrew Scriptures regarding the history of the Jewish people.  Details such as G-d appearing to Abraham in Mesopotamia (7:2) (instead of Haran as given in Genesis 12) and Jacob being buried in the tomb Abraham bought in Shechem (7:15-16) (rather than the tomb Abraham bought in Machpelah in Genesis 23) cause critics to smirk at remarks that were presumably spoken with the wisdom and inspiration of the Holy Spirit (cf. chapter 6 vv. 10, 16).  

 Stephen’s listing of the total number of Jacob’s kindred as 75, is perhaps one of the least confounding inconsistencies found in Acts seven for it is clearly based on the Septuagint rendering of Genesis 46:26-27;

 And all the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, who came out of his loins, besides the wives of the sons of Jacob, all the souls were sixty-six.  And the sons of Joseph, who were born to him in the land of Egypt, were nine souls; all the souls of the house of Jacob who came with Joseph into Egypt, were seventy-five souls. (Genesis 46:26-27 LXX)

 The Septuagint also gives the number of “souls of Jacob” in Exodus 1:5 as 75 while listing 70 souls of the fathers who went down to Egypt in Deuteronomy 10:22. To add to the confusion the Septuagint  expands the listing of Joseph’s descendents given in Genesis 46:20.  While the Hebrew (Masoretic) text lists Joseph and his sons Manasseh and Ephraim exclusively, the Septuagint adds five additional people (the son and grandson of Manasseh as well as two sons and a grandson of Ephraim) to the listing.

In the face of these apparent contradictions, the majority of Christian commentators are quick to point out that the Septuagint was the most widely disseminated and familiar translation of the Tanakh in the Greek-speaking world and was therefore naturally employed by Stephen in his speech before the Sanhedrin.  St. Jerome, in Hebrew Questions, understands that Luke purposely used the familiar Septuagint rendering of Genesis 46 in Stephen’s speech in order not to confuse his predominately Gentile and/or Hellenist Jewish audience.  Jerome also relates that since Luke is traditionally understood to have been a proselyte to Judaism he would have been “ignorant of Hebrew letters”, therefore, the Septuagint would hold more authority in the eyes of his audience than [a more Biblically precise reckoning given by] the author himself.  [1]

Although the Septuagint total differs from the Hebrew Masoretic text in both Genesis 46 and Exodus 1 –while yet agreeing with the Masoretic total of 70 in Deuteronomy 10:22 — the lack of objection on the part of the Sanhedrin proves that the sum of 75  individuals was within the pale of Orthodoxy of first century Judaism.  Instead of being a contradiction of Scripture Stephen’s reckoning was somehow a compliment of it.  

Charles Wordsworth, in his commentary on Acts, astutely points out that in both the Septuagint and Hebrew Masoretic text the total of 70 is related to Jacob’s kindred who initially descended into Egypt.  The sum of 75 as used in the Septuagint is in relation to Jacob’s total kindred within Egypt itself (including Joseph and sons who were in Egypt, those who descended from Canaan into Egypt, and the grandsons of Joseph who were yet to be born within Egypt).  [2]

St. Augustine (City of God, Volume II) understands the whole period that Joseph lived after summoning Jacob’s kindred to Egypt (71 years) as being the time of their entrance into Egypt.  This is based on Genesis 50:23 which describes Joseph as living to see his great-grandsons through both the lines of Ephraim and Manasseh.  Because Joseph’s great-grandson through Manasseh (Gilead) and through Ephraim (Eran) are listed in the Septuagint account of Genesis 46:20, the 75 souls of the house of Jacob who came with Joseph into Egypt includes not only the initial 70 who descended into Egypt but also the grandsons and great-grandsons that Joseph lived to see born to him in Egypt before his death.  [3]

With this in mind, Parashah Vayigash can be understood as presenting two aspects of the journey to Egypt, one being Jacob’s “coming unto Joseph” (45:18) and the other being Jacob’s “coming into Egypt” (46:26-27).  The Hebrew Masoretic text of Genesis 46 and Exodus 1 emphasizes Jacob’s initial “coming into Egypt” along with the sons’ and grandsons’ of “his loins” at that time being a total of 70 in number. The Septuagint focuses on Jacob’s kindred “coming unto Joseph” which includes all the “souls of the house of Jacob” who came “with Joseph” into Egypt (Genesis 46:27 LXX). This encompasses the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Joseph born in Egypt, (based on Genesis 46:20 and 50:23) who are reckoned to be members of Jacob’s household and total 75 individuals.

In standing before the Sanhedrin, Stephen was defending himself against the charges, leveled against him by members of the Synagogue of the Freedmen.  The charges were that he spoke blasphemous words against the Temple and the Torah by teaching that Yeshua would destroy the Temple and change the customs of Moses (cf. Acts 6:9, 13-14).  Based on context, it would seem that the trumped-up charges were a result of the semicha (ordination) process that Stephen and six others had undergone in the assembly of believers in Jerusalem.  The twelve Apostles had charged the assembly with choosing seven men “full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom” to have authority in caring for the widows among them.  Based on the assembly’s recommendation, the Apostles prayed and laid hands upon Stephen and six other men (Acts 6:1-6).  

The manner of “laying on of hands” (semicha/ordination) that Stephen and the others had received was unconventional based on Talmudic accounts of the semicha process in the time of the second Temple.  According to the Jerusalem Talmud (Sanhedrin 19a) the custom of semicha involved each teacher ordaining his own students.  This practice was based on the original account of semicha given in Torah, in which Moses transferred his authority to his student Joshua through the laying on of hands, therefore every student was to be ordained by the hands of his teacher.  [4]

In Stephen’s case it was the congregation of believers who had elected him to receive semicha and not an individual Apostle under whom he had been studying.  Based on Stephen’s name being of Greek origin, it is likely that he was a Hellenist Jew who perhaps was one of the 3,000 Jewish pilgrims who had come to faith in Yeshua during the feast of Shavuot in Jerusalem (Acts 2). [5]  If this was the case, then Stephen, along with an influx of numerous Hellenist Jewish believers, would have been involved in the Jerusalem assembly for only a short time and been relatively unknown to the twelve Apostles, having no opportunity to study under them or under other rabbis in the community.  Therefore, the Apostles entrusted the choice of seven men worthy to have authority over the widows to the congregation who would better know the character of the men among them.

Although the recommendation of the congregation indeed produced seven worthy and able leaders, to the Jewish community in general this unconventional semicha process could be viewed as a threat to a custom of Moses given in the Torah and to the authority of the Temple itself, as the members of the Sanhedrin were also required to undergo a formal semicha/ordination process [6].  Interestingly, it was a synagogue of Hellenist Jews, the Freedmen, who instigated accusations against Stephen as a Hellenist Jew occupying an authoritative role within a Jerusalem synagogue community, something which most likely was seen as stepping outside of his rightful boundaries within the Jewish community.   

Therefore, Stephen’s use of the Septuagint rendering of Genesis 46 is well thought out and purposeful based on the accusations leveled against him, as the Septuagint focuses on individuals born of Jacob’s line in Egypt.  Those born within the strange land and place of exile were equally children of promise as those born in Canaan, in the Promised Land.  Both were considered to be of the House of Jacob with all the rights and privileges thereof.  Stephen, as one being born in a “strange land” (Diaspora) subtly and wisely presents an aspect of Biblical history that would uphold his right, as a son of Jacob, to occupy a role of leadership within the Jewish community in the Promised Land.

Suddenly the smirk of the textual scholar turns into a spark of inspiration and understanding for the devout.  For inevitably the Scripture is not occupied with the precision and logic of scholarly minds — which considers inspired details as the columns of a ledger — but instead is concerned to communicate a perspective to be understood and embraced as a way of life.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In studying Jacob’s journey to Egypt in Vayigash and its connection to Acts 7:14, I was reminded of the fact that the traditional yartzheit of St. Stephen is December 26th, the day after Christmas. On this day the death of the first martyr of the Messianic assembly is remembered.  How fitting and “inspirationally” ironic that the parashah of this week would so honor and exonerate a very misunderstood man.  One who the critical scholars understand to be inconsistent and riddled with error and one who traditional Christianity understands as refuting the Torah through the wisdom and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  

 ________________________________________________________________________

[1] C.T.R. Hayward (translator), St. Jerome’s Hebrew Questions on Genesis, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001, pp. 79-81.

 [2] Charles Wordsworth, The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (Book of Acts), Rivingtons, London, 1867, p. 68.

 [3] St. Augustine (Bishop of Hippo), City of God Volume II, book XVI, chapter 40.

 [4]  Jerusalem Encyclopedia entry; Ordination, available at:  http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=119&letter=O&search=ordination

 [5] D.T. Lancaster, Torah Club Volume 4 (B’sorat HaMashiach), First Fruits of Zion, Littleton, CO, 2002 p. 953.

 [6] Jerusalem Encyclopedia, ibid.

A Thin Veneer of Authenticity

A couple of weeks ago, a friend came to me with an unusual request.  In her hand was a document, five paragraphs in length, written in English which she desired to have translated into Hebrew.  The document was written by a friend of hers whose daughter had recently become engaged.  This friend’s family is into “Hebraic roots” and had composed a ketubah document/contract to recognize or make “official” the engagement of their daughter.  Planning to hold a formal ceremony, they desired to have the contract written in both English and Hebrew. 

Although I felt somewhat honored that this person would come to me regarding this, it was far beyond my ability to translate such an extensive English text into Hebrew.  However, I did know of someone who would be able to accomplish the task, a native Israeli whose mother tongue is Hebrew.  After contacting this person they were agreeable to look at the document and see what they could do.  Two days later the translation was completed and the finished document arrived in my email.  A little note was attached explaining that some of the English phraseology was difficult to translate exactly into Hebrew but hopefully the translation provided would be acceptable. 

I forwarded the translated document to my friend who called to tell me how delighted she was with the finished product.  I related to her that some of the phraseology may not be exact and expressed hopes that the individuals reading the document in Hebrew at the ceremony would be able to do so without the aid of nikkud (vowel points) which was not included in the translation.  My friend laughed and said; “no one in the family or attending the engagement ceremony knows how to read Hebrew, they’ll never know the difference if a few things didn’t translate smoothly”.  Taken aback, I questioned why the engaged young ladies’ family would desire to have the contract translated.  What was the purpose for this?  “For effect, I suppose” was my friend’s answer as she added that the family thought it would be “cool” to have the contract in both English and Hebrew. 

This struck me as very odd, and in a way seemed insincere.  I suddenly felt bad about enlisting my Hebrew speaking acquaintance regarding this. I thought about the carefulness and exactness with which the document was translated and concerns regarding correctness and appropriateness in translation.  Such conscientiousness would serve no real purpose except to create a document which presented little more than a thin veneer of Jewish authenticity.

Along the same lines, during Hanukkah, Torah observant believers participate in a celebration which can easily incorporate little more than a thin veneer of Jewish authenticity. With this reality and concern in mind, I have noticed the tendency among conscientious Messianic ministries and writers to stress the fact that “Hanukkah is more than latkes and dreidels”.  With all the outward trappings that Hanukkah brings, the Torah observant believer is encouraged to celebrate with an awareness of both the historic and prophetic meaning of the season.  The books of Maccabees are reviewed, the prophecies of Daniel are related, and the warnings of Yeshua regarding the abomination of desolation are considered.  At the heart of it all, the non-Jewish individual, who may question participation in a Jewish nationalistic celebration with no Biblical mandate, is directed to John 10:22-23 as a proof-text confirming such observance. 

 And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch.  (John 10:22-23 KJV)

The fact that Yeshua made the scripturally non-obligatory journey to the Temple in Jerusalem at the time of the Feast of Dedication indicates the importance of the celebration to him personally.  If Hanukkah was meaningful to the Master, then of course it should be meaningful to those who believe in and follow him. The setting of Solomon’s Porch is also seen as significant based on the midrash that Mashi’ach will enter the Temple in Jerusalem through the eastern gate (employing the imagery of Zechariah 14:4 and Ezekiel 43).  Since Solomon’s Porch is understood to have been located just opposite the eastern gate, Yeshua’s presence there for Hanukkah presents great Messianic significance and symbolism regarding the one who will ultimately restore Jerusalem and rededicate the Temple at the End of Days.  [1]

 Yet, is this all that John 10 (beginning at verse 22) is meant to communicate?  Is it simply a proof-text providing believers in Yeshua permission to participate in and spiritual symbolism to contemplate regarding the celebration of Hanukkah?  In context, John 10:22-23 is just the “tip of the iceberg” being the introductory setting of Yeshua’s interactions with the Jews and his teachings that follow in vv. 24-39. 

 As Yeshua is seen walking in Solomon’s Porch the Jews surround him and admonish him to “tell us plainly” regarding if he is the Messiah.  Perhaps the fact that Yeshua is described as “walking” in this scenario relates that he had just entered the Temple complex via the eastern gate and made his way into the porch area that was opposite it.  This prompted the question of the Jews as based on the traditional understanding that the Mashi’ach would enter the Temple via this very gate.  What better setting to ply this man regarding his Messianic aspirations?  Yeshua points to his works as bearing witness of him and explains that those questioning do not believe because they are not one of his “sheep”, who hear and follow him.  Yeshua then explains that his “sheep” are given eternal life by him and cannot be “snatched out of” his hand nor out of the hand of his Father, concluding with the statement that; “I and the Father are one”.

At this point, the Jews take up stones to stone him, not due to his works, but with the understanding that Yeshua is claiming to be G-d incarnate.  From a traditional Christian perspective, v. 33 is understood as a proof-text of Yeshua’s divinity as the Jews recognized that he was claiming to be G-d.  However, based on context this is questionable. First of all, Yeshua clearly states (v.29) that the Father is greater than all, presumably including himself.  Also, the statement that “I and the Father are one” is presented regarding the eternal status of the “sheep” or believers who hear and follow Yeshua.  Both Yeshua and HaShem are of the same purpose regarding eternal life for believers, that no one can snatch them out of Yeshua’s hand or HaShem’s hand. In this way they share a common goal and “are one”. 

Throughout the Apostolic Writings the phrase and concept of “being one” is used in the common and practical sense of two individuals having “one purpose”.  In 1 Corinthians 3:8 Paul speaks of “planting seeds” which “Apollos watered” explaining that “he who plants and he who waters are one”.  The Greek word heis/εἷς used in the Corinthians verse is the exact word found in John 10:30 in which Yeshua describes himself and HaShem as “one”.  Yeshua himself presented the concept of “being one” in John 17:11, 21-22, in praying that his followers would be “one” in the same way that he and HaShem are “one”.   

Since “being one” in its most common sense is to be of “one purpose” in the context and meaning of the Apostolic Writings, why would the Jews accuse Yeshua of claiming to be G-d incarnate?  The answer may very well have to do with the account taking place during Hanukkah.  Fresh on the mind of every Jew at this season was the person of Antiochus Epiphanes, a man who proclaimed himself to be Zeus (or possibly another Greek god) incarnate.  For a Hellenistic king to claim to be a manifestation of a god was commonplace.  However, Antiochus took this divine role to extremes by referring to himself as Theos Epiphanes (god made manifest) instead of simply “Epiphanes” (as his predecessors had) and in being the first Hellenistic king to mint coins in honor of his divine status.  [2]

To a Jew, the claim of a Greek king to be the manifestation of a pagan god would be considered little more than a worthless and common idolatrous practice. For such a claim to come from a fellow Jew, would make him an apostate cut off from the community of Israel and worthy of death by “the hand of heaven”.  Although some commentators understand the Jews’ accusation of v. 33 to be speaking of Yeshua’s claim to be “a god” (and not “the G-d” due to the absence of the definite article in Greek), if this were true then certainly his accusers would not have attempted to stone him for blasphemy.  For the death penalty involving blasphemy as described by Torah has to do with HaShem alone and is unconcerned with claims or representations regarding other pagan “gods”.

Therefore, the Jews seem to be accusing Yeshua of something more serious than, but along the same lines as, Antiochus Epiphanes, of claiming to be the true G-d, HaShem, in human form. Although some commentators point out that no Jew in his right mind would suggest that HaShem could be incarnated, yet, perhaps like the Hellenistic king at the center of the Hanukkah story, Yeshua’s accusers understood him as taking things to irrational extremes by proclaiming himself to be G-d in human form. In response to this accusation Yeshua quotes Psalm 82:1,6 which describes people who received and administered the word of G-d as being legitimately referred to as “gods” and “sons of the Most High”. 

Instead of affirming that he is G-d incarnate, Yeshua places the Jews accusation in proper Biblical perspective.  According to Scripture, one who receives the Word of G-d can be understood as “god” (Elohim) and a “son of G-d” in the sense that he is G-d’s representative here on earth.  Because Yeshua represented G-d more perfectly than any other person, by being “one” in purpose and mind with HaShem continually, to refer to himself as the Son of G-d and “one” with the Father was in no way blasphemous or to be understood as suggesting an incarnation of the Holy One.

In ending, Yeshua again refers the Jews to his works, for through them one “may know and believe that the Father is in me and I in Him” (KJV).  Interestingly, in the more ancient (NU) text v. 38 reads; “that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I in Him”.  In this sense, that the Father is in Yeshua and Yeshua is in the Father is something that is knowable and understood logically through his works, and not something that must be believed via faith alone because of its inability to be logically comprehend.

In rabbinic thinking a father is “in” his son via means of the birth process.  Through conception and birth the physical and personal characteristics of the father are passed on to his son.  A son, on the other hand, is “in” his father not by means of genetics or the birth process for the father being the progenitor does not have the physical or temperamental characteristics of the son.  The son instead is “in” the father through imitation of the father’s ways, or by adopting the father’s beliefs and lifestyle.  Yeshua’s works performed in the fullness of the Holy Spirit reveal the fact that the Father is in him, being conceived of the Holy Spirit, and anointed with the Spirit at his baptism.  His works being one in purpose with the Father and always and only what he saw the Father doing (John 5:19) speak of the fact that Yeshua is in the Father.

Far from containing a mere affirmation that he found Hanukkah meaningful or veiled Messianic symbolism in the setting of Solomon’s Porch, Yeshua’s interactions with the Jews in John 10:22-39 emphasizes that his works are the proof that he is one in purpose with the Father as Messiah of Israel.  Why would this emphasis be so necessary, especially during Hanukkah?

The Hanukkah story not only contains an inspirational account of resistance against assimilation and obedience to G-d and His Torah as seen in the actions of the Maccabees and those who fought alongside them.  But also contained there, is the real-life account of an inevitable process which occurs when a man is popularly embraced as the incarnation of deity.  In highlighting his divinity, Antiochus Epiphanes attempted to destroy all forms of worship except his own, understanding himself to have the authority to do so because he was divine. This new religion completely rejected Torah as irrelevant and harmful and prohibited specifically the observation of the Sabbath and Biblical feast days, the keeping of kashrut and circumcision.   Many sincere and honest Messianic writers recognize the uncomfortable comparison of this Torah rejection to erroneous doctrines found in classical Christianity which taught and still teaches the same basic things. 

As the recent ebook edition of First Fruits of Zion’s Light in the Darkness describes it;

For many centuries, Christianity has been following these laws of Antiochus—the laws of the abomination of desolation—instead of the Torah of God by requiring Jewish believers to forsake Torah when they become believers. [3]

According to 1 Maccabees 1:54 the “abomination of desolation” (or “desolating sacrilege”) was erected by Antiochus upon the altar of burnt offering in the Temple.  Although there are many opinions regarding exactly what this abomination entailed, in the most literal sense it was something that was affixed to the very altar of HaShem indicating that the sacrifices were no longer directed toward G-d, but toward Antiochus, the god incarnate, himself.  Three years later, when Judah Maccabee and his men drove back Lysias and his forces, in taking back the city of Jerusalem and initiating the cleansing of the Temple, the first thing they did was to pull down the “abomination” (1 Maccabees 6:7).  The Temple could not begin to function or be restored until the symbol of god incarnate was removed from its midst.

 In John 10:22-39 Yeshua downplays and redirects the association of himself as G-d incarnate that the Jews accused him of with Hanukkah and the story of Antiochus fresh on their minds.  Roughly 300 years later, the church fathers involved with the first Council of Nicea defined Yeshua for greater Christianity as being of the same essence and substance as G-d, being G-d incarnate.  In like manner an “Antiochus-type” story unfolded yet again as such a cornerstone of doctrine led to the proliferation of antinomianism and anti-Semitism to an extent and extreme never before known to mankind. 

Those in the Messianic movement of our day have returned to Torah and understand it to be G-d’s instructions for His people.  They follow the Scriptural example of Yeshua including his keeping of the Hanukkah season.  Yet, could it be that in essence we are attempting to “cleanse the Temple” and restore proper worship of HaShem, while yet holding on to a belief that Yeshua is G-d incarnate?  Is this even possible based on Yeshua’s own words in John 10?  For there, Yeshua reiterated that those who would consider him to be proclaiming an incarnate status equal to HaShem had not heard him and did not believe him (cf. v. 38).  How blatant these questions seem in considering more than just the surface niceties and introductory thoughts of John 10 in relation to what Yeshua actually taught during the Feast of Dedication. In celebrating Hanukkah, Yeshua emphasized his works and oneness in purpose with the Father as proofs of who he was.  This is the voice that his sheep hear and that they follow in believing in him and observing G-d’s Torah.  These are not easy questions to consider, and veer on the heretical in the minds of most.  But perhaps they are the questions that need to be addressed in order to move beyond a thin veneer of Jewish authenticity in following Torah while yet proclaiming Yeshua as the Messiah of Israel.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A few days after receiving the finished translated ketubah document, my friend came to my house to drop off a thank you card and gift certificate for the person who did the translation work.  Oddly enough she seemed very nervous regarding this thank you and wanted me to review what she had handwritten inside a most lovely stationary note card.  The words were very fitting and very nice and I saw no difficulty with her sentiments there.  As she tucked the gift certificate inside the card and sealed the envelope she added; “I didn’t write ‘G-d bless you’ or anything like that because it just seemed inappropriate”. 

Ironically enough, she said this as we were standing in the entryway of my home in which a large framed and matted calligraphy of the Aaronic Blessing is displayed on the wall.  The first words of the blessing being “the L-RD bless you”.  I couldn’t help but think that the sentiments she felt were inappropriate for a Jew encompass the opening words to what is perhaps the most Jewish of all blessings.  But, giving it a second thought, perhaps it was most prudent to leave out such sentiments, based on history and definitions and doctrinal considerations that could make such an expression from a Gentile Christian to a Jew a very complicated matter indeed.

_________________________________________________

[1] First Fruits of Zion, Light in the Darkness (Hanukkah and the Disciples of Yeshua), Electronic Publication, 2009, p. 22, available at:   http://ffoz.org/gifts/hanukkah.html

 [2] James C. VanderKam, From Revelation to Canon; studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple, Brill Academic Publishers, Leiden, the Netherlands, 2000, pp. 155-156.

 [3] Light in the Darkness, p. 31.

The Way of Women

As I sat at Thanksgiving dinner this past Thursday, enjoying the opportunity to host my family in my home, I brought up a question to my father that had been on my mind over the previous week.  The question stemmed from my study of Parashah Toldot in which Isaac sends Jacob off to Haran to find a wife from the family of Rebecca’s brother Laban.  The question is asked; “Why would Isaac send Jacob away to a known idolatrous family headed by a greedy and deceptive patriarch, to find a wife?” 

 The commentators explain that in any given marriage the daughters will tend to resemble the characteristics of their father’s sisters while the sons will resemble their mother’s brothers.  This is understood by the fact that Rebecca (also a product of an idolatrous home) had a godly disposition and character traits of kindness, hospitality and diligence which is understood to come from the feminine line of her father that included Sarah, Abraham’s wife. Therefore, Isaac sent Jacob to Laban’s family with confidence that a godly wife could be found there.

 With these details in mind I began to contemplate my own lineage, and quickly came upon a quandary, for my father’s line as far back as I could remember, has produced no female offspring. There is no “father’s sister” to consider regarding my own character traits and tendencies.  My father has one brother and his father had one brother, and my grandfather’s father had one brother.  Yet, I was uncertain if “great-grandpa B” perhaps also had a sister, and so I asked my father over Thanksgiving dinner about this. 

 It turns out that my great grandfather had just one brother and prior to that the family was in Europe, residing in a now forgotten town in the southern part of Germany.  With the family being small and the genealogy sketchy, any female influence in my father’s patriarchal line is information unavailable and lost to me. The “way of women” in this regard is something that I cannot know.

 With this traditional understanding of lineage and character traits fresh on my mind I found myself contemplating the actions of Jacob’s wife Rachel this week in Parashah Vayetze, Genesis 31.  As Jacob prepares his family to return to the land of Canaan via G-d’s command, Rachel decides to steal the teraphim belonging to her father Laban while he is away shearing the sheep.  This leads to Laban’s hostile pursuit of the family as they journey toward Canaan and bitter accusations of Jacob’s character and actions.  Being unaware of what Rachel had done, Jacob invites Laban to search the entire camp and vows that anyone found in possession of the idols will be put to death.  As Jacob and Leah’s tents are searched, Rachel hides the teraphim in the saddle bags of her camel upon which she seats herself.  After searching Rachel’s tent her father comes to her personally in v. 35;

 “She said to her father, ‘Let not my lord find it annoying that I cannot rise up before you, for the way of women is upon me’.  Thus he searched but did not find the teraphim.” (Stone Chumash)

Although the commentators present various opinions regarding Rachel’s motivation for taking the teraphim, they generally agree that her actions were honorable. Yet, how can it be that one who dishonored her father, concealed things from her husband, and even perhaps lied regarding “the way of women” (menstruation) being upon her (as it is very possible that she was already pregnant with Benjamin who was born while journeying in Canaan), is yet understood to be a woman of godly character?  And if Rachel is a woman of honorable actions in this scenario, why do the commentators understand that her death in giving birth to Benjamin was a direct result of the vow Jacob made regarding the demise of the one in possession of Laban’s idols?

In considering Rachel’s motivation three general angles are presented by the commentators.  One being that Rachel desired to discourage Laban from idol worship by removing the teraphim from his possession.  Genesis Rabbah explains that Rachel’s actions were for the “sake of heaven” as she was concerned with going away to Canaan and leaving her father “in his errors”.  Rashi agrees that Rachel’s desire was to “separate her father from idol worship”.  Rabbeinu Bachya suggests that Rachel stole the idols in order to demonstrate to Laban that his gods were powerless.  Others view Rachel’s sitting upon the teraphim hidden in the camel saddle during her time of menstruation as a deliberate act of indiscretion meant to denigrate and humiliate them.

The difficulty in this view surrounds why Rachel would keep the idols in her possession instead of burying them or destroying them.  Certainly she would not return the idols to her father if she desired to wean him from worship of them.  Why then did she keep the teraphim, hide them from her father, and denigrate them in a way known only to her?

A second angle as presented by Ibn Ezra and Rashbam conjectures that Laban had the ability to practice divination and discern details of the future via means of his gods.  Fearing that Laban would use this ability to discover Jacob’s plans for the family’s departure, Rachel stole the idols to protect her family and enable them to depart without hindrance or violence.  By taking the gods Rachel also robbed Laban of the ability to discover the whereabouts of the family as they traveled on their journey. 

Again, problems occur in this view, for even without the idols, Laban is informed regarding the location of Jacob and his fleeing clan.  Ultimately Laban and his cohorts overtake the family and hinder their trip anyway. Regarding the idea of protection for her family as Rachel’s motivation, Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, 19:9) explains that she took the gods as a valuable bargaining tool, anticipating that Laban would attempt to hinder the family from leaving Haran.  With the gods in her possession she could “obtain her father’s forgiveness” (by returning the idols to him in exchange for her father’s well wishes upon the family’s journey).  According to Torah, Rachel never uses the gods in a bargaining fashion even when the opportunity to do so is presented through Laban’s searching of her personal belongings. 

More modern conjectures draw on ancient Near Eastern customs in which the possession of the family idols by a woman’s husband insured his legal right to his father-in-law’s property. [1] Rachel, therefore steals her father’s gods in order to secure his possessions for her husband. Although this view seems to be supported by Laban’s insistence, when his idols are not found, that everything Jacob owns belongs to him (31:43), Torah makes clear that Jacob’s inheritance is of Isaac and Abraham and not related to Laban’s possessions or rank within his household.

A purely contextual and archeological (non-rabbinic) approach to Rachel’s actions understands the teraphim to be idols in the shape of human beings.  This is based on 1 Samuel 19:13-16 in which David’s wife Michal placed a teraphim in David’s bed in order to trick Saul’s men (who were pursuing him) into believing that her husband was bedridden with sickness.  From this it is understood that Michal’s teraphim where human shape and life size.  Genesis 31 presents teraphim that are small enough to be hidden in a camel’s saddle.  Near Eastern archaeological excavations have unearthed large numbers of small human-shaped idol/amulets, many in the form of nude females understood to promote fertility.  This archaeological evidence combined with the Torah account of Michal (a woman who was barren) having teraphim in David’s home, suggests that the teraphim of the Tanakh describe typical idols of human form understood to aid fertility. [2]

With this in mind a possible motivation for Rachel’s stealing of the teraphim is as a fertility aid.  With the idols in her possession she becomes pregnant with Benjamin.  As she travails toward death during her delivery of Jacob’s twelfth son (Genesis 35:16-18), she appropriately names him Ben Oni which not only can be translated as “son of my sorrow” but can also allude to “son of my iniquity” — as oni has the same root (aleph-vet-nun) as the word avon which means “wickedness” or “iniquity”. In naming her son Ben Oni, Rachel proclaims the sorrowful judgment of death upon her due to her iniquity of trusting in idols. [3] Jacob, changes his son’s name to Benjamin meaning “son of the right hand”, alluding to G-d’s mercy (kabbalistically understood as represented by G-d’s right hand) in sparing the child from death.

Yet, what looks like a convincing argument based on context and historical considerations, still faces uncertainties’ for throughout the record of Genesis 31, the teraphim are referred to as Laban’s possessions and not Rachel’s (v. 19,30).  This implies that Rachel had no use for the gods and never considered them her personal property.

In a most interesting conjecture regarding Rachel’s stealing of the teraphim, Rabbi Moshe Shapiro defines the basic mindset of idol worship as trust in “cause and effect”.  Idolatry in its most basic form is to live life with the belief that certain efforts will produce certain results. [4] For Laban, possession of idols was understood to lead to protection and knowledge of future things. 

The Ramban suggests that the word “teraphim” comes from the Hebrew root meaning “weak”.  Idolatry is a weakened outlook on life that has faith in “one thing leading to another”.  Such a cold, linear and purely logical mindset is blind to G-d’s involvement in the world and in an individual’s life. [5]  In stealing the teraphim, Rachel’s motivation was to help Laban not rely on cause and effect.  By removing the gods Rachel knew that her father would expend much effort to retrieve them and that he would surely seek out the family as they traveled away from him.  In fact, the rabbi’s point out that Laban’s effort to catch up with Jacob’s caravan was so immense that he covered the same distance in a single day that it took the family seven days to travel (v. 23). Yet, despite such efforts the expected result did not occur and the gods were not found or retrieved.  In this Laban faced the opportunity to question why one thing was not leading to another and why such strenuous efforts ended in failure and to thereby have his faith in “cause and effect” broken. 

With this motivation in mind, if Rachel had buried or destroyed the idols she would have been guilty of the same mindset that she desired to rid her father of.  For in expending such effort she would logically expect that the idols would never be found or retrieved by her father.  But, by keeping the idols in her possession, Rachel trusted the outcome to G-d’s hands, for the possibility remained that the gods could have been discovered by Laban.  Although Rachel made every effort to keep her father from finding his idols, remaining seated upon the camel did not assure that Laban would not discover them, for the scripture says that he continued to search but did not find them (v.35). 

According to the opinion of R. Johanan in Genesis Rabbah (74:9) G-d changed the teraphim hidden in Rachel’s camel saddle into “goblets”. From this it is understood that Laban inspected the saddle bags by feeling them as Rachel remained mounted on the animal.  As he groped the bags the hidden idols came into his touch.  Instead of discerning the shape of carved human forms, he felt something that resembled goblets in his hands. 

It is known from the story of Joseph that goblets were used as a means of divination (Genesis 44:5).  Perhaps Laban concluded in feeling the “goblets” in Rachel’s saddle bag that she surely would not be in possession of his teraphim as she had tools of divination of her own (the goblets).  In this way, Laban’s efforts in searching did not lead to the expected outcome of finding his idols due to G-d’s involvement rather than Rachel’s calculated efforts (to destroy or hide them).

Rabbi Shapiro further clarifies that in voicing “the way of women” was upon her, Rachel presents a living lesson to Laban for a woman’s monthly cycle represents cause and effect.  Each month an egg is released from the ovary and if it is not fertilized death results and the uterine lining is shed.  However, this cycle does not guarantee fertility or the conception of a child.  A woman with a regular monthly cycle can have trouble conceiving while a woman with menstrual irregularities may conceive easily. Although the presence of a monthly cycle continues until menopause at age 50-55, once a woman reaches 40 years of age her fertility and likelihood of conception greatly decreases.  The “way of women” speaks of the fact that cause and effect do not solely dictate life’s events. [6]

Since menstruation would not have disabled Rachel from dismounting the camel, and she certainly could have stood in her father’s presence without touching and defiling him due to niddah, Rabbi Abraham (the son of Rambam) conjectures that Rachel’s flow began at the moment Laban approached her sitting upon the camel, making it humiliating to dismount and display her soiled garments and saddle pillow. [7]  It is possible that her “womanly time” came unexpectedly because she had been amenorrheic since the birth of Joseph (seven years earlier) and thereby unable to conceive.  With the onset of menses again, Rachel was fertile and conceived Benjamin whom she bore on the journey to Ephrath.  In this way, a beautiful example of G-d being both the means and the end, the ultimate cause and effect, was lived out right before Laban’s eyes at that very moment.

Considering the “way of women” as a physical picture that “cause” does not necessarily lead to “effect” due to HaShem’s sovereignty and involvement with the world and with individuals, brings to mind one of the most perplexing scriptures regarding women to be found in the Apostolic Writings;

“Yet she (women) will be saved through childbearing–if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control”.  (1 Timothy 2:15, ESV, parenthesis mine)

Although commentators suggest that this verse is speaking of Mary and the birth of Yeshua as the means of salvation, the literal rendering and context cannot support this view.  Understanding “saved” in this verse to speak of being “sanctified” or “set-apart” also leads to confusion and hurt for women who have never had children.  Are we to think that those who have borne children somehow are holier or more set-apart for HaShem than those who have not?

The difficulty here lies in the Greek word translated “childbearing” (teknogonia/ τεκνογονία) that occurs in this one verse of the Apostolic Writings alone, and has no LXX equivalent to inform its Hebraic meaning or usage. This word is a compound of teknon/ τέκνον  (child) and the base ginomai/ γίνομαι (to become). In the most basic sense teknogonia describes the ability of women to make a child “happen” or “come to pass”.  Of course, the “becoming” of a child involves much more than the physical act of giving birth, but has its beginning in conception which requires a monthly cycle. In this way, all women participate in the process of childbearing to some extent, through their physical make-up and monthly rhythm which is the basis for a child “coming to pass”.  

This verse is the summation of Paul’s halachah that women should not teach or usurp authority over men in the assembly of believers due to the fact that Adam was created first and that Eve was deceived to sin.  The deception presented by the serpent in the Garden certainly focused on “cause and effect”.  If the forbidden fruit was eaten Eve’s eyes would be opened and she would be like HaShem.  Paul perhaps is then saying that through the process and details of childbearing –which has its basis in the monthly cycle and includes marriage, childbirth, and parenting– women find a means of deliverance or protection from the tendency to be deceived by or trust in “cause and effect” in their lives.    

The monthly cycle brings with it a potential for conception but not the promise of it.  Every woman has concepts and goals in mind regarding her relationship with her husband on their wedding day.  Yet, such expectations are often unrealized or vastly different that what was first imagined as the marriage progresses through the years.  The birth of a child presents great hopes and dreams.  “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it” is the mantra and motivation for many a godly woman as she fulfills the unique role of setting the atmosphere and spiritual tone of the home. Yet, a godly child is not guaranteed despite the mother’s best efforts.

Perhaps the details and relationships involved in childbearing present the greatest opportunities in life for failure and disappointment despite one’s best and most sincere efforts. In this way, “childbearing” also provides women with opportunities to question and contemplate, to recognize HaShem’s involvement, and to have their eyes opened regarding the error of placing faith in “cause and effect” alone.  But as Paul points out, such opportunities will only be fruitful if the woman continues in “faith, charity, holiness and self-control”.  For infertility, singleness, marital challenges, and parenting failures can so easily lead to abandoning faith, bitterness of heart, self-focus, and excesses in thinking and in action.   

 . . . . . . . .

As conversation continued around the Thanksgiving table regarding family, relatives and genealogies, the suggestion was made by my mother that I should research a family tree.  Actually, I have contemplated doing this many times in the past and my choice would be to research my mother’s line from which my pedigree is established (based on rabbinic thinking).  I have done a bit of genealogical browsing online with little results.  Yet, living in the US gives me access to the largest repository of genealogical data in the world (kept by the Mormon’s in Salt Lake City, Utah).  But for some reason I find myself wary about pursuing this.

I know well enough that my focus would be to seek out the potential Jew in my family tree.  With my maternal grandfather’s family hailing from Slovenia (Ljubljana) and my maternal grandmother’s line from Ireland (Dublin) the likelihood is slim that a Jewish presence would be found in the maternal line.  But yet, what if it was?  How would this affect the way I view myself in Messiah and in relation to Torah?  Would such information tempt me to place faith in “cause and effect”?

For now I prefer to remain a “mystery woman” regarding my family line.  Although “the way of women” genealogically and paternally is not known to me, the “way of women” that godly Rachel represents and that Paul perhaps expounds upon, certainly is.  

______________________________________________________________

[1]  The Doctrine of Teraphim, available at:  http://kukis.org/Doctrines/Teraphim.pdf

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Rabbi Moshe Shapiro, as cited in, Mrs. Shira Smiles, Parashat Vayeitzei:  Divination and Prayer, available at: http://www.naaleh.com/viewclass/325/single/

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Rabbi Abraham as cited in, Sarah Aranoff Tuchman & Sandra E. Rapoport, The Passions of the Matriarchs, KTAV Publishing House, Jersey City, NJ, 2004, p. 304

Food for Thought on a Day Filled with Food

Thanksgiving 2009

Although the possibility is often presented, that the Thanksgiving of the Puritans was based on the festival of Sukkot in Scripture, the fact that the original celebration was observed for three days at an undetermined date sometime between late September and early November harkens back to traditional secular harvest festivals as held in their native England. From what I have read this original harvest feast was not called “Thanksgiving” by the Puritans, who used such a term to describe days of formal worship and prayer in which G-d was thanked for specific events (such as a victory in battle).  Such formal days of worship (called Thanksgiving) would not have included native Indian guests and celebrations (such as dancing and singing) as described in the first harvest festival of 1621.  But apart from the possible historical errors, if Thanksgiving is understood as a “Puritan version” of Sukkot, having religious significance as defined by Gentiles, then observant Jews would refrain from celebrating it based on Leviticus 18:3 which is halachically understood to prohibit imitation of or participation in religious (and/or “foolish”) celebrations or customs of the nations.  

I recently came across an article entitled “Is Thanksgiving Kosher?”which surprised me, for I have always considered Thanksgiving to be innocuous at best. In this article the opinions of three leading rabbis are given with two concurring that Jews may celebrate Thanksgiving as a secular holiday.  This concurrence is based on the understanding that Thanksgiving is not a religious observance among Gentiles and that it is not considered obligatory to celebrate it.  The dissenting opinion is based on the understanding that Thanksgiving is dangerously close to a religious holiday among the Gentiles because of its “fixed date on the Christian calendar”.  Interestingly, the Gra (Vilna Gaon), strongly opposed the celebration of Thanksgiving citing it as a “Gentile custom and law with no Jewish basis” and therefore possibly containing elements of idolatry.  

With this in mind, I wonder if it is prudent for Messianics to highlight a possible and uncertain connection between the Thanksgiving of the Puritans and Sukkot as a way of strengthening our Judeo-Christian heritage and dialogue with Jews, when such an association may lead to just the opposite effect in the understanding of observant Jews?  Historically, the facts seem to speak against Thanksgiving as a “Puritan Sukkot” based on the three day timeframe and uncertain date of this event, but also due to the fact that Thanksgiving was celebrated just one time, and was not an annual occurrence or tradition thereafter. Surely, if the Puritans were looking to Torah as a basis of this harvest festival, it would have been an annual occurrence as is Sukkot.  Also, if the Puritans created a “Christian Sukkot” that altered the timeframe and/or dating of the festival as given in Scripture, should this be something, that those of us who hold Torah as G-d’s divine and unchanging instructions, celebrate and/or highlight?  

Although the Puritans are greatly to be admired for their reverance of Scripture and religious zeal, the fact that the first Thanksgiving may well have been the observance of a secular tradition from their British homeland does not downplay the nobility and worthiness of such a celebration. Ironically, it would seem, that sticking with the historic facts, instead of trying to assign possible spiritual meaning to them, is in keeping with the spirit of Torah regarding national and secular celebrations for all of us who follow HaShem’s commands.  

 With those thoughts in mind, its time to fix the turkey and stuffing!

 Happy Thanksgiving : )

The Light of Sarah’s Tent

Last Friday, 18 minutes prior to sunset, at precisely 4:59 pm, I lit Shabbat candles, said a traditional blessing and proceeded to eat a nice erev Shabbat meal.  Literally millions of Sabbath keepers all over the world did the same thing on Friday evening, but for me this particular erev Shabbat was most meaningful.  It had been eight months since I last lit candles or enjoyed the first meal of Shabbat in my home. Because my Torah community meets from 7:30-10:00 pm on erev Shabbat year ‘round, it is impossible for me, per halachic time (in combination with Daylight Savings), to light candles at home except during the months of November – February.  Although I do not like the early darkness that the conclusion of Daylight Savings Time brings with it, I enjoy immensely the few short months in which I can welcome the Sabbath through the lighting of candles and participating in a special meal.

 In relating my situation to a person who is Shomer Shabbat this past week, it was suggested that I should refrain from making a blessing over the candles on erev Shabbat due to the fact that I must drive to attend prayer and study with my community which is 25 miles away from my home (and thereby transgress the prohibition of lighting a fire on Shabbat).  When one pronounces the blessing over the candles they welcome the Shabbat by taking upon themselves all the obligations and restrictions regarding this holy time, one of which, literally stated in Torah is to “not kindle a fire” (Exodus 35:3). 

Although I have studied the various rationalizations within Conservative and Reformed sects of Judaism for driving on Shabbat (in order to attend shul) there is no getting around the fact that fire is produced within the engine of a car and that fuel is added to the fire each time one presses on the accelerator. Although this situation has been discussed and considered by the elders of my community, with the consensus that Shabbat is a holy convocation in which G-d’s people should assemble, the fact remains that by driving to shul one very literally breaks the commandment prohibiting kindling a fire. 

 Suddenly, the most meaningful tradition of lighting the candles caused me to consider a horrible paradox regarding my personal observance.  How hypocritical it seems to be so very careful to light two candles 18 minutes prior to sunset, each one a physical symbol of the two forms of the Shabbat commandment “to remember” and “to observe”, and then some 90 minutes later to “fire up” the automobile in order to attend shul.  Although the Shomer Shabbat was gracious in suggesting that only the blessing be omitted (in order to avoid using the candles for a sacred purpose), in reality to light candles 18 minutes prior to sunset, as a symbolic statement of caution and commitment to not kindle a fire on Shabbat, really should not be done at all by one who purposefully chooses to kindle a fire based on good intentions and community approval.

Although the “black and white” of this situation is very obvious, the idea of not lighting candles to welcome Shabbat saddened me, for traditionally this is considered one of three important mitzvot given to women specifically (along with the separation of challah and the laws of niddah/family purity).  How interesting to realize, through Parashah Chayei Sarah this week, that such traditions are very ancient, being linked all the way back to Sarah herself. 

Genesis 24 contains the details of Abraham’s servant finding a wife for his son Isaac.  Toward the end of the chapter the mission has been accomplished and Rebecca is brought back to Canaan to meet her future husband.  As with all first meetings there was the usual awkwardness as Isaac notices camels coming from afar (and neglects to notice a beautiful woman riding on one of them toward him) and Rebecca (according to the midrash) literally falls off of her camel upon seeing her future husband in the distance and recoups her composure by veiling herself prior to their meeting.  After the initial meeting is accomplished v. 67 relates;

And Isaac brought her into the tent of Sarah his mother; he married Rebecca, she became his wife, and he loved her; and thus was Isaac consoled after his mother. (Stone Chumash)

 The Hebrew of this verse literally reads; And Isaac brought her into the tent, Sarah, his mother ( וַיְבִאֶהָ יִצְחָק, הָאֹהֱלָה שָׂרָה אִמּוֹ).  From this Rashi understands that by bringing Rebecca into the tent of Sarah, his deceased mother, she became the very image of Sarah herself.  Midrash Genesis Rabbah 60:16 describes three phenomena associated with Sarah’s tent; a.) A cloud hung over it b.) There was a blessing on the dough she prepared there and c.) The candles she lit on Shabbat continued to burn until the following Shabbat.  

From this the commentators derive that Sarah’s tent was a precursor of the Mishkan as both contained the visible presence of HaShem in the Cloud of Glory, bread that stayed continually fresh (the traditional understanding of the showbread) and a perpetual light (the traditional understanding of the seventh light of the menorah).  The three miracles also reflect the three mitzvot designated uniquely for women.  The cloud of glory represents the continual presence of holiness brought into the home through the laws of family purity.  The blessing of the dough represents the mitzvah of separating challah and the continuous Shabbat flame represents the mitzvah of kindling the Sabbath candles.

Midrash Tanchuma (Genesis 24:1) presents the tradition that Proverbs 31 was originally the eulogy Abraham composed for Sarah upon her death, which later became part of the book of Proverbs itself. The ancient hymn “Eshet Chayil” (A Woman of Valor), based on this Proverb, is sung by observant Jewish husbands to their wives prior to the blessings over the wine and bread on erev Shabbat.  The Proverb contains many allusions to midrash involving Sarah and her tent, including that her candle goeth out not by night (Proverbs 31:13).

When Sarah passed away the phenomena in her tent ceased. Not only was the tent vacant and unable to provide open hospitality, continually fresh challah bread, and Shabbat candles that burned for seven days, but the visible presence of G-d (in the Cloud of Glory) was removed.  According to Genesis Rabbah, when Isaac brought Rebecca to the camp the first thing he noticed was the way she separated challah and handled the dough with cleanness.  Upon witnessing this he immediately brought her into the tent of his mother and the three phenomena returned as before. 

In Rashi’s understanding of this midrash when Rebecca was brought into Sarah’s tent, the Shabbat candles burned for seven days, a blessing was found in the dough, and the Cloud of Glory reappeared over the tent.  The commentators wonder why Rashi’s description of the phenomena returning to Sarah’s tent is in reverse order as given in the Genesis Rabbah account (which lists the cloud returning first, followed by the blessing upon the dough and then the Shabbat candles burning for seven days).

Genesis Rabbah presents the return of the miracles of Sarah’s tent in chronological order.  When Rebecca entered the the tent the cloud of G-d’s glory reappeared immediately.  Rebecca was in the midst of making challah dough when Isaac brought her into his mother’s tent initially.  As she finished this task the next thing to occur was a blessing upon the dough (causing it to remain fresh continually).  After this, Shabbat would come and the candles would be kindled and remain alight until the following Shabbat.

Yet, Torah expresses in v. 67 that Isaac did not proceed to marry Rebecca or fall in love with her until he was convinced that she was “Sarah, his mother”, having identical spiritual qualities of his mother.  According to Rashi, the highest priority in Isaac’s mind to confirm Rebecca’s spiritual righteousness would be to witness her performing an actual mitzvah.  Of the three phenomena of Sarah’s tent, only one, the lighting of candles (representing abstaining from kindling a fire on Shabbat) is a literal Torah mitzvah.  When Rebecca lit the Shabbat lights and they remained burning for seven days this was the most important confirmation of her spiritual character and commitment to Torah in everyday life.  [1]

The handling of the dough and separation of challah was not a literal Torah command but rather a pious action of carefulness and cleanness in kneading the dough, which also was an important characteristic of Rebecca, but yet secondary to carrying out a mitzvah.  Finally, the Cloud of Glory appearing at the door of the tent had nothing to do with Rebecca’s actions at all, but was instead a direct miracle of HaShem.  Therefore, the Cloud of Glory did not necessarily provide evidence of Rebecca’s personal righteousness and is listed last in order by Rashi as the least important phenomena in Isaac’s mind to confirm Rebecca’s worthiness to be a matriarch in the line of his mother Sarah. [2]

These traditional tales so filled with details of interest and inspiration bring to mind Paul’s midrash of Galatians 4:22-26 in which Sarah, being the mother of the son of promise (Isaac), is likened as the mother of every believer (v. 26).  In this way every Gentile woman who believes in Yeshua is a daughter of Sarah, who, like Rebecca, has opportunity to attain spiritual qualities identical to Sarah.  Unfortunately, in our modern day religious mindset the purely miraculous is often seen as the greatest confirmation of spirituality. If a miraculous healing occurs or a miraculous rescue of some sort, or if a miraculous “gift of the Spirit” is evident, the individual is understood to have great faith and the “special touch” of G-d upon their lives.  Next in line is a person’s actions in general everyday living. If they show piety, modesty and moderation in day to day activities this is considered a pretty good indicator of personal righteousness.  Last on the list is keeping the mitzvot, for too much emphasis on “rules” comes uncomfortably close to legalism which threatens the grace of G-d in the minds of many. 

I would imagine that some reading this post would consider the suggestion given to me by the Shomer Shabbat to be nothing more than a burdensome and picky halachic detail.  The fact that I have contemplated it and find myself in a paradox because of it might be viewed as being too concerned with unnecessarily strict observance, perhaps even bordering on legalism.  After all, Yeshua allowed his disciples to pick grain on the Sabbath and pointed out to the disapproving Pharisees that G-d “desires mercy not sacrifice” (Hosea 6:6).  Surely G-d would show mercy toward one who is committed to meet with others on Shabbat despite the unavoidable necessity to travel by car to accomplish it.  For not only does Leviticus 23 describe the Shabbat as a holy convocation, but Yeshua’s custom was to assemble in the synagogue on that day, and the book of Hebrews admonishes that we not forsake assembling together. 

Yet, the truth still remains that not kindling a fire on Shabbat is a direct and literal command of scripture.  To work on Shabbat or desecrate it through disobedience carries with it the penalty of death and being cut-off from the community (karet).  How can we say that creative work, such a kindling a fire, may be done in order to assemble with community, when by doing such work on Shabbat we are cut-off from the community of G-d according to Torah? 

In Judaism there is a concept that when a positive and negative commandment conflict, the positive supersedes the negative. This seems to give a way out of the dilemma regarding driving a car in order to assemble on Shabbat.  Since lighting a fire is a prohibition (negative commandment) and a holy convocation is a positive commandment then assembling on Shabbat takes precedence over kindling a fire.  But, this concept of one commandment usurping the other is only true when both positive and negative commandments are between man and G-d.  In the case that the positive commandment is between man and man and the negative commandment is between man and G-d, the positive commandment cannot overrule a prohibition involving man and his relation to his Maker. [3] Therefore, assembling with others (man to man) cannot usurp the prohibition of lighting a fire on Shabbat (man to G-d).

The concept of mikra (convocation) as seen in Leviticus 23 is often highlighted in Messianic literature as a priority regarding Shabbat.  In some articles I have read, mikra is understood to hold the same meaning as “the assembly of believers” in the Apostolic Scriptures.  Yet, considering the actual Hebrew term mikraei kodesh (holy convocations) used in Leviticus 23 regarding Shabbat and the festivals, is quite revealing.  According to the commentators the most literal understanding of mikra is not “assembly” but rather a “calling” as in something “called out” in the sense of a “holy calling” or a time that calls one to holiness.   It’s also interesting to note in 23:2 that the holy convocations are proclaimed by the people and not by HaShem.  From this the sages derive the responsibility of the religious rulers (Sanhedrin) to establish the calendar and determine the dates of the festivals.  In this way, each festival date on the calendar is a proclamation that calls the individual Israelite to a greater level of holiness through observance of the festivals. The convocation itself is a “calling” not an assembly per se.  Instead, because such a calling is an opportunity for holiness, an assembly would certainly be appropriate, but is not specifically commanded. 

In a most logical sense, based on the literal context of Leviticus 23, the holy convocations described there cannot speak of an assembly because the nation in the wilderness was already assembled at the foot of Sinai or in camp formation around the Tabernacle each Shabbat.  Once the wilderness experience ended the holy convocation or “proclamation that calls one to holiness” was practically understood as an invitation for G-d’s people to gather in prayer (according to Nachmanides), for the only festivals in which men were commanded to assemble at the Temple were Pesach, Shavuot and Sukkot.   

In the Apostolic Scriptures, the Greek word ekklēsia/ἐκκλησία (used 115 times for assembly or church in the KJV) as well as the Greek word episunagōgē /ἐπισυναγωγή (used in Hebrews 10:25 regarding not forsaking “assembling yourselves together”) are not used in the LXX to translate mikra (convocation).  Rather, anagnōsis/ἀνάγνωσις and klētos/κλητός are Greek words used in the Apostolic Scriptures which are employed in the LXX to translate mikra.  Anagnōsis is found three times and in all cases refers to the reading of scripture publicly (Acts 13:15, 2 Cor 3:14, 1 Tim 4:13).  Klētos has 11 occurrences each time describing those who are “called”.  This seems to indicate that the most literal definition of mikra (convocation) in regard to religious life in general and observing the festivals/Shabbat in particular, focuses on a public proclamation or personal calling rather than assembling together with other believers. 

Perhaps for this very reason the Orthodox rabbis teach that if one can only attend synagogue on Shabbat by means of driving, they should stay home and pray privately.  Shabbat is never understood in a rabbinic sense as a  day of communal prayer, study or fellowship, neither is it a time for public scripture reading — for Jews assemble daily for prayer, read Torah in the synagogue on Mondays and Thursdays, and have other opportunities for fellowship and study throughout the week.  Instead, Shabbat is understood first and foremost as a day of rest, in perfect keeping with the Torah definition of it. [4]

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

As a daughter of Sarah I too have experienced miracles in my tent of life.  The opening of my eyes to the beauty and truth Torah (in the midst of a time of severe rebellion against G-d), and the opportunity to meet with like-minded believers in my area on a regular basis are truly events straight from the hand of HaShem.  My day to day life is marked out by a desire for piety as well as modesty and moderation that is seen as “odd” by many in the work-a-day world. But the truest determination of my spiritual character is defined by my seriousness and commitment to Torah and the mitzvot found there. 

For this reason I will spend the upcoming erev Shabbat in my “tent”.  At home, apart from my community leaving behind a paradox that I must come to terms with, at least for one blissful 25 hour period.  What will become of this down the road, I don’t know as of yet.  All I know is that my deepest desire it to have a tent full of light, like Sarah’s, filled with the light of Torah truth and practice that doesn’t darken after Havdalah, but continues to illuminate every facet of existence, every day of the week.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] The Shabbos Light (based on Likkutei Sichos, vol. 15, pp. 163-173), available at:  http://www.sichosinenglish.org/essays/51.htm

[2] Ibid

[3] Rabbi Yosef Kalatsky, Parashas Kedoshim, available at:  http://www.torah.org/learning/beyond-pshat/5763/kedoshim.html

[4] Rabbi Hayim Halevy Donin, To Be a Jew, Basic Books, New York, 1991, p. 96