Nothing less than Perfection

The topic of perfection is one that surrounds Abraham’s circumcision in the rabbinic literature.  In Genesis 17:1 HaShem commands Abraham to walk before Him and “be perfect” in the context of the Covenant of Circumcision.  From this it is understood that the act of circumcision perfected Abraham.  Parashah Vayeira begins with Abraham recuperating from his circumcision.  Traditionally understood as three days after the procedure itself, three angels come to visit him at his tent.  The angels are offered hospitality and announce to Sarah that within a year she will have a son. 

Yet, the purpose of the angels visit can be questioned.  Why is it that they came to Abraham and Sarah that day?  Why did they have to announce the impending birth of Isaac to Sarah at all?  Just three days earlier, HaShem had revealed to Abraham that at the same time next year, Sarah would have a son (cf. Genesis 17:21).  Had Abraham forgotten to mention this to his wife?  Had he kept this a secret from her?  How can we reconcile Abraham’s perfection in obeying the mitzvah of circumcision with the fact that his wife seems not to have been informed by him regarding the upcoming birth of their son, so that angelic messengers had to be sent to announce this to her?

Why and how circumcision achieved perfection for Abraham has various opinions among the sages.  One view is to define circumcision as a form of “din” or G-d’s strict justice.  Abraham’s character is traditionally understood to have been that of “chesed” or lovingkindness and goodness.  Abraham was a master of chesed, showing kindness to all, offering hospitality, and turning no one away.  Yet, to be perfect in the Biblical sense, is to emulate HaShem, who in His interactions with the universe and with mankind displays both chesed and din, both lovingkindness and justice.  [1]

By being circumcised Abraham had to obey G-d in a strict sense of justice.  Abraham’s first mitzvah was one of din.  Circumcision logically would seem irrational and unkind, causing some bloodshed and much pain.  Yet, Abraham could not be perfect, he could not emulate HaShem through chesed alone, there also needed to be some experience of din or justice.  In this way Biblical “perfection” is defined by both kindness and justice; for kindness without justice is chaos, and justice without kindness is cruelty. [2]

Although Abraham is known for his perfect kindness and goodness (chesed), Sarah is traditionally understood to have been a woman of justice or judgment.  This is illustrated by her ability to put individuals out of her household, to apply justice when a wrong was done (such as with Hagar when she was pregnant and with Ishmael when he mocked young Isaac).  Abraham did not want to put Hagar and/or Ishmael out or to turn them away, but G-d tempered and balanced Abraham’s natural tendency for chesed with his wife Sarah’s natural tendency toward din. [3]

Therefore G-d sent the three angels in Genesis 18 because Sarah needed chesed, she needed to display kindness and goodness in order to be perfect and balanced.  The division of responsibility in serving the three guests can be seen symbolically in this account.  Abraham prepares the meat.  Meat, being bloody and requiring the death of an animal represents din or judgment.  Sarah however, is instructed to bake bread.  She also prepares the dairy products, the milk, and the butter for the guests.  Bread, milk and butter, being sustenance that does not involve death and blood symbolize kindness and goodness.  Sarah had to have chesed in the task of preparing the bread, milk, and butter for the angelic guests.  This gave opportunity for her to be perfect, to balance her natural character of justice with kindness, in her walk before G-d as the mother of the promised son. [4]

In Jewish mysticism, chesed (kindness) is symbolized by the right hand and din (justice) by the left hand.  Although both are necessary in order to be perfect (i.e. complete), kindness must be stronger than justice, just as in most people the right hand is stronger than the left.  Water is chesed and fire is din.  Bread is chesed and meat is din.  This symbolism finds many examples in the ministry of Yeshua. 

He came to baptize with both the Holy Spirit and with fire.  The Holy Spirit is likened to “rivers of living water” in John’s gospel. Yeshua also taught that he came not to bring peace, but a sword.  He will administer judgment at the end of days.  The sheep and the goats will be separated.  The goats on his left will experience strict justice, the sheep on his right will be given mercy and kindness. Those who believe in him are baptized in his name, his character.  This symbolizes going down into the depths of death and coming up into a new, resurrected life.  The strict justice of death is tempered by G-d’s kindness in providing resurrection and eternal life through His son.  All of this takes place in water, which symbolizes chesed. 

Yeshua is the “bread” of life.  We partake of bread and wine in remembrance of him.  Wine is the “blood of grapes”, red like blood, symbolizing judgment/justice.  Bread is therefore taken first, it is the first taste in our mouths, because it is chesed, but wine follows because Yeshua’s sacrifice, although strong with kindness and goodness, also involves strict justice (blood/wine), the price of redemption which he paid on the cross.  Perhaps this also reflects why Yeshua did not drink of the cup at the Last Supper, indicating that he would not drink again until he did so “anew” in the Kingdom of Heaven.  The time of strict justice had not yet arrived but is yet to come regarding Yeshua as King and judge.  When we take the cup we reflect on this fact. The bread comes first but the wine is also there, a time of justice is yet to come. 

This also helps clarify Yeshua’s words in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:48; “you shall therefore be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect”.  In the previous verses of the Sermon, Yeshua is expounding on various aspects of righteousness involving strict justice related to attitudes, thoughts, divorce, and oaths.  But then in vv. 43-47 he speaks of loving and doing good to one’s enemies.  The focus now is on chesed rather than din.  This is necessary in order to be perfect as the Heavenly Father is perfect, in imitation of Him who sends rain upon the evil and the good, who acts out of both justice and mercy. 

In the subsequent chapters 6 and 7  of the Sermon, Yeshua expounds on chesed, on living out such kindnesses toward others which begins by not seeking public praise for charitable acts.  Next are humble prayer and fasting and avoidance of materialism and preoccupation with the needs of this life.  To not judge others before recognizing one’s own “log in the eye” and to ask for good gifts from HaShem; all of which enables one to do unto others as one would have others do unto them.

Yet, in westernized Christian theology, being perfect as the Father in heaven is perfect is widely understood in terms of perfect love.  I once heard a sermon that criticized Pentecostalism as reducing the body of Christ and its spiritual gifts into one gigantic “tongue”.  In the same way the modern Christian view of spiritual perfection might be symbolized as one gigantic right hand of chesed.  The left hand of din has undergone an above the elbow amputation and is little more than a theological concept, or archaic ”stump”, void of practical application. In the Messianic movement the opposite is often evident.  There seems to be an abundance of ”southpaws” in the camp, who are strong about the left hand of justice and strict keeping of the Law, especially those who view it as an obligation upon both Jew and Gentile alike.  Yet, neither perfect chesed (lovingkindness) nor perfect din (justice or law keeping), is true emulation of HaShem or of Yeshua.  For nothing less than perfection, in a Biblical sense, involves strong loving kindness that is yet tempered and directed by justice or judgment.

. . . . . . . . .

[1],[2],[3],[4];  Based on the teachings of Shem MiShmuel as presented by Rabbi Hershel Reichman; Parshat Vayeira, Two Paths of Serving G-d, available here.

Walking After the Messiah

In considering rabbinic commentary on the first verse of parashah Noach, one will inevitably come upon various comparisons between the righteousness of Noah vs. the righteousness of Abraham and the Patriarchs.  Noah is said to have walked with G-d.  Abraham and the Patriarchs are said to have walked before Him (Genesis 48:15).  Noah’s walking with G-d is understood as a type of righteousness which attained the expectations of his generation.  Noah was just and good according to the standards of the particular era in which he lived. [1] Therefore, the Torah says that he was perfect in his generation.  According to the sages the world was destroyed in Noah’s day because of Chamas – thievery, pillaging, and general lawlessness.  Noah in walking with G-d abstained from Chamas and was therefore perfect in his generation in which robbery and lawlessness were the norm.  Noah’s righteousness was that of abstaining from the sinful norms of his society and era.

The Patriarchs, on the other hand, walked before G-d.  They attained a higher level of righteousness by moving beyond the expectations and divine ideals for their generations.  They strove beyond the normal state for their era. [2] This superior righteousness is illustrated by the difference in character of Noah versus Abraham.  Noah maintained a level of righteousness by refraining from interactions with others and achieving a reclusive purity.  Abraham interacted with the society around him.  He was compassionate toward those of his own family and the stranger as well.  He was concerned with his nephew Lot and the inhabitants of the city of Sodom.  Noah was self-concerned; he walked with G-d by keeping himself pure.  Abraham was others concerned, he walked before G-d, beyond the normal expectations for his day.  Through human kindness, compassion and sympathy Abraham sought to make others aware of G-d’s compassion, integrity and holiness.

With these thoughts in mind my attention turned to Yeshua’s words of John chapter 10 in which he describes himself as the Good Shepherd (John 10:1-21).  Instead of walking with Yeshua or before him, those who hear his voice are to follow or walk after him.  What type of righteousness does this describe?  Typically, in the Messianic movement, to follow Yeshua is understood in the Jewish sense of discipleship.  The first century disciple of a Jewish rabbi would often leave relatives and friends to learn from and travel with his teacher.  This required total commitment to learning and being occupied with the teachings of the rabbi and his personal observances in every area of life including; the way he interacted with others, ate, prayed, worshipped and studied. 

Yeshua’s parable of the Good Shepherd, understood as an illustration of discipleship, is often used to uphold One Torah theology.  The flock is understood to be Israel.  The sheep “not of this fold” (v. 16) allude to Gentiles who will believe in Yeshua and be brought in with Israel to become “one fold”.  The Gentiles who are brought into the flock of Israel are those that “hear [Yeshua’s] voice”.  In Exodus 19:5, “hearing G-d’s voice” is an idiom for obedience to Torah.  Yeshua uses like words to describe that “his sheep” will “hear his voice”.  Since Yeshua’s flock is made up of both Jewish and Gentile believers, Torah observance (i.e. hearing his voice), in imitation of him, is understood as obligatory to both.  Practically, one flock must follow one set of orders from the shepherd.  Otherwise, chaos and division would result.  Therefore, to follow Yeshua is righteousness attained through discipleship to the Master, by living one’s life in total commitment to him and to the entire Torah which he upheld.

Yet the logic of this argument is difficult to defend based on Yeshua’s description of his sheep following him, which is an oxymoron.  Sheep are animals that do not follow but are prone to wander. Shepherds do not guide the flocks by walking in front of them but herd and direct them from behind. For a shepherd to open a sheep pen, walk out into the pasture, call to the flock, and expect the sheep to follow him would be ludicrous.  Sheep must be driven and directed from the rear where the entire flock can be viewed and guided into the appropriate pathway.  That Yeshua describes his sheep as following him is a statement that is not natural or logical to the way of sheep in relation to their shepherd.  Perhaps this is why the Pharisees did not understand what Yeshua was saying (v.10) prompting him to elaborate further.

 The context of the Good Shepherd parable is Yeshua’s healing of a man born blind on the Sabbath (John 9). This miracle caused a division among the people and the Pharisees.  Some thought it was achieved through the power of G-d.  Others believed it was through the power of demons.  Both however, admitted that the miracle was unique; “never since the world began has it been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a man born blind” (John 9:32, ESV).  Such a miracle was not merely a healing, but a re-creation of the physical structures of the individual’s eye that he was born without, causing blindness.  This miracle was performed on the Sabbath, a day, according to the sages, that is likened to the peace and perfection of the World to Come (Pirkei Avot 4:16).

The Fathers of the Talmud also liken this world to a vestibule or portal before the World to Come.  This present existence is like a hallway leading to the next world.  But, inevitably the gateway that will enable entry into the World to Come is the resurrection from the dead.  Man in his earthly natural state cannot enter or experience the World to Come in which men dwell with G-d.  A re-creation must occur first. 

In clarifying the Good Shepherd parable, Yeshua focuses on himself as the door, through which those who believe in him are saved, go in and out and find pasture, and have life “more abundantly” (John 10:9-10).  Yeshua is the Good Shepherd because he lays his life down for the sheep and takes it up again (cf.  vv 11, 15, 17-18).  This is resurrection language.  The sheep “go in” to a pen, a place of restriction and confinement, a temporary holding place.  They go out into pasture, a place unrestricted and limitless.   The pen perhaps can be likened to this present world, full of restrictions and spiritual confinement due to sin and the evil inclination, a place that is temporary.  The pasture could be understood as the World to Come a place of limitless spiritual growth and delights, which is eternal. This world is the vestibule before the World to Come, the door is contained within the pen.  Yet, sheep naturally will not go through the door of the pen once it is opened unless they are herded and prompted from behind.  The natural ways of this world; whether walking with G-d by abstaining from sinful behavior, or walking before Him, by excelling beyond spiritual norms and reaching out to others, cannot bring one into the World to Come – only the resurrection from the dead can achieve this.

Yeshua as the Good Shepherd, the one resurrected from the dead, leads the sheep out into the next world.  They are lead because resurrection is a supernatural re-creation that goes beyond the natural ways of this present existence.  ”Sheep”, who in this world will not follow or be lead take on a new character and quality at the resurrection of the dead.

Another detail that is overlooked when the Good Shepherd parable is used to justify One Torah theology is found in John 10:3 which explains what Yeshua’s “sheep” hear when they hear his voice.  It is not the Torah that they hear, but instead it is their name, called out by the shepherd.  In Hebraic thinking, a name indicates and speaks of character.  This is reminiscent of the Apocalypse in which “they that overcome” will be given a new name indicating a new character and situation of life (cf. Revelation 2:17, 3:12).  It is in this new character, of a resurrected existence, that Yeshua’s sheep, both Jew and Gentile follow him into a new situation of life.

Yet, Yeshua indeed, numerous times in the Gospels, admonished people to follow him in the circumstances of this earthly life.  So too, the sages recognize that there is a third “walk” of holiness and righteousness given in Torah; to walk after the L-RD your G-d (Deuteronomy 13:5).  Noah’s perfection, (walking with G-d according to the spiritual aspirations of his generation), and the perfection of the Patriarchs, (walking before G-d by exceeding normal expectations), cannot be achieved by people today.  Instead we walk after G-d in a lesser path of righteousness as we correct our failings and prepare ourselves to approach a state of enlightenment in the future. [3] This is truly to follow Yeshua in this life, for he is the one who goes before us, and will lead us into a resurrected existence in the World to Come.  

This path of righteousness, walking after G-d by being aware of and correcting one’s failings, held practical application for me in considering parashah Noach.  About a month ago I was approached by the pastor of the church I have been attending, regarding hosting a home bible study on the book of Acts.  Starting this upcoming week, I will have people from the church into my home to consider the book of Acts from a Hebraic-historic perspective for a 12 week course of study.  At this point, with a soured HaYesod experience behind me, like Noah, I really would rather just live a Torah lifestyle, reclusively and quietly, go to church to affirm a Gentile identity, and be done with it.  I am hesitant and reluctant to reach out to this church group again with materials that will inevitably challenge them.  But G-d has given the opportunity.  I must correct my attitude and walk after the Messiah, with human kindness, compassion . . .and courage.

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

 [1], [2], [3], based on the thoughts of Rabbi Abraham Isaac HaKohen Kook in Noah: The Walk of the Righteous, available here

The Why and Wherefore of the Apostolic Decree (Part III)

In this series of posts I have been considering the view presented by Richard Bauckham in his article “James and the Gentiles”. [1]  In this view the Four Essentials of the Apostolic Decree are understood as being derived from the prophetic text of Jeremiah 12:15-16, alluded to in Acts 15:16 by the words “after this, I will return”.  Because Jeremiah refers to the Gentile neighbors of Israel who will come to know the L-RD as being built “in the midst of My people”, the Four Essentials include commandments incumbent upon the ger/stranger sojourning in Israel’s midst as found in Leviticus 17-18. 

 The difficulty with this view is that there are eight commandments in Torah required specifically of the ger in the midst of Israel of which only four are obligated of the Gentile believers per the Jerusalem Council.  The four absent commandments all involve participation in the Temple cult.  Bauckham understands that the absent four were not required because Gentile believers participate in the eschatological Temple (the body of Christ) and not the earthly Temple.  I proposed that the four Temple related commandments were omitted due to the definition of ger in first century Judaism being understood in the religious connotation of proselyte.  This understanding left Gentile believers without legal halachic status within Israel.  It also presented life threatening consequences for any Gentile who would presume to participate in the Temple services (in the same manner as a Torah Jew).  

The idea that James held Gentile believers accountable for four Torah commandments given to the ger strongly suggests that the Jerusalem Council did indeed understand them to occupy the covenant position of the stranger within the midst of Israel.  James defended this definition of ger to be the most original ancient exposition found in the literal Hebrew words of Moses expounded every Sabbath in the synagogues (in the reading of the Torah scroll) (Acts 15:21)

Halachic Status for Gentile Believers

Based on this understanding of the Apostolic Decree, Gentile believers today are by strict biblical definition sojourning strangers (gerim) within the people of Israel. Some rabbis (usually Reformed or Conservative) will protest that the sojourning stranger is a role fulfilled only by gerim living among Israel in the Land itself.  This is proven false by the fact that the Four Essentials (as specific Torah commands for the ger) were incumbent upon all Gentile believers, within Israel and in the Diaspora.  An Orthodox rabbi would not argue this point for by halachic definition the sojourning stranger is the proselyte.  This leaves present day Gentile believers in the same situation as their first century brothers.  Although occupying a biblical halachic status per the Apostolic Decree they are yet completely without legal halachic status within the people of Israel.

In today’s Messianic world the halachic status of the Gentile believer is defined by an all or nothing approach.  One Torah proponents using a sola scriptura hermeneutic understand Gentiles as the gerim who are obligated to fulfill all of the commandments.  In this way, One Torah sees the Gentile believer as having a type of legal halachic status within Israel apart from rabbinic definition.  The Gentile’s legal status is before G-d alone and to transgress any commandment is a sin against the Almighty.

Divine Invitation respects the rabbinic definition of ger as proselyte understanding this to be consistent with the Apostolic viewpoint.  Therefore, Gentile believers have no legal status within Israel and no biblical status within the Covenant at Sinai. Instead the Gentile is defined as a spiritual son of Abraham, fulfilling the Abrahamic covenant as he is blessed by Abraham’s seed, the Messiah.  Such blessings include voluntary participation in the ritual/sign commands of the Sinai Covenant by invitation due to association with Israel through belief in her Messiah.

Yet, such a rigid, “this or that” approach is not evident in the Apostolic Decree.  Instead, the Council is comfortable to obligate Gentiles to some commandments of the ger and not others.  There is a spiritual savvy here which considers that two opposing concepts can both be true and can both function together in harmony.  This is a very Jewish way of thinking.

Obligations within the Sinai Covenant

The Apostolic Decree seen in this light, concludes that Gentile believers participate in the Sinai Covenant through specific obligations incumbent upon them as the gerim.  In the environment of late second Temple Judaism it seems logical that the Gentile believer would not be obligated to observe the Temple related commandments due to Pikuach Nefesh (preservation of life taking precedence over fulfillment of the mitzvot).

But this understanding is challenged when closely considering one of the commandments omitted from the Four Essentials; that of Yom Kippur observance.

 And it shall be a statute to you forever that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict yourselves and shall do no work, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you. (Leviticus 16:29 ESV)

From the most ancient times to afflict oneself on Yom Kippur has been equated with fasting.  Both Philo and Josephus confirm that Diaspora Jews in the first century CE, who were unable to participate in the Temple service, observed the Day of Atonement through fasting and prayer.  Certainly the Gentile believer could observe this statute without threat of personal harm by fasting and praying with the synagogue community (in the Diaspora) or in the court of the Gentiles (in Jerusalem/Israel).  

That Gentile believers were not obligated to observe the Day of Atonement as commanded, through fasting and abstention from work (prayer), seems to reveal core concepts of the Apostolic Community.  Such concepts involve the nature of Temple observances which were likely understood through the principle of binding and loosing.  In Judaism, halachah determined by the religious leaders is considered, in the eyes of Heaven, to be legally binding on earth, even if it is in error.  This principle was affirmed by Yeshua in Matthew 16 and 18 as he gave the Apostles such authority within the assembly of believers.  Yet, the believing assembly was also a part of the greater community of Israel.

Because the ger had been redefined by the rabbis over 300 years earlier as a proselyte, the non-convert Gentile believer was not legally a part of the community of Israel.  The Jerusalem Council respected this legal definition, although it was biblically erroneous.  This was based on the principle of binding and loosing as the Council viewed the believing assembly as a sect within the greater Jewish community.  Therefore, the Gentile believers were not required to observe Temple related commandments involving the Moadim and presentation of sacrifices because these were community defining practices.  In other words, by Torah definition only members of the community of Israel were obligated to participate in Temple related worship.  Gentile believers were not recognized as members of the community in any sense, based on the current halachah.

However, within the believing community Gentiles were understood to occupy the role of  strangers within the midst of Israel per the Apostolic Decree.  Therefore, Gentile believers were not prohibited from participation in the Moadim via worship within the Apostolic Community to which they belonged through faith in Yeshua.  It can be assumed that the Gentiles observed fasting and prayer on Yom Kippur, the weekly Sabbath, and all the festival days within the believing assembly although they could not be obligated to do so on a greater Jewish community level (cf. Colossians 2).  Regarding the more universal commandments given to the ger (such as abstaining from idol worship, eating of blood, and strangled animals, and sexual immorality) the Council determined that such would be obligatory upon the Gentile believers as halachah issued by the leaders of the assembly itself.  

Two thousand years later, the Temple is no more, but the definition of ger as proselyte remains the same within greater Judaism.  Gentile believers today have no means, apart from conversion, to be considered a legal part of the community of Israel.  This situation has not changed since the days of the Apostolic Decree therefore its determinations still stand.  Gentiles are biblically valid sojourning strangers in the midst of Israel while yet holding no community recognition in any legal or halachic sense within greater Judaism.   They are therefore not obligated to observe the festivals or other commandments (such as purity laws etc.) that can be derived from communal Temple worship.  Yet, they are not prohibited from observing such worship with other believers or as a matter of individual practice (within Torah guidelines and with respect for rabbinic halachah).

It may be said that there are covenant obligations for the Gentile believers, as sojourning strangers in Israel’s midst, that are required and those that are currently suspended.  The required obligations involve individual disciplines such as; dietary laws, sexual purity, idol worship. and blasphemy.  Required obligations also include actions toward other people involving their ethical rights such as; murder, personal assault, and damages of property.  Suspended obligations involve practices that define the Jewish community exclusively, including the Sabbath and festivals.  

This entire series was written in response to the challenging and critical comments of an email I received a couple of weeks ago questioning how I could validly observe Yom Kippur and not be obligated to it.  The angst this comment provoked compelled me to sort through this issue prior to sunset on Friday, or else I might observe Yom Kippur with a gnawing empty stomach and gnawing guilt that I was sinning for 25 consecutive hours by not considering it an obligation. 

A final comment in this email stated;  “I want to obey Yeshua, and I can’t make any sense of a Torah observance that is not obedience”.  To this was added; since Yeshua commissioned that his disciples must obey everything he commanded them (Matthew 28), and he did not come to destroy the Torah but to fulfill it; all of Torah must be the standard of obedience for those who follow him.  I completely agree with this, from the understanding that all of Torah includes specific obligations for strangers sojourning in the midst of Israel.  The specific obligations which define the unique role of the ger are the “jots” and “tittles” of Torah too.  Unfortunately, One Torah theology extrapolates the obligations of the ger to be equivalent with the native-born Israelite in observing the 613 commandments.  How is this anything less than obedience based on destruction of Torah details and distinctions, in exact opposition to the words of Yeshua?   

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

[1]  see Richard Bauckham; James and the Gentiles, in History, Literature, and Society in the Book of Acts, edited by Ben Witherington, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 1996; Chapter 7.

The Why and Wherefore of the Apostolic Decree (Part II)

Why Only Four?

In the last post I presented the idea that the Four Essentials of the Apostolic Decree (Acts 15) are derived from Torah commandments incumbent upon the ger/stranger in the midst of Israel.  The difficulty with this proposition is that there are eight such commands upon the stranger sojourning in the midst of Israel contained within the Pentateuch.  Why then are only four of these commandments given in the Apostolic Decree as obligatory upon Gentile believers? 

At the time of the late second Temple era the definition of ger/stranger had undergone a semantic shift.  Instead of being understood to describe non-Jews who sojourned with Israel and attached themselves to her G-d, ger became a general term used to describe a Gentile convert to Judaism. This is clearly evident in the Greek Septuagint (LXX) translation of the Torah which was compiled over 300 years earlier, and in which ger is translated as proselutos (proselyte) in the vast majority of occurrences. By the time of the Apostolic Community the understanding of ger as proselyte was the well established majority view within Judaism.  Therefore, in the days of the Jerusalem Council, the ger in the midst of Israel would have been understood as the proselyte in the midst of Israel. This rabbinic redefining of ger/stranger made it impossible for a Gentile believer to have any halachic status within Israel at all.

 The four commandments of the ger/stranger sojourning in Israel’s midst  not included in the Apostolic Decree involved participation in Temple worship.  These commandments were not required of the Gentile believers because they were practically impossible. A Gentile who had not undergone ritual circumcision and conversion was prohibited to partake of the Passover offering (Exodus 12:48). He could not present burnt offerings in the same manner as a native born Jew (Numbers 15:14-16, 29). He could not participate in Yom Kippur as one with any legal status in the midst of Israel (Leviticus 16:29) and he would not be permitted involvement with the ashes of the red heifer (Numbers 19:10). For a non-Jew to attempt participation in the Temple cult during the first century would be to do so under pain of death.  The stark seriousness of such an infraction is seen in the riot that was caused in Jerusalem when Paul was presumed to have brought Gentiles into (the inner courts of) the Temple (Acts 21:28-36).

However, the remaining four commandments of Torah specifically given to the ger/stranger in the midst of Israel could be observed on a personal level as they did not involve the legal status required of Temple worship.  These commands were therefore made incumbent upon the Gentile believers including; the prohibition of idol sacrifice, blood, eating of strangled animals, and sexual immorality.  

Considering the “why” and “wherefore” of the Apostolic Decree in this manner, presents far-reaching applications and implications for Gentiles attempting to sort through One Torah vs. Divine Invitation vs. Bilateral Ecclesiology theologies.  Perhaps one of the most foundational implications involves the definition of ger as understood by the early believers.

The Ger

One Torah theology defines ger in a literal, sola scriptura sense as a “stranger” or non-Jewish individual who has “joined himself” to Israel in a variety of ways according to various modifying descriptions including; the stranger within your gates, the stranger in your land, the stranger in your midst, the stranger who is with you, and the stranger who dwells. [1]  One Torah therefore rejects rabbinic redefining of ger from a sociological term to a purely religious designation as a proselyte to Judaism. [2]  In this, One Torah upholds the prophecy of Amos 9 as given by James in which non-Jewish believers maintain a distinct Gentile identity and  (Sinaitic) covenant relationship with G-d.

Where One Torah differs from the Apostolic Decree is in teaching that the Gentile believer is obligated to all of Torah in the same way as the Jew.  This is based on the admonition that; “there shall be one law for the native and the stranger” as given in Exodus 12:49.  Yet, if the stranger who attaches himself to Israel is effectively equal to the native born Jew in obligation and practice, why is the admonition of “one law for native and stranger” repeated within Torah  in various places, using a variety of Hebrew descriptions, such as; torah echat (one law), chukkah echat (one statute) and mishpat echad (one rule)? [3]  Why also is the stranger/ger specified regarding some Torah commands and not others? 

 [One Torah advocates will also refer to the Great Commission of Matthew 28.  Here Yeshua commands that disciples are to be made of all nations and taught to obey everything he has commanded.  Since Yeshua clearly stated that he had not come to abolish the Torah and that every “jot” and “tittle” of it was important and relevant, this alone should be the basic hermeneutical framework from which all passages of the Apostolic Writings are to be interpreted.  This argument will be addressed in a later post.]

 Divine Invitation and Bilateral Ecclesiology do not use a sola scriptura approach in defining the ger.  Instead they follow the later rabbinic redefinition of this word as indicating a proselyte to Judaism.  Because the Greek Septuagint (LXX) is used to quote the Tanakh in both the Gospels and the Epistles, and within the LXX ger is translated as proselyte,  it is presumed that the Apostolic community did not object to this definition of ger held by the greater Jewish community, and did not endeavor to restore a “Moses-era” interpretation of it. [4]   DI and BE  find some justification in this thinking regarding the Apostolic Decree as Acts 15 uses the LXX translation of Amos 9:11-12.

 Yet, the use of the LXX in Acts 15:16-17  presents a thorny issue for it has long been recognized that the LXX of Amos 9:12 is based on a flawed reading of the Hebrew.  This difficulty is reconciled by some scholars (such as Richard Bauckham) who draw upon historical first century Jewish methods of exegesis to show that the Council, although referencing the popular LXX translation, was yet considering the literal Hebrew words behind the Greek text. [5]  If this is true then the understanding of the Hebrew ger per James and the Council must encompass the Moses-era definition of stranger and not the contemporary usage of proselyte.  Otherwise the “why” and “wherefore”  of the Four Essentials is hopelessly obscure and attempts to understand how they were derived become subjective at best.

Although they both follow the majority Jewish view of ger/stranger as a proselyte to Judaism, DI and BE differ in their views of the Apostolic Decree.  DI teaches that the giving of the Four Essentials included encouraging Gentile G-d Fearers to learn more of the Law of Moses as it is read in the synagogue each Sabbath (Acts 15:21).  The Essentials are therefore understood as beginning steps toward greater Torah observance, to which the Gentile believer is invited to participate as a spiritual “son of Abraham”.  How curious this is in light of the official correspondence of the Jerusalem Council sent to the Diaspora assemblies in which such an “invitation” is not mentioned and James words of v. 21 are completely absent (cf. Acts 15:23-29).

Bilateral Ecclesiology proponents reject the DI understanding of v. 21 based on the syntax of the Greek which indicates that James is speaking of something taught in the past, up until the present time.  Therefore, this verse cannot be understood as admonishing  future learning of Torah in the synagogues by the Gentiles.  This syntax is clearly seen in the ESV translation;

For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues. (Acts 15:21, emphasis mine)

From a BE viewpoint, James is saying in v. 21 that since Gentiles have been hearing Moses preached in the synagogues every Sabbath until this very day (as G-d Fearers), but have not converted, they should not now be pressured to convert because they have come to belief in Messiah.  This is a tortuous and speculative interpretation at best.

Yet, the Greek syntax of v. 21 can be harmonized with the Apostolic Decree if James is understood as teaching that the Gentiles of Amos 9:11-12 are the gerim/strangers in the midst of Israel (based on a second prophetic passage of Jeremiah 12:15-16).  Certainly this interpretation would have disagreed with the prevalent and popular understanding of ger as proselyte based on the LXX, and embraced by Judaism in general.  But James defends this as the original and literal interpretation by saying in v. 21; “from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him (in this way) for he is read (to this very day) every Sabbath in the synagogues (from the original Hebrew words of the Torah scroll).

 [The final post of this series will consider further contemporary implications of the Apostolic Decree]

 . . . . . . . . .

[1]  Tim Hegg, Fellow Heirs; First Fruits of Zion, Littleton, CO, 2003, pp. 2-3.

[2]  Ibid. see Chapters 2-3.

[3]  Aaron Eby, Toby Janicki, Daniel Lancaster, Boaz Michael;  Divine Invitation:  An Apostolic Call to Torah; pp. 47-48.

[4]  Ibid.  p. 53

[5]  Ben Witherington (ed.), History, Literature, and Society in the Book of Acts, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 1996; Chapter 7, James and the Gentiles by Richard Bauckham, pp. 155-156.

The Why and Wherefore of the Apostolic Decree (Part I)

Recently, I received an email that starkly and boldly questioned my current Torah practice and perspective.  Numerous “whys” and “wherefores” were questioned and criticized at length and in detail.  One question in particular caught my attention. I was asked how I could possible observe Yom Kippur without being obligated to do so.   “Is atonement to be considered optional?”  “Can one stand before HaShem in fear and trembling as a matter of choice, as an option that can be freely dismissed without consequence?”  The logic in this was undeniable, my only defense, to appeal to the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15.

 The Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 contains the only recorded obligatory commandments required of Gentile believers’ in the entire Apostolic Writings.  How the Four Essentials are to be defined varies among commentators.  Some understand them to be an abbreviated version of the Noahide laws. [1] Others consider them the necessary prohibitions to enable table fellowship among Jews and Gentiles.  Still others see in the essentials behaviors necessary to prove that a Gentile believer had completely separated from his former paganism. [2]

 From a purely biblical perspective, it has been widely noted that the Four Essentials can be derived from the Torah itself:  (1) Food sacrificed to idols corresponds to Leviticus 17:8-9. (2) Abstaining from blood corresponds to Leviticus 17:10.  (3) Meat of strangled animals corresponds to Leviticus 17:13.  (4) Sexual immorality corresponds to Leviticus 18:26 which refers back to all the forms of illicit behavior prohibited in vv. 6-23.  Yet, the “why” and the “wherefore” of the Four Essentials is a topic that is rarely considered and easily overlooked.  Why, of all the possible commandments are these particular four considered obligatory to Gentiles?  By what logic and exposition are they derived?

 The Four Essentials are derived from the writings of the prophets as explained by James in v. 15.  After Peter, Paul, and Barnabas gave testimony regarding Gentile salvation, apart from conversion to Judaism and obligation to the Law of Moses, James substantiated their witness scripturally through prophetic proof texts stating that G-d would take out of the Gentiles a people for His Name.  In vv. 16-17 James refers to selected phrases from Amos 9:11-12 which show that the rebuilding of David’s fallen tent (i.e. the restoration of the Davidic Kingdom through Messiah) would bring with it the separating out of peoples of the nations that are called by the name of G-d Himself.  Being called by G-d’s name is an expression used of G-d’s election of Israel as His own people, throughout the Tanakh (cf. Deuteronomy 28:10, 2 Chronicles 7:14, Jeremiah 14:9, Daniel 9:19).  In the first century world of the early believers it was common Jewish practice that an individual of the nations could only be considered part of the people of G-d through conversion to Judaism as a proselyte.  Amos shows conclusively that the nations, as a distinctly Gentile entity, will be called by G-d’s name and included in covenant relationship with Him. 

 Although Amos 9 is recognizable in the words of Acts 15:16-17, James indicates in v. 15 that the prophets (plural) are to be considered.  Because the opening words of v. 16 “after this I will return” are not contained in Amos 9, it is likely that James is making reference to a second prophecy here.  A strong possibility for this second prophecy is found in Jeremiah 12:15-16;

 And it shall come to pass, after that I have plucked them out I will return, and have compassion on them, and will bring them again, every man to his heritage, and every man to his land. And it shall come to pass, if they will diligently learn the ways of my people, to swear by my name, The LORD liveth; as they taught my people to swear by Baal; then shall they be built in the midst of my people.  (Jeremiah 12:15-16 KJV, emphasis mine)

 Here the “evil neighbors” of Israel are in view (i.e. Gentiles, cf. v. 14), who will come to know the LORD and be built “in the midst of my people”.  Considering Jeremiah 12 along with Amos 9, James provides prophetic proof that distinctively ethnic Gentiles would be identified as G-d’s people by being built up in the midst of Israel. The Hebrew word for “in the midst”, found in Jeremiah 12:16 is b’tovekha (בְּתוֹךְ). Interestingly, the same root word is employed in Leviticus 17-18 regarding the Four Essentials as these commandments are directed specifically to the sojourning stranger “in your midst” (b’tocham/בְּתוֹכָם) and/or “in their midst” (b’toch’chem/בְּתוֹכְכֶם).  This is apparent in the YLT translation of Leviticus 17-18;

(1) And unto them thou sayest: Any man of the house of Israel, or of the sojourners, who sojourneth in your midst, who causeth burnt-offering or sacrifice to ascend, and unto the opening of the tent of meeting doth not bring it in to make it to Jehovah–that man hath been cut off from his people. (Leviticus 17:8-9)

(2) And any man of the house of Israel, or of the sojourners, who is sojourning in your midst, who eateth any blood, I have even set My face against the person who is eating the blood, and have cut him off from the midst of his people;  (Leviticus 17:10)

(3) and any man of the sons of Israel, or of the sojourners, who is sojourning in your midst, who hunteth venison, beast or fowl, which is eaten–hath even poured out its blood, and hath covered it with dust; (Leviticus 17:13)

(4) and ye, ye have kept My statutes and My judgments, and do not any of all these abominations, the native and the sojourner who is sojourning in your midst. (Leviticus 18:26)

 Richard Bauckham, in a fascinating and detailed exposition of James speech in Acts 15:13-21, posits that the Four Essentials were derived through a familiar method of Jewish interpretation called Gezerah Shavah (connecting of texts by means of a shared word or phrase).  Because Jeremiah 12 speaks of the believing Gentiles as being built in the midst of Israel, James concludes that the Torah laws obligatory upon Gentile believers are those addressed specifically to the ger/stranger sojourning in the midst of Israel. [3] Although this understanding makes excellent sense, there is yet one snag in it; for there are four additional Torah laws specifically directed to the ger in the midst of Israel but not included in the Apostolic Decree.  These laws are:  (1) Exodus 12:49: partaking of the Passover sacrifice. (2) Leviticus 16:29; observance of the Day of Atonement. (3) Numbers 15:14-16, 29; presentation of sacrifices. (4) Numbers 19:10; laws of the red heifer.  Bauckham concludes that the additional laws were not incumbent upon Gentile believers as they concern participation in “the Temple cult”.  Understanding Amos 9 and the “building of David’s tent” to be speaking of the eschatological Temple (or body of Christ/Christian community) to which the Gentiles are admitted, it is deduced that laws regarding the earthly Temple would not apply to Gentile converts. [4]

 Personally I find this conclusion unsatisfactory and contradictory, especially in considering the first of the Essentials as derived from Leviticus 17:8-9.  Here the prohibition of idol sacrifice is defined by the positive act of bringing sacrifices “unto the door of the Tabernacle”.  In the most literal sense, instead of offering sacrifices to idols the ger within Israel’s midst is to offer sacrifices in the Temple.  If laws regarding the earthly Temple do not apply to Gentile converts then logically the first Essential cannot be derived from Leviticus 17:8-9 which involves participation in the Temple cult.

 The Apostolic Decree speaks of this prohibition in two ways; as abstaining from the “pollutions” of idols (v. 20) and abstaining from “meats offered to idols” (v.29).  Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 8 that meats offered to idols by others and sold in the markets or served in the homes of family and acquaintances do not constitute this prohibition.  Therefore, Gentile abstention from the pollution or defilement of idols must be understood as offering personal sacrifices to idols.  Yet, based on Leviticus 17:8-9, the Gentile in the midst of Israel is defiled not only by offering sacrifice to an idol but also by neglecting to offer a sacrifice to HaShem by bringing it to the door of the Tabernacle.

 All of this leads to the perplexing question:  Why would James omit four Torah commandments involving the ger in the midst of Israel, as part of the Apostolic Decree?

 This question will be considered in the next post of this series.  

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[1]  see David Bivin, New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus; En Gedi Resource Center, Holland, MI, 2005; Chapter 21, Requirements for Gentiles, pp. 141-144.

[2] see Tim Hegg, Fellow Heirs, First Fruits of Zion, Littleton, CO, 2003; p. 76.

[3] Ben Witherington (ed.), History, Literature, and Society in the Book of Acts, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 1996; Chapter 7, James and the Gentiles by Richard Bauckham, p. 176.  

[4] ibid.

Paul and the Completed Gentile (Part II)

What about the Worship of Angels? (Colossians 2:18)

In the last post I conjectured that the vain philosophy and tradition of men that Paul speaks against in Colossians 2:8 was the prevailing halachah which prohibited Jews from table fellowship with Gentiles and which considered Gentile believers incomplete in Messiah.  The result of this within the assembly at Colossae led to Jews and Gentiles separating for meals on the festival days which denied them a unified participation in the Lord’s Supper at such appropriate meal settings.  This understanding however seems to meet a snag in v. 18 where Paul speaks against the “worship of angels”.

The Greek word translated “worship” (thrēskeia/ θρησκεία) is the common word for “religion” (cf. Acts 26:5, James 1:26, 27) and is not used for “worship” of G-d or pagan deities in the Apostolic Scriptures.  Both the Latin Vulgate and Wycliffe render the phrase threskia ton angellon as “the religion of angels”. [1]  Augustine puzzled over this verse which he understood to be referring to the humility and religion of angels.  If these are wicked or rebellious angels what humility or religion do they have? (Letter 121.2.1)

J.B. McClelland argues that “ton angellon” is neither objective genitive (worship offered to angels) nor subjective genitive (worship offered by angels) but indicates worship that proceeds from or is dictated by angels. [2]  Because angellon can generally mean “messengers” the phrase can also be understood to mean “the religion instituted by human messengers”. [3]  Therefore, in v. 18 Paul could be admonishing the Gentiles to let no one cheat them of their reward; “taking delight in humility” (i.e. delighting in the humble mindedness of the Gentiles who agree that they are unworthy to partake of the Yom Tov meals with the Jewish brothers), and (delighting in) “the religion instituted by human messengers” (i.e. current halachah established by the rabbis).

In v. 20-21 Paul questions why the Gentiles subject themselves to such worldly principles and regulations; “do not touch; do not taste; do not handle”.  This is prohibitory language regarding partaking in a meal, which compliments Paul’s words in v. 16.  Although in modern English the wording here seems redundant, a closer look at the Greek reveals interesting distinctions in what Paul is saying about the regulations the Gentiles have been subjecting themselves to.  “Do not touch” (haptomai/ ἅπτομαι) is indicative of attaching oneself in a relational manner.  This word is used throughout the Apostolic Scriptures to describe human contact, the relating of one human to another through physical touch.  For example; haptomai is the word used of Yeshua touching the leper (Matthew 8:3) and touching the eyes of a blind man (Mark 9:29).  This relational aspect of haptomai is the basis upon which some commentaries suggest that Paul is referring to sexual relations here (prohibited as a means of strict asceticism).  This word can also refer to a categorical prohibition of specific conduct meant to prevent an action from beginning. [4] 

“Do not taste” is a prohibition against eating, of partaking of solid food which is “eaten” rather than “drank”.  “Do not handle” (thigganō/ θιγγάνω) implies manipulating or handling something in a way which causes it to be injured or ruined.  From a halachic perspective the one item of any Yom Tov meal which could be ruined or injured by a Gentile merely handling it, is the wine, or fruit of the vine.  Because the Torah speaks against partaking of libations poured out to pagan gods, halachah was instituted whereby Jews could only drink wine produced by fellow Jews.  However, this kosher wine if merely handled by a Gentile would immediately be rendered treif and unfit for consumption.  For example; in BT Avodah Zarah 70a the matter of using wine after thieves had broken into a home and touched the cask containing it is considered.  The determination was made that the wine would be allowed because the city in which the thievery took place had a majority population of Jews (therefore it was statistically likely that the thief was a Jew).  This indicates that if a Gentile was believed to have been the thief the wine would have be unfit for Jewish consumption, merely because the cask had been touched by a non-Jew.  

Putting this together the regulations against the Gentiles involved; prohibiting them from relating with fellow Jews through participation in festive meals in order to prevent ceremonial uncleanness through eating of common food and Gentile handling of kosher wine.  Although, as Paul points out, such [food items] “perish with the using” (i.e. they are consumed and come to nothing through eating and drinking).

Lastly, in v. 23 Paul is widely understood as condemning the practice of severe asceticism or “neglect of the (individual’s) body (sōma)”.  However, in v. 19 Paul speaks of the assembly of believers as “the body (sōma)” in which Messiah is “the head”.  Perhaps this “severity” of the body is related to severity within the assembly itself, through the self imposed restriction of Gentiles and Jews participating together at festival meals.  This initially appears to be a form of wisdom because as Peter relates; “judgment will begin at the house of G-d” (1 Peter 4:17), therefore it would seem wise for the assembly of Messiah to hold to the most stringent halachah possible.  However, Paul makes clear that such stringency is of no value against the indulgence of the flesh, for in holding to the established halachah — the vain philosophy and tradition of men – the Jewish constituency had become puffed up and arrogant (v. 18) while the Gentile constituency doubted their completeness in Messiah.

In the end Paul defends the Gentile believer as one who was filled and fulfilled in Messiah, apart from personal obligation to Torah or stringency in halachic practice.  Unfortunately, in today’s Messianic world, this “Completed Gentile” not only fails to “make friends and influence people” but in some cases even draws down the ire and consternation of those who are fellow brethren in the Lord.

. . . . . . . . .

[1]  Wickipedia entry; Worship of Angels (In the New Testament), available here

[2]  J. B. McClelland as cited in; F.F. Bruce, Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, Eerdman’s Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI, 1984 p. 119.

[3]  John M. G. Barclay, Colossians and Philemon, T & T Clark International,New York,NY, 1997 p. 47

 [4]  Murray J. Harris, Guide to the Greek New Testament; Colossians and Philemon, Eerdman’s Publishing Company, Nashville, TN, 2010, p. 113.

Paul and the Completed Gentile (Part I)

Perhaps no other term rouses the ire and consternation of Jews in general as that of “Completed Jew”.  Of course, calling Jewish believers in Messiah “completed” assumes that all other Jews, no matter how devout or observant, are incomplete, a notion that doesn’t generally cause one to “make friends or influence people.” Ironically, in considering Colossians 2 and the matter of doubt it evokes regarding Gentile Torah observance, Paul’s focus is upon the Completed Gentile – a term relatively unknown in our day.

Colossians 2 is another text strongly used by One Torah proponents to prove that Gentile believers are obligated to Torah.  Verses 16-17 in particular are understood to promote Torah observance for all in Colossae, an assembly with a large Gentile majority.  Paul admonishes that the Colossians should not be judged for keeping kosher (in meat and in drink) and for keeping the biblical calendar (festivals, new moons and Sabbaths), for this is the very “body of Christ”, i.e. the defining qualities of the assembly as a whole.  This admonition is given in the middle of Paul’s rebuke against Gnostic and ascetic influences which have infiltrated the assembly and which presumably condemned believers for keeping traditional Torah observance.   

In v. 8 Paul begins by admonishing that; “none deceive you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, according to principles of the world and not according to Christ (Messiah)”.  The vain and deceitful philosophy and tradition of men is commonly understood as a type of Jewish Gnosticism which had begun to permeate the assembly.  This view is strongly reliant upon v. 18 understood as speaking of angel worship and v. 23 in which neglect of the body, as a form of extreme asceticism, is in view.  Historically this is difficult to prove based on the first century context of Colossians, as systematic Gnosticism did not exist until the second century CE.  However, many commentators will conjecture that the rudiments of such Gnostic practice were beginning to develop at the time of Paul’s letter.   This contradicts that Paul speaks of such vain philosophy as “the tradition of men”.  By definition a tradition is a well established or customary practice and not something that is in a rudimentary or developmental stage.  

Paul also describes the deceitful and vain philosophy as being “according to the principles of the world” (i.e. according to the order of this earthly, physical existence).  Gnosticism, in its basic philosophy, considers physical matter as evil and teaches deliverance from this material existence through special knowledge (gnosis).  Gnosticism does not embrace thinking according to the order of the world but rather is based on knowledge which supersedes this earthly mortal existence. 

The vain and deceitful philosophy Paul speaks of caused believers in the predominantly Gentile congregation of Colossae to see themselves as “incomplete” in Messiah.  Therefore, Paul’s main point in v. 10 is that “you are complete in him”.  Such completeness in Messiah is proven by Paul in three different ways; first, through the circumcision of Messiah, second through baptism in him, and third through forgiveness of all trespasses in him.  It seems illogical that Paul would counter a Gnostic/ascetic philosophy by drawing on three well established requirements for Jewish conversion in the first century, all of which are foreign to Gnostic ideals as a whole. 

The proselyte to Judaism was required to be circumcised, to partake of a mikvah (baptism) and to offer a sacrifice which was understood to complete his atonement (cf. BT K’rithot 2b).  Paul’s focus on these three details suggests that the vain and deceitful philosophy was the teaching that Gentile believers must convert to Judaism to be complete in Messiah.  Other epistles of Paul record this view as a widespread problem within the assemblies, promoted by the circumcision sect and even embraced initially by the congregation in Jerusalem under the leadership of James (cf. Galatians 2:12-13).  Such thinking expressed itself most blatantly within the community by Jewish believers withdrawing from table fellowship with Gentile brothers, according to the established halachah of the day which prohibited this.  Paul’s use of the term paradosis anthropos (the tradition of men) in v. 8 parallels exactly Yeshua’s words in Mark 7:8 in which he is referring to halachah established by the rabbis, which also lends credence to an established Jewish tradition being in view here.

As in other recorded instances, the result of this erroneous doctrine was separation of Jew and Gentile regarding fellowship meals within the community.  In the synagogue format of the early assemblies such meals would naturally occur during the celebration of the moadim (biblical festivals/appointed times).   In v. 16 Paul admonishes that “no one should judge you (Gentiles) in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths”.  Interestingly the Greek word translated “judge” (krinō/ κρίνω) most properly means to “distinguish”, suggesting that a distinction was being made (between Jew and Gentile) regarding meal participation (eating and drinking) in conjunction with a festival, new moon, or Sabbath.  The Greek phrase en merei (εν μερει) often translated “in regard to” is used in the writings of Philo fifty-nine times as referring to something “particular” or “in part”. [1]  Therefore, Paul may likely be speaking of distinction between Jew and Gentile being made regarding part of the festival, new moon or Sabbath observances within the community — the fellowship meal which ensued on such occasions.  All would participate in prayer and the hearing of Torah but would separate for festive meals due to halachic restrictions which prohibited Jews from eating with Gentiles.

Paul continues in v. 17 by stating that such fellowship meals celebrated on the various holidays; “are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ”.  According to the most literal Greek rendering the second half of the verse should be translated; “but the body of the Christ (Messiah)”.  The majority of English translations neglect to include the definite article found before the Greek word Christos (χριστου) which means “anointed one” i.e. Messiah. [2]  The “body of the Messiah” is certainly a phrase well documented in the Epistles to speak of the assembly in general.  However, this phrase is also used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:16 to describe the bread of the Lord’s Supper as “the body of the Messiah”.

In establishing the Supper, Yeshua indicated a present reality, (the sacrifice of his body) as well as a future reality and hope, (the New Covenant contained in his blood), as it was the “fruit of the vine” which he would not partake of again until the time of “the Father’s Kingdom” had arrived (Matthew 26:29).  Perhaps Paul is alluding to the elements partaken of during any Jewish festival meal, the bread and the wine, which had special significance for believers in Yeshua — the wine as a “shadow of coming things” (the full realization of the New Covenant in Yeshua’s blood)  and the bread as “the body of the Messiah”.   To celebrate such festive meals separately marred the intended meaning of the elements which symbolize the unity of all believers as one in Messiah (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:17).  Paul emphasizes this unity in Colossians 2 by using the descriptive phrase to be “knit together” (vv. 2, 19).

Yet, if Paul is speaking against established halachah that prohibited Jews from eating with Gentiles and which viewed Gentile believers as incomplete in Messiah apart from conversion, how can v. 18 regarding “the worship of angels” be explained?

[The “completion” of this post and remainder of Colossians 2 will be considered in part two of this series. ] 

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

[1]  Parshanuth Blogspot; Exegesis: Colossians 2:13-17, p. 4 available here

[2] ibid., p. 15.

Keeping the Feast and Remaining in the Calling: An Attempted Reconciliation

“I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of doubt. I shouldn’t wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy, not even mine.” Bertrand Russell

In coming across this familiar quote over the past week, I couldn’t help but think that it is very true to my current situation.  Although I have written extensively, in six different posts over the past weeks, regarding my “spiritual journey” and decision to practice Torah while being associated with the “church”, I must admit that there still remains a “measure of doubt”.  One of the doubts I have been contemplating is Paul’s admonition to the Corinthian assembly regarding “keeping the feast” (of Passover) (1 Corinthians 5:7-8).  Here Paul is clearly relating that the chagag or biblical festival should be observed in the most literal sense based on the Greek work employed (heortazō/ἑορτάζω).  Heortazō occurs 16 times in 15 verses of the Greek Septuagint and in every instance refers to the observance of a moed or biblical festival.  Philo uses  heortazō  13 times in his discourses, each time indicating the keeping of a biblical feast.  Therefore Paul cannot be understood, as some commentaries suggest, to be speaking of “keeping the feast” in a metaphorical sense.  [1]

1 Corinthians 5:7-8 and following were verses often highlighted and referred to in the One Law congregation I attended.  These verses seem to provide a strong proof-text for Gentile Torah obligation, as Paul is addressing a mixed congregation of Gentile and Jewish believers with the majority of congregants being Gentile.  Not only is Paul expecting this congregation to observe the Passover, he also uses language consistent with the rabbinic idea of karet, or being cut-off from the people of Israel, which involved punishment and/or death “by the hand of heaven” (cf. vv. 2, 5).  These ideals would not have been presented to the congregation at large if Gentile believers were not considered responsible to the Sinai covenant and therefore obligated to Torah. 

This understanding is troublesome in comparison with “Paul’s rule” found in 1 Corinthians 7:17-20 where Jew (circumcised) and Gentile (uncircumcised) are admonished to “remain in the calling in which they were called” (v.20).  As David Rudolph points out in his “Paul’s Rule” paper; the Greek word translated as “calling” kleisei (κλησει) is most often understood as “one’s place in life when called”.  This is in agreement with Augustine’s interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:17-20 and also the understanding of Luther and the Reformers who see Paul as describing “vocational callings” or “a particular way of life in service to G-d”.  Therefore, remaining in the calling in which one was called, is not speaking of remaining faithful to the call of salvation, but instead describes maintaining the specific state or role one was in when they were called to salvation. [2]  If Gentiles, who occupied a state of non-obligation to Torah and non-participation in the Sinai covenant when called to salvation, are expected by Paul, (in the same letter to the Corinthian assembly), to observe the Passover how then can Rudolph’s understanding be correct, for the two passages in this way cannot be reconciled. 

Paul’s admonition to “keep the feast” is given in the context of rebuke to the Corinthians regarding a believer among them who is practicing immorality with his father’s wife.  The term “father’s wife” indicates that the man is in relationship with his step-mother and not his birth mother.  Such fornication is “not so much as named among the Gentiles”.  This is generally understood to mean that according to Roman law of the time a marriage between a man and his step-mother was illegal, therefore the general heathen world considered it illegitimate.  Some Biblical historians explain that the only way such a marriage could take place in the first century Roman world, was under Jewish law.  The Jews were permitted to live according to their law under Roman rule and had the privilege of marrying according to their customs. 

According to Talmud a proselyte is considered as a “newborn babe” making all previous familial relationships null and void.  This in theory allows the proselyte to enter into marital relationships with close relatives such as his mother or sister (if they convert to Judaism also) because such family relationships no longer legally exist for him under Jewish law. The implications of this are debated at length in Babylonian Talmud tractate Yebamoth with the general consensus being that a proselyte is forbidden to enter into intimate relations with relatives of his maternal line.  The reason given is that pagans in general recognize the law of incest regarding maternal relations.  Therefore a proselyte to Judaism should be held to the same restriction so that it cannot be said that he left behind a faith with a higher degree of sanctity (his past pagan idolatry) to embrace a faith with a lower degree of sanctity (Judaism which considers all past family relationships null and void).[3]  Based on this reasoning a proselyte is forbidden marital relationships with his close maternal relatives but is not held to this restriction regarding his paternal line.  Rabbi Meir (BT Sanhedrin 58a, Yebamoth 96b) taught in this way that a proselyte was permitted to marry his father’s wife (step-mother). Some scholars posit (such as Strack-Billerbeck’s Kommentar), that R. Meir’s view was based on the most ancient ruling which was the majority halachah for proselytes in Paul’s day. [4]

With this in mind we can reassess 1 Corinthians 5:1.  It’s difficult to imagine that this community of believers was allowing blatant incest to occur in their midst and were “puffed-up” (filled with pride) and glorying (rejoicing) over it.  Although the majority of congregants certainly came from idolatrous heathen backgrounds this understanding is so grotesquely dysfunctional as to be unrealistic.  Adam Clarke in his commentary on this verse relates that some believe the “father’s wife” to have been a proselyte to Judaism. [5]  Perhaps this provides a clue to understanding the entire passage.  Could it be, based on R. Meir’s ruling in Talmud, that the man in question was a Gentile believer who converted to Judaism, as did his father’s wife (step-mother)?  Being legally Jewish they were able to marry according to Jewish law which permitted this, causing the Jewish constituency to be puffed up and boastful about the arrangement.  The Jewish believers rejoiced because the two proselytes, through conversion, were enabled to marry; being both “one flesh” and one in Messiah (and also adding to the number of Jews in a community likely dominated by Gentiles).  This arrangement was reported “everywhere” in Corinth as the Jewish constituency rejoiced in this situation (v.1).  If the two Gentile’s had not become proselytes the marriage would have been impossible based on Roman law which considered such a relationship illegal.  

Although such a marriage was illegitimate per Roman law, its likely Paul does not have the general heathen population in mind when referring to the “Gentiles” in v.1.   Paul makes clear at the conclusion of chapter 5 that he is addressing an internal matter and is unconcerned with those “outside” the assembly who will be judged by G-d Himself (cf. vv. 10, 12).  Therefore, the Gentiles of v. 1 can be understood as those within the believing community.  It is not unusual for Paul to refer to non-Jewish believers as “Gentiles”, as evidenced by Romans 11:13.  A marriage between a man and his father’s wife could not be “named” among the Gentiles of the community because it was a legal impossibility.  Gentile believers who did not convert to Judaism would maintain their family relationships which would prohibit them from marrying close relatives on both the maternal and paternal sides of the family. This prohibition of incestuous relationships is considered part of the expanded Noahide laws.  With such a situation being impossible for the believing Gentiles they cannot be understood as included in Paul’s rebuke and admonitions of vv. 2-8.

 Therefore, Paul in this section is focusing on the Jewish believers who are rejoicing in the marriage of a man to his step-mother made possible in a legal Jewish sense because of the conversion of both to Judaism.  This is the “little leaven” that will quickly leaven the whole lump, and spread throughout the congregation.  As the Jewish constituents boast and rejoice in this, the Gentile constituency will see conversion as something necessary for them too, in direct contradiction to Paul’s teachings.  Obviously Paul does not agree with the prevailing legal halachah in this case.  He considers such a “marriage” to be invalid and immoral.  Yet, this doesn’t mean that Paul completely rejected all rabbinic halachah of his day.  Paul’s words in v. 2 and v. 5 prove this, as they agree with the rabbinic understanding of karet, that one who practices such immorality is punished by “the hand of heaven”, as he is put out of the community and spiritually excised from the body of Messiah. Instead, like the Master, Paul would not adhere to halachah that nullified the word of G-d.  The Torah clearly states that it is sinful for a man to lie with his father’s wife, an act punishable by death, (Leviticus 20:11).  This is part of the 613 commandments, which a proselyte as a legal Jew was obligated to uphold.

 As Passover was drawing near the Jewish believers would have been busy removing leaven from their homes.  Paul uses this backdrop to admonish them to remove the old leaven.  Old leaven is puffed-up, having had time to ferment and rise.  This is the exact description Paul uses of those who boast in this immoral arrangement.  This old leaven is likened to malice and wickedness (v.8).  By rejoicing in a biblically unsound marriage made possible by erroneous Jewish halachah and taking pride in this, the Jewish constituency actively maligned the Gentile believers which Paul considered nothing short of wickedness.  Instead they, the Jewish constituency, should keep the Passover as unleavened bread, sinless and not prideful, by sincerely following the truth of the Scripture, which most plainly relates the commandment that a man must not have his father’s wife.  Here Paul is indicating that “we” may keep the Feast – as in “us Jews”.     

After giving this rebuke to the Jewish believers it could be misunderstood that Paul was teaching karet for them alone and only regarding the 36 sins in Torah where an individual is described as being “cut off” from the community.  This would leave no recourse for discipline or responsibility within the assembly regarding the Gentile constituency. Paul clarifies this in vv. 9-13, by citing a previous letter in which he admonished the Corinthians to not keep company with fornicators.  This does not mean that they should not keep company with those non-believers who are fornicators, covetous, extortionists, drunkards and the like – for this would mean that they would need to become completely uninvolved with non-believers in the world – which would be impossible in day to day life. 

 Instead Paul explains that “any man”, Jew or Gentile who is a brother and who continues in a life of sin, even according to “natural law” or the most basic commandments rationally derived by logic, should be disallowed fellowship and put out of the congregation.  In this way the entire assembly, both Jew and Gentile should follow the general admonitions of Deuteronomy 22:22,24 to “put away the evil from among you”.  For the Noahide or natural laws are part of Torah just as the Mosaic laws including the “sign” or ritual commandments. 

[Another “matter of doubt”; did Paul expect Gentiles to observe the new moons, Sabbath and feast days (Colossians 2:16-17) will be considered in an upcoming post.]

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

 [1] Parshanuth blogspot; Exegesis 1 Corinthians 5:7-8 available here

 [2] David J. Rudolph; Paul’s Rule in All the Churches (1 Corinthians 7:17-24) and Torah Defined Ecclesiological Variegation, Studies in Jewish Christian Relations, Volume 5, 2010, pp. 3-4.

 [3]  The Soncino Talmud, comments on Sanhedrin 58a, Soncino Classics Collection for Windows, version 3.0.8.

 [4] Strack-Billerbeck’s Kommentar as cited in; Peter J. Tomson; Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letter of the Apostle to the Gentiles, Van Gorcum & Company, the Netherlands, 1990 pp. 100-101.

[5] Adam Clarke; The Holy Bible Containing Old and New Testaments, Volume 6, A. Paul , New York, 1823, p. 192.

A Matter of Risking Life and Limb

“Rav Eliezer ben Yaakov says:  One who performs one mitzvah acquires for himself one defender, and one who transgresses one sin acquires for himself one prosecutor; repentance and good deeds are like a shield before the punishments.”  Pirkei Avot 4:13

 As I continue to read through Rabbi Volozhin’s commentary on the Ethics of the Fathers, during this season of counting the Omer, I was struck this past week by his comments regarding repentance and good deeds as “a shield before the punishments”.  In explaining this concept Rabbi Volozhin draws from Midrash Rabba Vayikra 21:5;

 “If a person commits a sin with a particular limb, he should strive to perform a mitzvah with that same limb in order to create a shield”

 From this it is understood that future sin can be guarded against, and past sin can be rectified, by performing a good deed with the limb that caused one to sin. [1]  For example; if I steal with my hand I should then give charity with the same hand, if I lie with my mouth I should endeavor to speak the truth with the same mouth, etc.  In this way, one repents from past sin and strengthens himself against future sin of the same sort by training his limbs to do what is right.

To expand on this idea Volozhin cites a teaching of the Sha’ar HaKedushah which speaks of this concept in relation to the future Resurrection of the Dead.  In this teaching, every limb is understood to “earn” a right to resurrection based on the virtue of good deeds that the individual performed involving the limb.  If a person neglected a certain mitzvah during his lifetime he will be resurrected without the limb to which the good deed corresponds.  [2]

With these teachings in mind, my thoughts turned to some of the most controversial and severe words of Yeshua in the Gospels regarding the severing of limbs which cause one to sin.  In the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, Yeshua teaches his disciples to “pluck out an eye” and/or “cut off” a hand or foot that causes one to sin, for it is better to “enter life”, “lame” or “maimed” rather than “be cast into hell fire”.   Typically, such phraseology on the part of the Master is understood by Christian commentators as a heightened form of figurative language meant to emphasize that a person should take whatever drastic action is necessary to avoid sin. Therefore, it would seem that Yeshua differs from the view of the midrash.  One should not attempt to perform a mitzvah with the offending limb, to rectify or protect from sin.  Instead the limb should be cut off or not used again in the same sinful manner. Yet, if this is the case, why is the person, who has taken drastic actions to “cut off” sin, described as entering life “maimed” or “lame”?  Surely one who has been highly vigilant to abstain from sin during his lifetime should enter the Kingdom of G-d whole and fit, instead of lacking in some way.

Yeshua teaches regarding the severing of limbs in two contexts; as related to adultery (Matthew 5:27-30) and as related to causing “little ones” who believe in him to stumble (Matthew 18:6-9, Mark 9:42-48). By instructing that certain limbs must be “cut off” Yeshua is indicating that a mitzvah involving the limb should not be performed as rectification.  A limb that is severed cannot perform a good deed in respect to sin it has previously caused.  In this sense; cut off = to not perform a mitzvah. 

In the case of adultery (Matthew 5:27-30), Yeshua is addressing the men in the crowd.  He speaks of looking at a woman lustfully as being equal to committing adultery with her in one’s heart.  The two appendages that must be plucked out and cut off are the eye and the hand.  Based on the midrash, Yeshua is teaching that a mitzvah must not be performed with the eye or hand in order to rectify or protect against such adulterous behavior.  

The reason for this involves the nature of the sin.  In order to rectify adultery  the man would need to employ his eyes and hands in like manner toward his own wife as he had toward the “other woman”.  Perhaps this would mean gazing at his wife in the same way, or touching her in a similar fashion as he had with the forbidden female.  Yet, in doing this the man’s thoughts would automatically be reminded of the other woman, which would cause him to sin, “in his heart”, yet again.  To do this is equivalent to being “cast into hell” for attempting to rectify the sin in this way only leads to committing the same adultery over and over again. 

Therefore, Yeshua is teaching, in the case of adultery, that the offending limbs should be plucked out or cut off — the eyes and hands must not be used in the same way again.  Because the sin of adultery cannot be rectified via positive actions and performing good deeds with the same limbs, the person in this way enters the resurrected life “maimed” or “lame”.  The eyes and hands can earn no virtue, so to speak, in this life in regard to adultery.  The best that can be done is to abstain from sinful behavior at all costs.  This is similar to a limb that is never exercised and becomes weak and atrophied.  Although the sin of adultery is avoided through disuse of a man’s eyes and hands, such avoidance of sin does not accrue the same benefits as one who rectifies sin through actively performing good deeds and thereby strengthening and training his entire body to be in subjection to HaShem. 

The second context of severing limbs involves “causing little ones who believe in me to be offended” (Matthew 18:6-9, Mark 9:42-48).  In general, Christian commentary understands this to speak of causing another brother to sin, especially one who is impressionable, unlearned, or new to the faith, such as a little child.  Matthew 18:6 and Mark 9:42 are often translated as causing “these little ones” to “sin” or “stumble”.  Yet, Yeshua’s teaching is in response to the disciples question; “who is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven”?  His answer is that the one who humbles himself as a little child is greatest in the Kingdom. 

Yeshua is teaching regarding the necessity of humility, using a little child as an object lesson, as little children are unaware of their own sense of greatness. Rabbi Volozhin adds insight to the definition of humility by stating;

“Humility is a state of mind, the recognition that one’s worth is not greater than that of any other man.  For although a person may achieve great success, he may also suspect that perhaps he has failed to realize his true potential.  Others might accomplish less, but may have maximized their potential; they are considered to be on a higher level.” [3]

In reality a small child lives at his maximum potential because he has not had opportunity to achieve individual success.  The young child, unconcerned with his own greatness, while yet living at maximum potential, is the perfect object lesson of true humility.  The disciples had great opportunity and had achieved much; being taught and trained by Yeshua himself.  Yet this did not make any one of them greater than any other person, for all men are created in G-d’s image.

Therefore, “causing little ones who believe in me to be offended”, is referring to the sin of arrogance toward other believers.  It is treating those who are not as accomplished spiritually with less respect or dignity, by considering oneself to be greater than they are.  Yeshua teaches that this sin of arrogance or pride against others should not be rectified via good deeds performed with one’s eyes, foot, or hand.  The appendages are to be “cut off”.

In other words, if a person in their thinking (eyes) or actions (hand/foot) offends another through pride and lack of respect toward them, they should not attempt to rectify this by thinking respectful thoughts and/or performing respectful actions toward the one offended.  The reason involves the definition of humility itself.  If one attempts to rectify the wrong they will automatically think; “now I am acting with humility”, “now I am becoming humble”.  To think such things is the worst vanity of all.  The moment a person thinks about his own humility or views himself as being humble – he is no longer humble.  By focusing on his humility he automatically considers his own greatness. 

The best the person can do regarding the sin of arrogance and pride is to abstain from disrespectful thinking or actions toward any man, no matter what their station in life, or level of spiritual maturity or knowledge.  Because arrogance cannot be actively rectified through positive mitzvot, the person will enter the resurrected life with less benefit in this area, being hindered in spiritually advancing and strengthening himself in this regard.  Therefore, he is likened to one who is “maimed” or “lamed” by this particular sin.  The person who attempts to rectify his arrogance through good deeds toward the one he offended — and in this way does not “cut off” his appendage but actively uses it to make up for his sin — will be cast into hell fire because he will continually commit vanity by focusing on his own humility. 

In so many words, Yeshua indicates that death is better than arrogance and pride toward others.  Being drowned in the sea with a millstone around one’s neck is a better lot.  How can this be?  In rabbinic thinking, human life is dynamic.  Man, of all the created order can never stay on one level.  If he is not rising or achieving, he is falling.  It is the privilege of man, created in G-d’s image, to achieve, to advance and improve – this is human “life”.  To stagnate is to die, to not achieve or improve is a form of death in this life.  

With the sins of adultery and arrogance comes a horrific reality, one that is like a millstone around one’s neck.  The reality being that these sins cannot be rectified through active good deeds without causing the person to commit the same sin they are attempting to overcome.  In the case of adultery and arrogance the human being can only abstain, he cannot achieve.  This is a form of death that will carry over even into the resurrected life.  Two forms of sin that forever “maim” and “lame” a person by cutting off the possibility to improve and move ahead in a spiritual sense — which is truly a serious matter of risking “life and limb”.  

……………………………………….

[1]  Rabbi Chaim Volozhin, Ruach Chaim, rendered into English by Chanoch Levi, Targum Press, Southfield MI, 2002 p. 196.

[2]  Ibid.  p. 197.

[3]  Ibid.  p. 171.

Soul Mourning During the Nine Days

This past Monday (Rosh Chodesh Av) began the days of heightened mourning  leading to the fast of Tisha B’Av.  To increase the mourning experience observant Jews refrain from traveling for leisure, swimming, bathing for pleasure, and eating meat or drinking wine (except on Shabbat).  Yet, one of the lesser known and more subtle of the mourning customs involves refraining from wearing freshly laundered garments during this time.

This prohibition is based on the Mishnah  (Ta’anit 26b) that states on the week in which the Ninth of Av falls it is forbidden to “cut hair or wash clothes”.   Rashi and Rambam understand this washing of clothes to be the same as the common practice of a mourner.  Although a mourner may not launder clothing during the mourning period they are permitted to wear clothes that were washed prior to it.  Therefore, the prohibition of washing clothes as related to Tisha B’Av is the same.  One refrains from laundering during the period of heightened mourning surrounding this day but is permitted to wear clothing washed prior to this time. [1]

The Ramban adds a further stipulation to this custom, that of refraining from freshly laundered garments.  In other words, clothing laundered prior to the heightened mourning period of the Nine Days cannot be worn if it is completely fresh. This is the majority view accepted by the Shulchan Aruch. [2]

Observing this prohibition means refraining from laundering during the Nine Days (Ashkenazi) or the week in which Tisha B’Av falls (Sephardic) and insuring that clothing washed prior to this time is not worn in a completely fresh state.  This is accomplished by pre-wearing freshly laundered clothing for 10-15 minute intervals prior to the heightened mourning period. 

When considering all of the traditions of mourning during the Three Weeks and the Nine Days surrounding Tisha B’Av, the prohibition of freshly laundered garments seems odd indeed.  Unlike the customs of refraining from eating meat, drinking wine, listening to instrumental music, and bathing – which hold symbolic and practical meaning as related to the Temple — refraining from wearing freshly laundered garments has no connection to the Temple itself or its worship which is remembered and mourned at this time. 

Perhaps this prohibition is not occupied with practical or symbolic significance because it is focused upon the very soul or essence of the mourning period instead.  In an enlightening short essay on this topic, Rabbi David Lapin explains that the joy humans experience in things that are perfectly fresh and completely new is connected to the soul level.  In this imperfect world the delight one finds in the smell, feel and look of brand new items — as short lasting as such newness is — reflects the soul’s longing for a perfect state of existence.  Such a longing is partially and temporarily satisfied through the fleeting moments of near perfection that this life has to offer.  [3]

This reminds me of a friend who was a full time career woman and mother of two active pre-school age boys.  Naturally, she had difficulty keeping  the house neat and tidy for any length of time.  Every Thursday a cleaning service came to her home.  She once told me that it was well worth the fifty dollars a week she paid to have the house “perfect for 15 minutes”.  Such a statement doesn’t make any practical sense.  Fifty dollars for fifteen minutes of perfectly clean house is a ridiculous price to pay.  But perhaps the satisfaction of the soul outweighed the price due to the human desire for perfection no matter how fleeting.  

By denying oneself the simple and temporary pleasure of donning freshly laundered garments the soul itself engages in the realities of this season of mourning.  Although outwardly no one would notice that a shirt or dress was pre-worn for 15 minutes, inwardly this action makes a profound statement.  The perfection we crave in this life is an allusion; it is temporary and fleeting at best.  Our world is not as clean and fresh as we think in the same way as the perfectly fresh-looking shirt is really 15 minutes worn.  The destruction of the Temple is evidence of such fleeting and short-lived perfection which points to a future time, the Messianic age ahead, in which perfection in this world will be fully realized.  [4]

How interesting this is in light of Paul’s teachings in 2 Corinthians 5:1-4. Here, Paul speaks of our mortal bodies as a tabernacle and the longing and groaning desire for a resurrected state likened to being “clothed” in immortality.  The longing and burden that Paul describes is naturally highlighted during this time of year when remembering that a central reality of the Messianic age, the Temple, does not exist and has ceased to exist for almost 2000 years.

Remarkably, Paul introduces this topic of longing to be perfectly clothed with the resurrected body in 2 Corinthians 4:18;

While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal. (KJV)

The longing of the soul for a state of immortality as opposed to the reality of living in a state of imperfection (due to the non-existent Temple/Messianic age) is tangibly experienced through the act of purposely wearing only pre-worn clothing during the time of heightened mourning prior to Tisha B’Av.  Such clothing, not noticed or “seen” by the outside world, brings to the mind of the wearer inward realities regarding our current mortal and finite existence and eternal things that are yet to come.

 _____________________________________________

[1] Rav Yosef Zvi Rimon, Some Laws of the Nine Days, available here

[2]  Ibid.

[3]  Rabbi David Lapin, Parshat Devarim 5768: The Crisply Laundered Shirt, available here

[4] Ibid.