One of the nurses I work with recently celebrated her 25th 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 25th 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.
