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

A Serious Distribution Error

After taking a two week vacation between Yom Kippur and Shemini Atzeret I returned to work at the hospital to find that one of the patients I was assigned to had an active case of swine flu.  In the interceding two weeks time, not only have I taken care of a swine flu patient, I also have been made aware of more than a dozen cases of swine flu among acquaintances, friends, and extended family of people I know.  In the face of this growing reality, I have been anticipating the arrival of the H1N1 vaccine at my workplace.

The hospital system I work for is one of the largest in Northeast Ohio, with over 150 locations.  Yet, as of last week, the swine flu vaccine was not available at the facility I work at.  Although 15,000 doses were ordered through the Ohio Department of Health and were expected to arrive early in the week, only 200 doses were delivered to the main campus of the hospital system.  Another hospital system in the area (the largest in the entire state) received none of their ordered swine flu vaccinations.  Later in the week I was told by my manager that I should seek out the vaccination through my county health department.

By the end of the week a most startling news story hit the media. Although the major hospital systems in Northeast Ohio (and more than half of the hospitals throughout the state) were without swine flu vaccinations, 800 doses of the vaccine had been received by a regional drug store chain.  Nurses and doctors involved in direct patient care with people at elevated risk for flu complications could not get a swine flu shot at work, but they could go to the Walgreens around the corner to receive one. 

Needless to say the tension and outrage regarding this was immediate being that the H1N1 vaccine is in limited supply and only a certain number of doses are allocated to each county. Frustrated hospital leaders inundated the governor of the state with phone calls regarding this mishap and were told that “poor planning” by the state Department of Health and “errors in distribution” were to blame.  On Friday, coordinators from Ohio’s seven hospital regions were in the state capital trying to work out problems with the state Health Department.  Not surprisingly, the hospital representatives were unable to ascertain who exactly was in charge of H1N1 vaccine allotment.

In the midst of all the confusion and tension regarding the swine flu vaccination this past week, I found myself considering what perhaps could be called the most serious distribution error every known to mankind.   Approximately 340 years after G-d destroyed the earth with a flood, sparing Noah and his family and commanding them to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the land” the story of the Tower of Babel is presented in Genesis 11.   

Despite G-d’s command that mankind was to spread out and disperse themselves in various areas of the earth, the generation of dispersion, known as Dor HaFlaga, had a different outlook regarding such distribution. 

The whole earth was of one language and of common purpose.  And it came to pass when they migrated from the east they found a valley in the land of Shinar and settled there.  They said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks and burn them in fire.” And the brick served them as stone, and the bitumen served them as mortar.  And they said, “come let us build us a city, and the tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed across the whole earth.”  (Genesis 11:1-4, Stone Chumash).

Typically, the story of Babel is understood as an attempt by united mankind to build an impressively tall tower that would reach into the heavens in order to display their self-sufficiency, strength, and technological ingenuity as a direct rebellion against HaShem.  Numerous conjectures are offered as to mankind’s motives in this situation, ranging from a desire to be like G-d and a focus upon worshipping themselves, to a preoccupation with their own creativity.  But at the heart of this story is to be found a serious flaw, a management error of laughable and unbelievable proportions. For if the Dor HaFlaga desired to build an impressively tall tower, and seriously believed that they could get near to or even reach the heavens, why would they construct such a monument of human superiority and rebellion . . . in a valley? 

The account begins with the whole of mankind being of “one language” and “one purpose”.  In the literal Hebrew the phrase udevarim achadim (וּדְבָרִים אֲחָדִים) (often translated “and of one speech”) has many subtle shades of meaning.  Devar can refer to words, concepts or philosophies and/or material things or objects.  Achadim can mean “unified” or “few”. [1] Therefore, udevarim achadim can mean that the Dor HaFlaga had few material things, that they were unified in words, or that they were united regarding concepts or philosophies.  Because v. 1 already states that the people were of “one language” (safah echat/ שָׂפָה אֶחָת) it would be redundant to understand udevarim achadim as meaning “and of one speech”. 

Therefore, Torah presents a united mankind that is either void of material possessions or unified in concepts or philosophies (or both).  Because achadim carries with it the idea of “few” it could also be understood that instead of being unified regarding many concepts or philosophies, mankind at the time of Babel was unified regarding “few” or basic concepts that they all held in common.

This united philosophy resulted in their “migrating from the east” (mikedem/ מִקֶּדֶם).  Kedem in Hebrew can mean “east” as in direction or it can mean “origins”.  Therefore the people could be understood to be traveling away to the east or traveling away from their origins. [2] Chazal point out that the root of kedem (qof-dalet-mem) is the same root found in the word kadum  meaning “ancient” indicating that the Dor HaFlaga were traveling away from the Ancient One (HaShem).  The same idea is found in the understanding of traveling away from their origins, for the original commandment given to Noah after the flood (Genesis 9:1) was related to mankind multiplying and dispersing throughout the earth and not uniting as a single entity.  In this way, the united Dor HaFlaga traveled away or walked away from this original command of HaShem.

In describing the migration of mankind as being “from the east” the point of origin is given but a destination is not.  The people weren’t traveling to any specific place but from a point of origin in the east.  The destination was not Shinar, but as they traveled they found the valley of Shinar to be the most suitable place to stop and dwell. [3] Archaeologically, Shinar is understood to have been located in what is modern-day Iraq in the southern plains where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers intersect — a lush valley well-watered by two rivers and approximately 600 feet above sea level. 

Because valleys are void of natural building materials, such as rock and stone, necessary to build a city or a tower, the people use the clay found in the river beds to fashion bricks.  In this way the people had “few material things” (udevarim achadim) and resorted to human ingenuity and technology to meet their needs.  The reason for building a city and a tower reaching toward heaven was to “make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed across the whole earth”. 

At this point the entire story takes on an almost ridiculous and nonsensical feel.  The people want to build a tower whose “head” is literally “in the heavens” and they choose to do so in a valley 600 feet above sea level.  They are convinced that if they do this and “make a name for ourselves”, becoming recognized or noticed, that somehow this will keep them from being dispersed across the whole earth. They construct a ziggurat tower in the style of ancient Mesopotamia.  A structure made of simple clay bricks being no taller than seven stories.  Did they really believe they could fight G-d in heaven from this vantage point?  What overpowering recognition would this tower truly afford them? What could they possibly have been thinking here?

In the gemara of Talmud Sotah 11a, the sages point out that G-d’s promise to never again destroy the world by a flood, applied only to mankind as a whole.  In Genesis 9:11, G-d promised that “all flesh” (kol basar/ כָּל-בָּשָׂר) would never again be cut-off or destroyed.  Based on this all inclusive terminology the Dor HaFlaga reasoned that the possibility existed for a segment of humanity to be destroyed by a flood due to sin; for HaShem promised not to destroy “all flesh” but He did not promise not to destroy “some flesh”.  Therefore, to avoid this possibility they decided to remain united and not disperse as G-d commanded.  As a united humanity they used G-d’s promise as insurance against the judgment of a flood as punishment for sin.  The Dor HaFlaga could live their lives in whatever manner they saw fit and not worry about being destroyed as long as they stayed together.  This was the philosophical outlook they had in common, a philosophy that used the word of G-d as an enabler for sin.   

So entrenched were they in this philosophy that together they sought out the most perfect setting in which to live it out.  Leaving behind the original commandment to Noah to repopulate and fill the earth, they traveled together from the east until they found a place that was most suitable to accomplish their goals.  As a valley just barely above sea level and encompassed on three sides by major rivers, Shinar was a natural flood plain.

By establishing the central base for all humanity in an area that was prone to flooding the Dor HaFlaga in essence used G-d’s oath to tie His hands regarding judgment or destruction upon them via natural consequences due to sin.  The place most likely to flood would be the place of greatest safety from G-d’s destructive judgment allowing mankind to live however they pleased without fear or accountability.  

According to Bereishit Rabbah 38:1 the Tower of Babel had an idol on top of it with a sword in its hand appearing to wage war against HaShem himself.  Interestingly, the imagery of this midrash (although not presented literally in Torah) is reminiscent of the two cherubim HaShem placed at the entrance to Eden to block Adam and Eve from entering there and eating of the Tree of Life after the fall. The two cherubim had swords in their hands that flashed and turned in every direction.  Although HaShem had originally permitted Adam and Eve to eat of this tree, after the fall it was prohibited to them. The flaming swords reminded Adam and Eve that this was G-d’s word and will regarding their post-fall circumstances. In the same way, Paul, in Ephesians 6:17 likens the word of G-d to a “sword”.  

The imagery of the idol with sword in hand at the top of the tower illustrates that the Dor Haflaga pointed G-d’s word right back in His face and challenged His authority with His own word as their weapon. Although He had destroyed all of mankind with a flood before, He could not do so now, after the flood, as His word promised that such destruction upon all flesh would never be repeated again.  By building a tower and city, the people made a name for themselves, establishing the valley of Shinar as the official capital of all humanity united together.  This central base would insure that no matter how vast in number mankind became and how far they spread out upon the earth, all humanity would have a central connection to Shinar and would therefore never truly be dispersed.

When HaShem descended to look at the city and tower in the valley below, He described the structures as those built by the “sons of man”.  The Hebrew phraseology is unusual here being b’nai HaAdam (בְּנֵי הָאָדָם) literally; “the sons of the man”.  Genesis Rabbah 38:9 understands this to be referring to united mankind following in the footsteps of “the man”, Adam, through an attitude of ungratefulness.

When Adam was confronted by HaShem regarding his sin he blamed it on Eve, for if HaShem had not given Eve to him the sin would not have occurred.  Although this statement is true it smacks with ingratitude for Eve was given to Adam out of G-d’s goodness to him.  In the same way the Dor HaFlaga used G-d’s goodness to them, the promise never to destroy all flesh by a flood again, as an excuse for sin.  The logic of united humanity was correct and true regarding G-d’s promise not to destroy or judge them as a whole, for Genesis 11:7 states that all that the people proposed to do would not be withheld from them.  There was literally nothing they could do that would bring G-d’s destruction or natural consequences upon them as long as they were united as one.  They could live as they liked without accountability or obligation to HaShem.  

Mankind was not meant to live in such unity and therefore G-d forcefully dispersed them upon the face of the earth.  The world was to be populated by numerous people groups each with its own language, culture, philosophy and opinions.  The sages have long recognized that truth is not to be found in a united, unified and homogeneous environment, for inevitably truth in all its depth and beauty emerges from the interaction of opposing viewpoints and opinions.  The fathers of the Talmud understood that the Torah has 70 faces, or numerous facets, all of which are true although different.  The Tanya presents the midrash that at Sinai 600,000 people received the Torah with each individual representing a different approach or outlook regarding what they saw and heard there.  In this way the Torah has the potential of being explained in 600,000 different ways. [4]

Mankind united and unified in philosophy and concepts regarding G-d’s word ultimately has a one dimensional, severely limited and handicapped view of truth.  The Dor HaFlaga did not recognize G-d’s goodness in the promise He made to Noah, but instead saw only a logical means of escaping judgment upon them. They did not consider that discipline was beneficial for growth in godliness and evidence of G-d’s fatherly care and love for them.  Their united philosophy removed the possibility for individuals to personally trust in HaShem.

With this in mind I couldn’t help but think of Yeshua’s prayer in John 17.

“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.” (John 17:20-23 ESV)

 I have heard many a sermon in which the words of this prayer are lamented and understood to be unanswered because of the numerous splits and divisions among the denominations and factions of believers.  If only we could all see “eye to eye” and be united as one in belief and doctrine, for only then will this prayer be answered and the glory of G-d in Yeshua be perfectly evident.  

 Could it be that the situation which caused the Dor HaFlaga to be confused and dispersed by HaShem Himself is the same situation that Yeshua desires regarding his own? A homogeneous, united assembly of believers void of differences in outlook, philosophy and opinion?

 Yeshua is not praying here for relative unity among believers, but for relational unity that mirrors the unity that the Son has with the Father.  The Father is in Yeshua and Yeshua (the Son) is in the Father.  Every father is “in” his son for it is the father who determines the sex of the child and the genetic make-up through his seed.  The son’s physical attributes and characteristics resemble his Father whose seed is in him.  A son, on the other hand, is “in” the father not via the genetics of procreation but via association.  The son does not determine his father’s physical attributes or characteristics.  It is not from the son that the father’s resemblance to the son is achieved.  The son is in the father through birth into a certain family with a certain name, history and heritage. Although the father and son are related to each other in different ways, the father by means of genetics and the son by means of association, they yet are considered to be one.

 The same holds true for believers in Yeshua, for within the family of faith are those  genetically related to him, who are ethnically Jews with the genetic seed of Abraham flowing through their veins.  But, there are also those who are part of G-d’s family by means of association, Gentiles who have no Jewish genetics but who belong to the same family via association with Yeshua’s name.  The two are to be viewed as perfectly one because Yeshua is within them all.  For the spirit of holiness, resides in each of them equally.  This is the glory of Yeshua through the Father. 

 Despite this relational unity, there have been and will be differences of opinion, debates and various philosophical viewpoints within the family of faith.  Such things need not be seen as negative, bad or threatening but rather as healthy and productive means by which sparkling facets of G-d’s word and truth are revealed, understood and considered by believers as a whole.

. . . . . . . .

It would seem that working under the united banner of “Department of Health” provided protection and anonymity to those personally responsible for serious distribution problems regarding the swine flu vaccine within the state of Ohio.  At this point, no one really knows who determined the amounts and priorities of the H1N1 vaccine dispersed throughout the state in the past week.  Although health officials have promised that all shipments of the vaccine will go to hospitals and local health departments over the next two weeks they also pointed out that a lack of vaccine to hospitals was due to orders of single-dose syringes which are the form least available at this time.  Hospitals and other organizations (such as Walgreens) that did received vaccines last week were those that had ordered multi-dose vials or nasal spray forms which are more readily available.  

What seemed to be a blatantly one-sided mishap on the part of the state Health Department, also involved ordering preferences and limited production of certain forms of the vaccine as details in the distribution problem.  Inevitably there are always “two sides of the coin” as they say, for the greatest distribution error is to view any situation in life from a single perspective or vantage point alone.  

 

[1] Rabbi David Lapin, Dor HaFlaga (1986), audio recording available at: http://www.iawaken.org/shiurim/view.asp?id=6070

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid

[4] Introduction to Tanya, as cited in, Tali Loewenthal, Unity in Diversity, available at:  http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/926429/jewish/Unity-in-Diversity.htm