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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 ________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

 [6] Jerusalem Encyclopedia, ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_________________________________________________

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

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

 [3] Light in the Darkness, p. 31.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 . . . . . . . .

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

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

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

______________________________________________________________

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

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

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

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

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

Thanksgiving 2009

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

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

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

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

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

 Happy Thanksgiving : )

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

[2] Ibid

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

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

As a result of circumcision Abraham’s body would become perfect.  With the foreskin remaining he was not perfect physically.  Once the foreskin was circumcised his body would be perfect, it would be unblemished.

 As I was driving to the grocery store a couple of days ago I listened to the above words of a recorded shiur on my iTrip player, words regarding Genesis 17 and what it means that Abraham was to be perfect (v.1). These comments immediately brought a smile to my face and I couldn’t help but think; “no wonder the commandment of circumcision wasn’t given to women for we would never be convinced that our bodies are perfect or unblemished even if HaShem said so.  Yet, on the other hand, we women would also be highly insulted by the suggestion that our bodies were not considered perfect already.”  Perhaps HaShem did not give the commandment of circumcision to women due to our innate “body image” which would make it impossible for us to accept our bodies as perfected while at the same time finding insult in the idea that our natural bodies are less than perfect to begin with. In this way, circumcision and women would have been a no-win situation.

In taking on Torah observance through a Messianic perspective, I quickly became aware that the issue of circumcision was a heavily debated and hot topic.  Personally, I preferred to let the guys “duke this one out”, for after all, conversations focused on the male anatomy didn’t seem very suitable or pertinent for me as a woman.  But over the past months, with the recent attention upon Divine Invitation versus One Law theology, I have found myself contemplating and considering circumcision as presented in the Apostolic Scriptures. For ultimately this topic greatly affects the “body image” of Gentile believers as a whole. 

It seems that there are two ways to look at it, similar to a woman’s perspective of body image.  The first is to understand that through Yeshua, apart from circumcision, Gentile believers are perfected; they are part of the House of Israel with all the rights, privileges and obligations of the physical children of Abraham.  This is the view of One Law, even as Tim Hegg writes in Fellow Heirs; “The Gentiles were to be received as though they were circumcised even before they underwent the physical cutting of the flesh . .” [1] Despite the fact that the One Law camp accepts believing Gentiles as perfectly equal to Israel (although ethnically distinct) this very understanding undermines the concept of One Law itself. For if Gentile believers are exempt from circumcision, through Yeshua, the place they occupy within Israel is really “One Law minus one”.  The question is then raised if such inequality regarding the mitzvot is valid.  How can Gentile believers be considered perfectly equal to Israel if they are not equally obligated to the whole Torah as Israel is?

On the other hand is the Divine Invitation camp. Like the woman who is insulted by the notion that her physical body is considered less than perfect based on the standards or definitions of society or the media, Divine Invitation understands that Gentiles do not have equal rights, privileges and obligations with the physical children of Israel for this was never G-d’s intent.  Just as “big is beautiful” and “black is beautiful” so Gentiles are beautiful because they are blessed through Yeshua in the family of G-d in a way distinct from their Jewish brethren.  Gentiles are invited to participate in Torah instead of obligated to Torah for Gentiles are not Jews. To define Gentile believers as having the exact role and responsibility as legal Israel is to blurr the line of distinction and ultimately is an insult to the grace of HaShem.  The question raised in this line of thinking is how are we to understand the Gentile’s citizenship in the commonwealth of Israel as described by Paul in Ephesians 2?  What exactly does it mean that Gentiles are “Abraham’s seed” and “fellow heirs” with Israel as presented in Galatians 3 & 4? 

According to Daniel Lancaster in the introduction to the second edition of Grafted In, the term “commonwealth” would have been understood by Paul as defining an “imperial power”.  Because Israel at the time was not an imperial power, the citizenship of Gentiles within the commonwealth of Israel is understood as something yet future.  For Israel will not attain the status of imperial power until the Messianic era. [2] Therefore, in the meantime, the Gentile believer assumes “an ambiguous and tenuous status among the people of G-d . .” [3]

The differences between the camps are no surprise from a womanly perspective, for the exact same outcome is true regarding body image.  If a woman allows her body image to be dictated by the common definitions of society or the media she ends up facing inevitable inequality for no two women are exactly alike physically.  If a woman refuses to allow her body image to be defined by common denominators she ends up in a state of ambiguity in which beauty is subjective and self-defined.  The same is true regarding the perspectives of One Law versus Divine Invitation.  One leads to inequality by maintaining a common definition, the other leads to ambiguity through rejection of a common definition.

Not surprisingly, the outlook regarding circumcision is different between the two perspectives. For the One Law advocate the tension of “One Law minus one” cannot be maintained and therefore it is understood that circumcision was expected of Gentile believers as a commandment of HaShem.  Once the Gentile believer matured in the faith and would not be tempted to view circumcision from the rabbinic legal viewpoint of conversion in order to secure salvation, the Gentile was then obligated to be circumcised as a true “seed of Abraham”.  Despite the fact that circumcision is never commanded of Gentile believers in the Apostolic Scriptures, the case of Paul’s circumcision of Timothy is used to defend this perspective.

For the Divine Invitation advocate the Apostolic Scriptures speaks for itself. Since circumcision is never commanded of Gentiles and continually prohibited by Paul the Gentile is not obligated to this command.  Yet, Paul admonishes Gentiles to “celebrate the Festival” (of Passover) in 1 Corinthians 5:8, likening Yeshua to the korban Pesach. Such observance is unlawful apart from circumcision based on Exodus 12:48 and carries with it the severe penalty of karet or being cut-off from the believing community and losing one’s share in the World to Come.   

Is there any way to reconcile our body image as Gentile believers within the family of G-d?  Or must Gentiles, like women, live in a world of fickleness that makes the topic of circumcision a no-win situation?  

In Galatians 3, Paul explains that the Gentile’s position as “Abraham’s seed” and “fellow heirs” with Israel is based on G-d’s promises to Abraham in Genesis 17;

“As for Me, this is My covenant with you:  You shall be the father of a multitude of nations; your name shall no longer be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. . . I will ratify My covenant between Me and you and between your offspring (seed/zerah) after you;” (Genesis 17:4-5, 7 parenthesis mine)

HaShem promised Abraham that he would be the father of a multitude of nations. Although it is true that Abraham in his own right fathered many nations (as Ishmael became the father of 12 princes and the six sons of Keturah became six nations) this cannot be understood as fulfillment of the promise, for the covenant would be established through Isaac (v.19) and his descendents after him.  The sages of the Talmud (Shabbat 105a) understand the promise of fathering many nations to be fulfilled by Abraham’s influence upon the nations spiritually down through the ages, with each letter of his name understood as an acronym for different aspects of his affect upon the nations of the world.  In this view the promise is therefore fulfilled not in a literal sense, but in a metaphorical or spiritual one.

Rambam explains that Abraham became the father of many nations via proselytes to Judaism who throughout history have come from many nations.  The difficulty with this view is that once one converts to Judaism they are no longer considered a goy but a legal and full child of Israel in every sense, a legal son of Abraham and not one of the nations.  Therefore in the most literal sense, proselytes do not fulfill the promise of Abraham’s multiplication as the father of many nations for the conversion of the nations causes Abraham to remain the father of but one nation, Israel.

The term “father of a multitude of nations” (av hamon goyim) is an awkward term for it indicates that although Abraham is the father, his offspring from the nations still maintain their national identity. By literal definition this is impossible for a man cannot practically be considered a father to an individual who is not his natural offspring or legally adopted by him. Yet, this is exactly how Paul understands the term based on Galatians 3.

With this in mind an interesting paradox presents itself. For if G-d literally promised Abraham that those of the nations would be reckoned as his offspring (and thereby included in Israel), why is it that Exodus 12:48 commands that those of the nations must be circumcised in order to  partake of the korban Pesach and by extension be included in Israel?  Exodus 12 indicates that those of the nations cannot be included in Israel apart from circumcision. Circumcision reckons one as a Jew.  Yet, G-d promised Abraham that those of the nations would be reckoned as his offspring (included in Israel).  How can both be true?

Perhaps the answer to this paradox can be found in the first verse of Genesis 17, for it is here that G-d is referred to as El-Shaddai in Torah for the first time.  Although there are various understandings of El-Shaddai, according to Ramban, Shaddai is related to the word shoded (both having the shoresh shin-dalet-dalet), which means “manipulate”. Therefore El Shaddai alludes to G-d as one who manipulates the entire world. [4] Manipulation related to shoded is not in the miraculous sense (such as splitting the sea) which involves a suspension of nature itself.  Instead shoded means a manipulation of the natural world through subduing of it, or a manipulating of the world within nature and not apart from it.  [5]

When HaShem tells Abraham that he will have a child with Sarah, this requires a manipulation of Abraham’s natural situation. It is natural for a couple to have children, but it is not natural for Abraham to have a child with Sarah (his barren, post-menopausal wife). In the same way, the two additional aspects of the covenant given in Genesis 17 — Abraham’s multiplication and the giving of the Land — require HaShem’s manipulation of the natural in order for the promises to be achieved.  It is natural for a people to conquer a Land, but it is unnatural for a small nation of desert nomads to conquer a nation of giants. It is natural for a man to be a father, but it is unnatural for a man to be a father to individuals who are not of his physical or legal lineage.  Therefore, HaShem speaks to Abraham regarding the promises of the covenant of circumcision using the name El Shaddai for the promises can only be realized through His manipulation (shoded) of the natural.

In Galatians 3, Paul explains that the promises of Genesis 17 were made to Abraham and to his singular seed which is Christ.  These same promises were confirmed or ratified in Christ.  Paul also explains that since the promise came before the Law, the Law cannot annul the promise (v.17). Although Exodus 12 states that a Gentile can only be reckoned as a native born via circumcision, G-d’s promise to Abraham was that he would be built into a father of many nations.

Before the coming of Messiah the promise of Abraham’s multiplication could not be realized for only by the natural means of physical lineage or legal conversion was Abraham’s (and by extension Israel’s) family increased. Just as HaShem manipulated Abraham’s natural situation to produce the son of promise (Isaac), so the “seed” of promise (Yeshua) was the means by which the natural situation of the nations would be manipulated in order to produce sons of the nations for Abraham.  Paul sums this up in Galatians 3:7 . . “they which are of faith. . are the children of Abraham”.  This is unnatural for no one becomes an offspring by faith and no one becomes a father by faith. But G-d’s promise of multiplication to Abraham required the manipulation of the natural.

Yet, all this exegesis only brings us to a truth wholeheartedly agreed upon by both One Law and Divine Invitation, that Gentiles are children of Abraham, his seed and heirs through faith in Yeshua.  The question that still remains is in what “sense” are we Abraham’s seed and how exactly are Gentiles included in the House of Israel after having come to faith?

In Galatians 4:28 Paul says; “Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.”  Paul then goes on to explain that just as he that was born after the flesh (Ishmael) persecuted him of the spirit (Isaac) “even so it is now”.  Here, Paul likens the children of promise through faith in Yeshua to Isaac, Abraham’s son of promise, and uses this position of promise to explain the present persecution of believers by those born after the flesh (legal/ethnic Israel).  Certainly Isaac’s position as son of promise was not an ambiguous spiritual or metaphorical position to be realized at some future time, but was a reality in history which brought with it real persecution.  Why would we think differently regarding the Gentile’s position in Israel as a child of promise, especially since real and serious persecution was being faced, which would have been unlikely if Gentiles were merely understood as fulfilling an ethereal role as sons of Abraham in an ambiguous spiritual sense?

But this doesn’t solve the problem of apparent inequality in mitzvot observance and obligation regarding circumcision for the Gentile believer.  How can such inequality exist if the Gentiles are included in the House of Israel in the same respect as the Jews?  In an exceedingly interesting article on Lech Lecha author Yitzchak Etshalom points out that of all the transgressions which bring the consequence of karet, only two –neglecting circumcision and partaking of Pesach uncircumcised –are sins of commission.  In considering why these two particular sins of commission result in karet, Etshalom understands circumcision and Pesach to be the most fundamental requirements for membership in Am Yisrael.  Without these requirements one cannot be a member of Israel and is therefore “cut off” not by punishment but by natural result.  [6]

Two elements that must be shared among people for a nation or community to exist are; a.) a common history and b.) a common destiny.  Pesach represents the common history of Israel, a history of miraculous redemption at the hand of HaShem.  Circumcision represents the common destiny of Israel, a destiny of perfection in which the physical barrier to obedience and righteousness (symbolized by the male foreskin) is taken away (a barrier understood as the evil inclination).  Through Yeshua, Gentile believers share in these common elements as children of Abraham in the most profound and “real” sense.  We have a history of miraculous redemption and a destiny of perfection, the physical proof of which is not found in a circumcised body, but in the physical reality of Yeshua’s death and resurrection. 

. . . . . . .

It would seem that a proper body image within the household of faith is reconciled through a perspective of promise rather than a perspective tending toward egalitarianism (One Law) or elitism (Divine Invitation).  Just as Israel is considered the children of Abraham through the promised son Isaac, so the goyim (of the nations) are considered the children of Abraham through the promised son Yeshua.  In the words of Paul;

This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.  (Romans 9:8 ESV)

 If only a woman’s body image issues could be so nicely reconciled : )

______________________________________________________

[1]  Tim Hegg, Fellow Heirs (Jews and Gentiles together in the Family of God), First Fruits of Zion, Littleton CO, 2003 p. 82.

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

[3]  Boaz Michael and D. Thomas Lancaster, One Law and the Messianic Gentile, Messiah Journal Issue 101, Summer 2009, First Fruits of Zion, Marshfield MO, p. 55.

[4]  Ramban as cited in, Mrs. Chana Prero, Parashat Lech Lecha, available at: http://www.naaleh.com/viewclass/1085/single/

[5]  Ibid.

[6] Yitzchak Etshalom, Parashat Lekh L’kha (B’rit Milah and Karet Punishment or Natural Result?), available at: 

http://www.torah.org/advanced/mikra/5757/br/dt.58.1.03.html

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

A couple of weeks ago I had opportunity to attend the Bat Mitzvah of a friend’s daughter.  The event was held on Shabbat/Shemini Atzeret at a local Reform Synagogue. Part of the Shabbat worship/Bat Mitzvah ceremony included the calling forth of pre-selected individuals to open and close the doors of the Aron (ark) where the Torah scrolls are housed.  I was one of the individuals selected by the family to have the honor of opening the doors of the Aron prior to the Torah service.  As I stood on the platform in front of the Aron and gently opened the left-sided door (as another woman opened the right-sided door) before me stood the most ornate and impressive Torah scrolls I had ever seen. 

 Two larger scrolls housed inside the Aron were ornately dressed in bejeweled mantels with the Etz-Chayim adorned in large silver plated filigree crowns.  A third Sefer Torah was smaller in size and a bit plainer in appearance but still lovely to look at.  The rabbi selected the smaller/plainer scroll for the Bat Mitzvah girl to carry throughout the sanctuary and to read from.   

 Later, during the reception that followed, I commented to the girl’s father regarding the impressive appearance of the community Torah scrolls.  The father explained that it was best for his daughter to carry the smaller/plainer scroll due to her petite size and frame. Being ethnically Asian (adopted by the family) the Bat Mitzvah girl was less than 5 feet tall and certainly weighed under 100 lbs.  In this way she would not be overburdened in carrying the Torah for as her father commented; “the larger Sefer Torah might be nicer to look at but the smaller Sefer Torah is lighter to carry”.

 I later thought about the truth of this statement regarding my own situation.  I have, for the last three years, worshipped with a small Torah community that follows a triennial cycle of weekly Torah readings.  We study the Torah in lighter portions that are “easier to carry” and not overburdening, so to speak.  This past Simchat Torah we completed our three year triennial rotation and rolled the scroll back to Genesis 1.  For the next three years we will again follow a system of triennial readings, although it will be different from our previous schedule.

 Previously we worked our way through the Torah from Genesis-Deuteronomy chapter by chapter in sections that took three years to complete.  This time we have decided to adopt a triennial schedule, used in Conservative synagogues in the US, in which 1/3 of each weekly parashah (based on the yearly cycle) is read and studied.  Because we are adopting this system in the third year of its rotation, each week we will consider the concluding 1/3 of the weekly parashah. 

 This past week the Torah portion from parashah B’reisheet was Genesis 5:1-6:8.  In reading through the verses I immediately became disheartened.  This portion of scripture begins with the genealogy of mankind through the godly line of Adam to Noah and ends with a few short verses about mankind’s depravity and HaShem’s plan to destroy all people and creatures with the exception of Noah.  Not only was this portion “light” and “manageable” it seemed almost “too skimpy” compared to the vast richness and depth of Genesis 1-4 that precedes it. 

 Yet, in the midst of this portion the concepts of rest from burden and easing of toil regarding Torah were once again presented to me. 

 And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son: And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.                    (Genesis 5:28-29 KJV)

 Noah’s name contains the same Hebrew root (nun-chet  נח) as the word nuach (נוּח) which means “rest”.  Numerous conjectures are given regarding the concept of rest ascribed to Noah.  According to Zohar (Bereshit, Section 1) when G-d cursed the earth after Adam sinned, Adam questioned how long the earth would be subject to the curse.  G-d told Adam that the curse would remain until a descendent of his would be born circumcised.  Lamech’s son was born circumcised and therefore he named his son “rest” (Noah) with the understanding that through him the curse upon the earth would be eased and mankind would find rest.  As an adult, Noah invented farming tools which aided man greatly regarding the work and toil of tilling the ground.

 Along the same lines Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer presents the tradition that the curse on the earth brought upon Adam would be in effect only during his lifetime.  Noah, being the first descendent of the godly line to be born after Adam’s death was named “rest” with the anticipation that the curse of the ground would begin to abate at the time of his birth.  Another midrash explains that until the time of Noah the earth would produce only thorns and thistles when wheat was planted, after Adam had died and Noah was born, the curse began to lighten as the ground would produce wheat along with weeds of thorns and thistles.  [1]

 Yet, the sages take note of the fact that Noah’s name does not correspond to its interpretation as given in Genesis 5:29.  Although Noah’s name means “rest” (nuach) the name is interpreted as bringing “comfort” (y’nachamenu) to mankind regarding the curse of the ground.  Although rest (nuach) and comfort (nacham) sound similar in Hebrew the actual meanings of the two words are different as are the root words they are based upon.  Noah is based upon the root nun-chet (נח) while nacham (comfort) is based upon the root nun-chet-mem (נחם).

 Genesis Rabbah 25:2 explains that “the name does not correspond to the interpretation and the interpretation does not correspond to the name” regarding Genesis 5:29.  In order to read the text without discrepancy it should state “he called his name Noach” (rest) for “this one shall give us rest (yanichenu) ,or, “he called his name “nacham” (comfort) for he shall give us comfort (y’nachamenu).  But in the literal Hebrew Lamech names his son “rest” (Noah) because he will give mankind “comfort” (y’nachamenu).  In order to reconcile this discrepancy some English translations, including the Stone Chumash, translate y’nachamenu as “rest” instead of the more literal “comfort”.  In this way Genesis 5:29 then reads; “And he called his name Noah, saying, “this one will bring rest . . .” This translation reflects Rashi’s rendered of the verse based on the understanding that rest and comfort are very closely related concepts.  Another midrash, found in the Sefer HaYasar attempts to reconcile this discrepancy by explaining that “in general” Lamech’s son was referred to as “Noah” but the birth name given to him was actually Menachem (the comforter).  [2]

 Interestingly, nacham (nun-chet-mem) is found two additional times in the ending section of this parashah (chapter 6) both related to G-d’s decision to bring the flood upon the earth.  In Genesis 6:6; “And HaShem reconsidered (vayinachem) having made man on earth and he had heartfelt sadness”.  And in Genesis 6:7; “for I have reconsidered (nicham’ti) having made them.” In relation to HaShem in this scenario nacham is understood as reconsideration rather than comfort.

 According to Rashi, at this point in human history G-d turned from dealing with mankind from a perspective of Divine Mercy and instead began to deal with mankind from a perspective of Divine Justice.  In this way, nacham (comfort) in a broad/general sense encompasses the idea of re-evaluating a situation.  G-d re-evaluated the situation of man upon the earth and reconsidered what to do with mankind as a whole.  Nacham in its most primary understanding speaks of a new orientation, of viewing things differently than before.  [3]

 Some of the commentators understand that when Noah brought rest (through the invention of farming tools and/or the abating of the curse upon the ground with the death of Adam) it provided mankind with freedom and leisure that had not been previously known.  This leisure lead to the activities described in Genesis 6; in which the “sons of the rulers saw that the daughters of man were good and they took themselves wives from whomever they chose”.  “Sons of the rulers” is the Hebrew B’ney-HaElohim which literally means “sons of G-d”.  Because judges in Torah are referred to as elohim this phrase could be understood as speaking of the sons of rulers and princes who forcefully subjected women of the general populace to be taken as wives.  Yet, many commentators understand B’ney-HaElohim to be referring to the godly descendents of Seth while the “daughters of man” (implying a less spiritual position) refer to the descendents of Cain.  [4]

 With more free-time and leisure on their hands, the men of the godly line began to notice the beauty and desirability of women in the general populace and to socially interact with them in a way in which marriages resulted.  The men of godly descent could take whomever they desired as a wife from among the ungodly line of Cain for such women were not spiritually selective regarding the mates they would have.  Ultimately the spiritual depravity of mankind resulted to the point that “every product of the thoughts of his heart was but evil always”.  

 In this way Noah (rest) brought “comfort” (y’nachamenu) in the sense that mankind’s perspective of his earthly situation was re-evaluated and reconsidered.  Instead of viewing life as horrible and never-ending fruitless toil, with Noah came rest regarding the curse of the ground that provided comfort and leisure leading to a reorientation of life in general and marriage in particular.  This reorientation toward wickedness caused G-d to respond by reconsidering and re-evaluating His interactions with mankind.

 The extent of this reorientation is also seen in the genealogy of Noah.  Of the generations listed in Genesis 5, Noah begat children at a much older age, hundreds of years beyond those of the previous generations (not until he was 500 years old).  Various midrashim explain why this is so.  One tradition is that Noah refused to marry believing that his offspring would perish in the flood.  HaShem however ordered him to take a wife and produce children that the world could be repopulated after the flood. Another tradition has it that HaShem caused Noah to be impotent until age 500 (100 years prior to the flood).  In this way, Noah’s sons would be “young adults” when the flood arrived, mature enough to withstand the rigors of living upon the ark and yet young enough to avoid being tainted by the evil society in which they lived.  Whatever the case, Noah’s advanced age in fathering children hints at the fact that he had re-evaluated his own existence and had reoriented his thinking regarding marriage and fatherhood in a way that was much different than the generations prior to him. 

 Interestingly, the sages (Sanhedrin 98b) understand one of the names of Messiah to be Menachem (the comforter) based on Lamentations 1:16.  This presents something of a connection between Messiah and Noah.  Although Noah’s name is not literally “comforter” the “rest” his name represents is closely connected to the concept of comfort for all mankind which is related to a change in perspective. 

 In Matthew 11:28-30 Yeshua speaks of rest that he will give to those who are labored and heavy laden.  Ironically, this passage which focuses on rest for one’s soul and a yoke that is easy and light is one that has caused much burden and toil among scholars and commentators regarding its intended meaning.  Generally, the labor and heavy burden that Yeshua refers to is understood as the rulings of the rabbis, scribes, and Pharisees, also known as the Oral Law.  The term “yoke” as used in the Talmud often describes the whole Torah (written and Oral Law altogether).  With this in mind, Yeshua’s lighter yoke is understood to be his teaching and perspective on the written Torah which is light and easy as compared to rabbinic standards which include burdensome halachah and numerous fences. 

 David Bivin (New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus) disagrees with the popular understanding of Yeshua’s yoke as the written Torah unencumbered by oral tradition.  For Yeshua taught his disciples that the Pharisees sit in Moses seat (have authority to determine halachah) and that their rulings should be heeded (cf. Matthew 23:2-3).  Drawing heavily on the use of “yoke” in the apocryphal text of Ben Sira (chapters 6 and 51), Bivin understands Yeshua’s “yoke” to be an invitation for prospective disciples to join his “traveling school” and to take on advanced and serious Torah study (yoke) which is burdensome and difficult.  Although such intense study presents a very real burden, Yeshua assures that his “yoke is easy” for studying Torah with him will be “so exhilarating that you won’t even notice the yoke’s weight”. [5]

 Bivin considers Matthew 11:28-30 to be a “context-less saying” based on its sole occurrence in Matthew’s gospel and variation in the setting of preceding passages (including woes to the cities of Galilee and Yeshua’s thanksgiving to the Father) as compared to Luke’s gospel. [6] However, based on the arrangement of Matthew’s account, Bivin’s conjecture regarding Yeshua’s yoke as being an invitation to intense study makes some sense. 

 Matthew 11 begins with the account of John the Baptist sending two of his disciples to Yeshua to question if he is The Coming One (expected Messiah).  Yeshua’s reply includes quotations from Isaiah 35 and 61, as well as the admonition that “blessed in he who is not offended because of me”.  The Greek word translated “offended”, in 11:6,  is skandalizo (σκανδαλίζω) which figuratively can mean to “stumble” or “trip-up”.  Yeshua is warning his audience that understanding his role as Messiah is something that is not easy to grasp and could cause one to stumble.  Naturally then he might invite the disciples of John and others to join his traveling school and take on the burden of learning of him, a burden that would prove to be light, easy and exhilarating in the end. 

 But one detail that Bivin’s conjectures do not answer is why Yeshua’s audience is burdened and heavy laden to begin with.  What is it that is causing this burden?  Why exactly are they heavy laden?  Perhaps it could be suggested, based on the early content of Matthew 11, that the burden and heaviness is due to a lack of clarity regarding Yeshua’s role and purpose, which was the basis of John the Baptist’s question to him regarding “the Coming One”.  Yet, Yeshua’s words are recorded in the immediate framework and theme of woes that he pronounces on the impenitent cities of Galilee which had witnessed his mighty works firsthand.  The judgment upon these cities (Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum) will be so severe on the Day of Judgment that the judgment upon Sodom will seem light in comparison.  

 The cities in which Yeshua had been most active would see the most severe judgment.  Undoubtedly many listening as such woes were pronounced had been following Yeshua from town to town, learning from him, and seeking out his miracles.  Yet, as the gospels attest, many were undecided about him.  Much like the inhabitants of the cities of Galilee the crowds following Yeshua had witnessed his mighty works firsthand.  Would such severe judgment come upon them also?  Such doubts and questions about HaShem’s severe and unrelenting judgment would certainly make one feel burdened and heavy laden. 

 Perhaps it is to such burdened individuals that Yeshua is speaking in Matthew 11:28-30, to those who were struck by the woes pronounced upon the Galilean cities and who felt heavy personal responsibility and doubt regarding G-d’s judgment upon them.  Perhaps it is to these that Yeshua encourages “come to me” (or “follow at my side”, even more closely than before), in order to find rest.  The Greek word in v. 28 translated “rest” is anapauo (ἀναπαύω) which is used in the LXX to translate both nuach (rest) and nacham (comfort).  In v. 29 Yeshua again speaks of “rest”; for those who take his yoke upon them will “find rest for your souls”.  The Greek word for “rest” in this verse is anapausis (ἀνάπαυσις) which is used in the LXX to translate nuach (rest).

 Like Noah, Yeshua offers rest (nuach) to mankind that is closely associated with and related to comfort (nacham).  Noah brought mankind “rest” (nuach) from the physical and burdensome rigors of the cursed ground that resulted in nacham (comfort and leisure) that led to a re-evaluation of life and a new orientation regarding the physical union of man and woman in marriage.  In the same way, Yeshua offers “rest” (anapausis/nuach) on a spiritual level, rest for the soul regarding G-d’s severe judgment leading to destruction.  As Menachem (the comforter) predicted in Lamentations 11:16, Yeshua gives comfort (anapauo/nacham) to those who closely follow him, and learn of him, through a re-evaluation of life and a new orientation regarding the spiritual reality of judgment ahead and the World to Come.

  . . . . . . . .

Being instructed to remain on the platform, standing to the left-side of the Aron, I watched as the Bat Mitzvah girl joyfully brought the Sefer Torah around to the congregation in attendance that day. As she made her way back to the platform she eventually brought the Torah to me.  In a helpful and humorous manner the rabbi whispered that I should go ahead and touch the Torah Scroll adding, “don’t worry; you won’t be struck by lightning”. 

 Little did he realize that each erev Shabbat I touch a Sefer Torah, one that is much smaller and much plainer than the one the Bat Mitzvah girl carried that day.  The community I attend, with a tight and limited budget, owns what is considered a “practice” Torah scroll designed for a pre-bar/bat mitzvah boy or girl.  It stands roughly 2 feet in height and is adorned with a simple royal blue embroidered mantel.   There are no decorative crowns upon its plain wood etz-chayim and its simple metal breastplate is not encrusted with jewels.  It is plain and simple, non-burdensome and light.  But upon its non-kosher paper are contained words that are full and rich with meaning even in sections that on the surface seem to be “manageable” or even “mundane”.  

Actually, I might have hoped that lighting would have manifested as I touched the Sefer Torah at the Reform synagogue where my friend’s daughter’s Bat Mitzvah took place on Shemini Atzeret.  For such a sign may have provided a burden of proof . . .that the unsuspected goy on the platform is part of the covenant too : )

[1] Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer as cited in Rabbi Nosson Scherman, The Stone Edition Chumash, Mesorah Publications, Brooklyn, New York, p. 27.

[2] Jewish Encyclopedia entry, Noah, available at: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=318&letter=N&search=noah

[3] The Westwood Kehilla, Reflections Vaeschanan 5767: Comfort at Last, available at: http://sites.kehilla.org/homepage/parsha-reflections-1/reflections-vaeschanan-5767-comfort-at-last

 [4] Rabbi Nosson Scherman, The Stone Edition Chumash, Mesorah Publications, Brooklyn, New York, p. 27.

 [5] David Bivin, New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus, En-Gedi Resource Center, Holland, Michigan, p. 25.

 [6] David Bivin, Jesus’ Yoke and Burden, available at: http://www.jerusalemperspective.com/Default.aspx?tabid=27&ArticleID=1872

“The Torah is G-d’s libretto, and we, the Jewish people, are His choir, the performers of His choral symphony. And though, when Jews speak they often argue, when they sing, they sing in harmony, as the Israelites did at the Red Sea, because music is the language of the soul, and at the level of the soul Jews enter the unity of the Divine which transcends the oppositions of lower worlds. The Torah is G-d’s song, and we collectively are its singers.” 

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks [1]

In considering the above words of Rabbi Sacks regarding the Song of Moses found in parashah Ha’azinu (Deuteronomy 32) I couldn’t help but think about my own experiences as a choir member over the years.  Starting in elementary school, I had opportunity to be involved in many choirs and found myself invited to participate in various choral competitions in which I even won a few solo roles.  Ironically, I have a very rudimentary knowledge of music and can read it only in the roughest manner, but yet I have been told I have a good musical ear and can pick up a melody quite easily by rote.  As a young girl I sang soprano, but as I matured and my voice changed I was assigned the role of second or mezzo soprano within the choir.  This required me to learn to sing in tension, in a role in-between that of alto and soprano.

At first this was quite awkward.  Because I was familiar with singing soprano I would often sing too sharp (or too high) and slip into a soprano key when I should be singing the second part.  The girl who sat beside me in the choir at that time was very adept in music and played several instruments.  When she heard me slipping off key and beginning to sing in too high or sharp of a range she would motion with her hand for me to sing “lower” or to “bring it down”. With her help, after a while, I adjusted to this in-between role in the choir, a role that provided the subtle underlying tension needed to produce harmonious chords in various choral arrangements.

R’ Yechiel Michal Epstein observes that one of the reasons the Torah is called “a song” is because “a song becomes more beautiful when scored for many voices interwoven in complex harmonies”. [2] Inevitably, complex harmonies require underlying musical tension in order to exist. The harmony part is not attractive to the ear.  If sung alone it would sound dull and uninspiring if not completely unnerving, but when placed among the other parts of the choir it provides a richness and tone that could not otherwise be achieved.

In like fashion the Song of Moses is considered to be a sketch of Jewish history; past, present and future.  But within this song and its historical setting is to be found a subtle tension.  After speaking the words of the Song to the people, Moses is commanded by HaShem to ascend Mt. Nebo where he will view the Land and be “gathered to his people” in death.  Verse 48 explains that HaShem spoke these words to Moses “on that very day”, “b’etzem hayom hazeh” (בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה).  In this innocuous phrase used throughout Torah, Rashi understands an underlying tension to be evident. 

B’etzem hayom hazeh is used in conjunction with two pivotal events in Torah history, the account of Noah entering the ark prior to the flood (Genesis 7:13) and the exodus of Israel from Egypt (Exodus 12:41,51).  According to the midrash in both circumstances large groups of people stood united and strong to oppose G-d’s will.  The people of Noah’s generation, as they witnessed him constructing and preparing the ark, decided that if they saw Noah attempt to enter the ark they would stop him and destroy the boat immediately.  In the same way, the Egyptians agreed that if they noticed the Israelites trying to leave the country they would take up weapons of war and kill them.  In both instances HaShem declares, b’etzem hayom hazeh, “on that very day”, or in the middle of the day, in plain sight, His will would occur and nobody could stop it. In this way Rashi understands the phrase b’etzem hayom hazeh as used in Deuteronomy 32:48 to be alluding to an event that the nation as a whole would try to prevent, the ascent of Moses to Nebo and his death upon the mount.  Therefore, in the middle of the day, in the sight of all Israel, Moses carried out G-d’s will and ascended the mountain.

From a literal viewpoint this seems like a nice traditional tale meant to highlight the nation’s great love and respect for Moses although the Biblical record presents a people passively silent in facing G-d’s command that Moses should die that very day.  However, there are hints within the parashah itself that allude to resistance against G-d’s will on a national level that may have been the underlying mood although not the stated reality. 

One such hint is found in v. 44 in which Moses’ successor is called “Hoshea” (הוֹשֵׁעַ) instead of the more familiar “Joshua”.  Hoshea is Joshua’s given name as listed in Numbers 13 although throughout Torah he is referred to as Joshua.  According to Talmud Sotah 34b, Moses prayed for Joshua prior to going out with the others to survey the Land; “May G-d save thee from the plan of the spies”.  After which Moses added a “yod” to Hoshea’s name (transforming Hoshea to Yehoshua/Joshua) to remind him of this prayer of protection (for Yehoshua means “G-d save” or “G-d will save”). 

Another view regarding Joshua’s name change draws on Talmud Sanhedrin 17a in which R. Simeon explained the prophecy of Eldad and Medad, (which Joshua vehemently opposed in Numbers 11:26-27), as predicting that Moses would die prior to Israel entering the Promised Land and that Joshua would lead the nation into Canaan. With this prophecy fresh on his mind Joshua would face an incredible temptation in journeying with the spies to survey the Land.  Because of his love for Moses it was very possible that Joshua would agree with the spies bad report in order to delay or prevent the nation from going into the Land for such an event might  result in Moses’ death. Therefore Moses prayed that Joshua would be saved from this temptation and added the “yod” to his name to remind him that G-d could indeed “save” him from such a mistake.

There are only three occurrences in Torah in which Joshua’s birth name “Hoshea” is used, two being in the genealogical listing of Numbers 13 and the third in Deuteronomy 32:44.  Numerous conjectures are given as to why “Hoshea” is used in parashah Ha’azinu.  Yet, if Joshua’s name was originally changed to protect him from the temptation to resist G-d’s will out of concern that it would lead to Moses’ death, it could be understood that in using his given name, Hoshea, such protection was no longer necessary.  As Joshua proclaimed the words of the Song along with Moses on the day that Moses would ascend Mount Nebo to die, he did so as Hoshea, the man who did not need to be saved from the temptation to hinder Israel’s entry into the Land in order to prevent Moses’ death.  Hoshea accepted G-d’s will that was about to transpire even though the nation may well have been planning to prevent such a fate.

Another hint of underlying tension in the parashah is found at the beginning of the Song in v. 4

The Rock! – perfect is His work, for all His paths are justice; a G-d of faith without iniquity, righteous and fair is He.  (Deuteronomy 32:4 Stone Chumash)

This is the first instance in Scripture in which G-d is described by the metaphor of “Rock” (tzur).  Of the 14 occurrences of tzur in Torah, eight are found in the Song of Moses here.  In Deuteronomy 31 Moses announced that he would not cross the Jordan with the people.  As the nation faced this reality and began to listen to Moses’ Song, the circumstances of Meribah-kadesh –where G-d had determined that Moses would not lead Israel into the Land due to disobedience regarding striking the rock instead of speaking to it– would have been on their minds.  As G-d’s judgment upon Moses was literally unfolding before their eyes, the natural response of the people would have been one of sadness, regret and questioning the fairness of what was about to occur. Therefore, Moses referred to HaShem as “The Rock”; publicly alluding to G-d’s justice regarding the verdict that Moses would not enter the Promised Land. Moses did not want anyone to think that G-d was dealing with him unfairly.  He perhaps did this in response to the underlying tension of the people in facing his departure.

Yet, in the literal Hebrew describing the events of Meribah-kadesh (Numbers 20) the word used to describe the rock that Moses was commanded to speak to is sela and not tzur. According to the midrash a miraculous rock followed Israel throughout their 40 year wilderness experience and provided water for the tribes wherever they encamped.  This rock initially brought forth water as Moses struck it via G-d’s command in Exodus 17, in which the rock is described by the Hebrew word tzur.  Forty years later, after the death of Moses’ sister Miriam, the rock stopped producing water.  Moses is then commanded to speak to the rock to bring forth water from it for the people.  The rock in this account of Numbers 20 is described by the Hebrew word sela.

Both tzur and sela are synonyms for “rock” in Hebrew, but with subtle shades of difference.  Tzur describes a particularly hard rock that doesn’t crumble or wash away. [3]. Sela describes a crag, flinty rock, or a high outcropping of rock often used in Torah to describe a fortress of protection within which a person or soldier could find haven. [4] Tzur describes a permanent fixture or individual rock/boulder that is unyielding and strong. Sela describes a panorama of rock that an individual contemplates strategically in order to find protection within.

In a kabbalistic sense, tzur is related to the spiritual characteristic of malchut or “kingship”.  For in kingship is found unbending and unyielding judgment that cannot be questioned or reversed.  In Exodus 17 G-d commanded Moses to strike the rock (tzur) in order to bring forth water for the people.  This was G-d’s unyielding judgment, in response to Israel’s testing of Him. [5]

Sela in kabbalistic terms is related to the higher spiritual quality of binah or “understanding”.  After 40 years of being taught by HaShem in the desert the nation was on a higher or more mature spiritual level.  When the rock stopped producing water Moses was commanded to interact with it as a sela, or a rock meant to be contemplated in order to find protection.  He was thereby to use speech, involving human understanding and spiritual wisdom, to draw forth water instead of using physical force to do so. [6] When Moses struck the rock he treated it as tzur, as something hard and unyielding, instead of something meant to be contemplated and considered.  Therefore, Moses faced G-d’s unyielding judgment.  A situation that was meant to encompass sela, involving understanding in which protection could be found, was transformed into tzur, an inflexible judgment barring Moses from entering the Promised Land.  This reality is reflected in Moses’ choice of the word tzur, in the Song of Deuteronomy 32 in which G-d’s inflexible judgment as “The Rock” (alluding to Moses inability to enter the Promised Land) is proclaimed as right and just.

In considering this, the disciple of Yeshua is reminded of the fact that the Master is also compared to a “rock” in the Apostolic writings (Romans 9:33, 1 Corinthians 10:4, 1 Peter 2:8).  Interestingly, in all three instances, Yeshua being likened to a “rock” is presented in relation to Gentile status within Israel.  In Romans 9:33 and 1 Peter 2:8, both Paul and Peter draw on Isaiah 8:14 to describe Yeshua as a “rock of offense” over which Israel in general has stumbled.  This stumbling is in response to Gentile believers, who have attained righteousness and are described as a chosen people in like covenant terms (such as “royal priesthood”, “holy nation”, “peculiar people”) with Israel, by means of the Messiah. 

The meaning of “rock of offense” is considered in Talmud Sanhedrin 38a in which the story is told of Rabbi Hiyya and his two sons who are invited to dine at the home of their fathers’ rabbi.  When the two sons remain silent during the meal the rabbi orders that they be given strong wine to drink.  As the wine takes effect the sons expound on Isaiah 8:14 explaining that “David (i.e. Messiah) cannot appear until the two ruling houses in Israel shall have come to an end”.  For it is written; “And he shall be for a Sanctuary, for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both houses of Israel”.

The rabbi exclaims that by bringing forth such an exegesis the sons have “thrown thorns in my eyes”, for he is a patriarch in Tiberias (or nasi according to Soncino Babylonian Talmud) and therefore involved in a ruling “house” of Israel which had authority in Palestine (the other ruling “house” being the Exilarchate which had authority over the Diaspora communities). [7] Incredibly, R. Hiyya does not scold his sons for such words that cause great pain and anguish to his rabbi.  Instead the sons’ words are understood to be a deeper (sod) understanding of Isaiah 8:14. 

In this way Messiah as “the rock of offense” is understood through midrashic exegesis as one who will necessarily do away with the ruling houses of Israel in order to set up a more perfect legal structure in the Messianic age. The offense is found in the understanding that Israel’s familiar legal structure must come to an end before Messiah will arrive.

Ironically, although every devout Jew prays three times a day for the coming of Mashi’ach and the restored and perfect era that he will bring upon the earth, R. Hiyya’s rebbe does not welcome the deeper understanding regarding Messiah presented by the sons.  How curious that a nasi, one intimately familiar with the burden and fearful responsibility of establishing halachah (as related in Pirkei Avot and other writings within Talmud), did not react with joy and relief and gladly set aside his governing role as patriarch in order to hasten the coming of Mash’iach?

Although the rebbe doesn’t refute the sons’ exegesis he is incapable of accepting it. Not only does such a teaching cause him anguish but it blinds him as well, for one who has “thorns in his eyes” not only feels pain, but cannot see. In this way the rabbi fulfills the very words presented by the sons’ at his dinner table, as he stumbles over the rock of offense, the Mashi’ach, who will not come until the ruling houses of Israel come to an end.

Incredibly, the “rock” of offense, in Isaiah 8:14 is a tzur, a rock that is strong, unmoving, and inflexible and cannot be changed.  In like manner to the tzur of Moses’ Song, an underlying tension is apparent within the Apostolic Scriptures regarding the “rock of offense” encompassed in the Gentile believer’s position within Israel through Messiah. The tension begins not-so-subtly with Yeshua’s words in the gospels that he has not come to bring peace but rather division within the very family structure of the nation itself (Matthew 10:34-37), and that his disciples will be severely persecuted within and  thrown out of the synagogues (Matthew 23:34, John 16:12).  From this the tension reaches a crescendo in the book of Acts, and retains an important focus in the Epistles that follow.

In discussions and articles I have read over the past week surrounding Divine Invitation theology much has been made of respecting and maintaining rabbinic/midrashic exegesis regarding the role of a Gentile believer within the nation of Israel, as such exegesis is understood to have been respected and heeded by the Apostles as well.  In this way the Gentile believer assumes the role of a G-d fearer within the nation of Israel according to acceptable halachah of the first century, having no legal standing or specific obligation to Torah except to maintain four essentials necessary for fellowship within the synagogue.  The Gentile, through faith in Messiah, has assurance of a place in the World to Come apart from conversion to Judaism and is invited to participate in Torah according to personal preference, desire and ability within the acceptable legal confines of G-d fearers within the synagogue.  His citizenship within Israel is a spiritual or inward reality in this present life which will find fulfillment and realization in the Messianic Era ahead.

If this is true then how can it be that Yeshua is a “rock of offense” and stumbling stone to the Jew?  Why would Gentile believers occupying legal and acceptable positions in the synagogues as G-d fearers, have sparked continual tension and difficulties within Israel as given in chapter after chapter of the Apostolic Writings?  A tension that is not subtly suggested or carefully exegeted but blaringly and continually blatant.

How ironic that within the pages of Talmud is contained a midrashic exegesis presenting the understanding that, in some way,  Israel’s ruling houses or “legal” system will necessarily come to an end before the fullness of the Messianic Age is realized, before Mashi’ach comes.  So difficult and deep is this understanding that inevitably it leads to anguish and blindness, stumbling and offense, among even the wisest of those in Israel. Could such a tzur be at the very heart of the Apostolic writings, an inflexible judgment that would prompt a large and vast number of people to unite in an attempt to oppose G-d’s will?  The understanding that in Messiah rabbinical rulings regarding the legal position of a Gentile believer has come to an end, as such a Gentile presently occupies a rightful and “real” (albeit distinct) position in Israel instead?

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

Continuing to consider the Divine Invitation theology is much like taking on a mezzo soprano role in the choir.  As I question things for myself I feel a sense of hesitancy and awkwardness in some ways, an inward nagging to “bring it down” (or let it go) and “quit being so sharp” (or pointed in my questioning).  But through the study of Moses Song I find myself wondering if sincere efforts to reconcile underlying and even blatant tensions found in the Apostolic writings will lead Messianics toward a relationship with Torah that lacks definition, depth and richness. For Torah is a Song that is created to be sung by “many voices interwoven together” including voices in purposeful tension with each other to achieve the most beautiful and complex harmonies possible.

[1] Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Covenant and Conversation (Nitzavim/Vayelech 5769), available at: http://www.chiefrabbi.org/ReadArtical.aspx?id=1537

[2] R’ Yechiel Michal Epstein, as cited in Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, ibid.

[3] Professor Dov Landau, Parashat Ha’azinu 5766 (Between a Rock and a Soft Place), available at: http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/haazinu/lan.html

[4] Ibid.

[5] Rav Michael Laitman PHD, The Zohar, Annotations to the Ashlag Commentary, Laitman Kabbalah Publishers, Brooklyn NY, 2009, p. 253

[6] Ibid.

[7] Jewish Encyclopedia entry “exilarch” available at: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=548&letter=E

Over the past few weeks the topic of role confusion and role appropriateness has inundated my thinking, due to the recent Divine Invitation theological shift announced by First Fruits of Zion.  I, like many others, have been challenged to consider what role among G-d’s people as a Gentile believer I am really suited for.  I have suddenly been faced with the idea that being obligated to HaShem’s commandments is not an appropriate role for me according to the Apostolic Scriptures, as one who is not a biological or “legal” daughter of Israel. 

During these ten Days of Awe I have wondered if I should repent regarding this in some way.  Should I repent for attempting to be something that I am not, or for not carrying out my role in the correct manner or with the correct mindset?  The confusion can sometimes seem overwhelming as I contemplate where exactly I stand in relation to Israel and her Torah.  Yet, as I considered parashah Vayelech this past week, I came upon a most interesting case of role confusion that plagued even the wisest sages of Israel. 

In Deuteronomy 31, Moses gives the final two commandments of Torah to the children of Israel on the last day of his life on earth.  Commandment #612 is found in v. 10-12;

Moses commanded them, saying, “At the end of seven years, at the time of the Sabbatical year, during the Succos festival, when all Israel comes to appear before HaShem, your G-d, in the place that He will choose, you shall read this Torah before all Israel, in their ears.  Gather together the people – the men, the women, the small children, and your stranger who is in your cities – so that they will hear and so that they will learn, and they shall fear HaShem, your G-d, and be careful to perform all the words of the Torah. . .” (Deuteronomy 31:10-12 Stone Chumash). 

Commandment #612 is known as Hakhel which in Hebrew means “assemble”.  The Talmud (Mishnah, Sotah 41a) explains that Hakhel was to be held after sunset on the first day of Sukkot, which is the beginning of the first Chol HaMoed (or intermediary day) of the festival (or what practically constitutes day “two” of the seven days). Hakhel took place on this particular day of Sukkot on the year immediately following a Shemitah (or Sabbatical) year of rest. Therefore, Hakhel is described as taking place in the “eighth year”.  

After sunset, as day two of Sukkot arrived on the “eighth year”, a special high platform was set up in the court of women.  According to Tosefta, the people were assembled by the sounding of trumpets performed by the priests.  The king of Israel would ascend the platform and sit down, after which he would read from various portions of the book of Deuteronomy that highlighted allegiance to G-d, the covenant, and the blessings and curses.

According to Rambam (Hilchot Chagigah) the purpose of Hakhel was to inspire the people to awe and fear HaShem and also to recreate the covenant at Sinai.  In this way, Israel would re-live Har Sinai every seven years through symbolic actions that recreated the event for them physically.  Just as HaShem’s presence resided upon the mountain, so the most majestic person in the land, the king, represented G-d in all his glory and awe, high and lifted upon a platform.  The people heard the words of Torah proclaimed, by the one most worthy of their fear and awe, even as their forefathers had heard the words of HaShem. The sounding of the trumpets assembled the nation to the event, just as the trumpets of G-d grew louder and louder upon Sinai when the Torah was given.  

When the children of Israel accepted the covenant at Sinai they ratified it by means of burnt and peace offerings.  For this reason, Hakhel took place during Sukkot which was one of the three pilgrimage festivals requiring every male of Israel to present themselves at the Temple with burnt and peace offerings in hand.  During the Shemitah (seventh) year the land was to lie fallow and planting or reaping of crops was forbidden.  Israel was sustained only by that which grew naturally from the ground, literally via the “hand of HaShem” with no human intervention.  After experiencing such a year, the people were in the same position as Israel at Sinai who had received their sustenance by G-d’s miraculous hand alone.

Yet, in the midst of all the beauty, awe and symbolic recreation of the covenant at Sinai, a most troubling detail is found in the person of the stranger (ger) who was also involved in Hakhel.  According to rabbinic theology, within Israel there were two types of “strangers”.  The first was the Ger Tzedek or Gentile who had converted to Judaism.  The other was the Ger Toshav or Gentile who had rejected idolatry and accepted upon himself the seven Noahide laws but had not converted to Judaism.  Was the “ger” of Hakhel the Ger Tzedek or the Ger Toshav? 

A Ger Tzedek, being a convert, bears the same level of mitzvah obligation as any other Jew.  Therefore it would be superfluous for the Torah to speak of a Gentile proselyte as the stranger attending Hakhel.  Yet, a Ger Toshav has no obligation to fulfill any of the commandments apart from the seven Noahide laws.  If the Ger Toshav is commanded to attend Hakhel, in reality he is required to obey eight commandments instead of just seven.

Ibn Ezra understands “ger” in Deuteronomy 31:12 to be a toshav who participates in Hakhel in order to be inspired to convert. [1]  In this line of thinking Hakhel is understood not as a commandment incumbent upon a stranger but instead as a commandment incumbent upon Israel who invites the stranger to attend the event. Yet, other commentators disagree with this understanding for Torah does not encourage proselytizing among the Gentiles. 

In a different take on Ibn Ezra, Rav Shabtai Dov Rosenthal suggests that the “ger” is referring to a toshav who has shown an active interest in conversion.  The Hebrew word translated “gates” or “city” in v. 12, sh’areykha, (שְׁעָרֶיךָ) is occasionally used in Talmud to refer to a Beit Din.  Therefore, this verse may be understood to refer to a “ger” or stranger “in the courts” who had taken initial steps regarding conversion. [2]

Maharil Diskin (Parashat Vayelekh) suggests that the “ger” is actually a tzedek (full-fledged convert).  This understanding is based on the fact that Hakhel takes place during Sukkot and is associated with aliyah l’regel or the “going up on foot” to Jerusalem for a required pilgrimage journey.  However, the Gemara (Pesachim 8b) explains that the pilgrimage to the three festivals only applies to those who own land in Israel.  Gentile converts to Judaism would be excluded from the obligation of aliyah l’regel for they did not receive property in Eretz Yisrael through the direct chain of inheritance initially distributed under Joshua.  Therefore, the convert is commanded regarding attendance to Hakhel despite his exemption from going up “on foot” to the pilgrimage festival of Sukkot. [3]

Yet, another discrepancy is found among the chazal regarding Hakhel; for in the Jerusalem Talmud (Sotah 7:7) it is stated that the assembling of the people to hear the Torah was to take place on “the day after the end of Sukkot” or on the eighth day known as Shemini Atzeret. But amidst this disagreement among the rabbis is to be found a remarkable parallel with the Transfiguration of Yeshua (Matthew 17:1-9, Mark 9:1-10, Luke 9:28-36).

Generally within Christian theology the time and place of the Transfiguration is considered unknown or not given in the Gospels.  Traditionally the Feast of the Transfiguration is memorialized in the month of August on various dates depending on denomination.  All Christians would agree that the miraculous transformation of Yeshua upon a high mountain as witnessed by Peter, James and John was a foreshadowing of his majesty in the Kingdom to come.  Messianic believers will go a bit further to discern Peter’s comments regarding building “three shelters” (or sukkahs) for Yeshua, Moses, and Elijah as relating to the temporary dwellings of Sukkot which is a festival steeped in symbolism regarding the Messianic age and Kingdom to come.

But in considering the rabbinic details of Hakhel an uncanny resemblance to the Transfiguration seems to surface.  Like the king high upon the platform in all his glory and majesty, Yeshua is high upon a mountain with face and clothing transformed and shining with the glory of HaShem.  Just as the king reads from Torah in order to inspire awe and fear of G-d within the people, so Yeshua is conversing with Moses and Elijah (who represent the Law and Prophets) in a manner that Peter understands as being directed specifically toward him, and that inspires incredible awe and fear in all the disciples present.  Just as the Hakhel is understood to recreate the covenant at Sinai, so the Transfiguration contains many images of Sinai including the cloud of HaShem overshadowing the mountain and the voice of HaShem being heard by the disciples.  But perhaps the most profound detail regarding the Transfiguration is that G-d commands Peter, James and John to listen to His son.

According to Deuteronomy 31:12 the main point of the Hakhel is that the people will hear the words of Torah.  Interestingly, the word “shema” (listen) appears fifty-two times in the Hakhel Torah readings, which includes the first two paragraphs of the shema prayer. [4]  The command to listen to G-d’s beloved son Yeshua was also expressed via a Bat Kol (voice from heaven) at Yeshua’s baptism.  So why would HaShem repeat it again on the Mount of Transfiguration?  

At Yeshua’s baptism the command of G-d was to listen to His son as the spirit-filled prophet in the present world.  At the Transfiguration, G-d reiterates this command to listen to His son as the glorious and majestic king in the era to come.  One admonition is for the present world the other is for the World to Come.  Perhaps this is the subtle reason behind the discrepancy among the sages too, regarding the timing of Hakhel.  The earthly Hakhel takes place on the second day of Sukkot, a day which best represents the physical realities present at the covenant of Har Sinai.  The eighth day suggests a Hakhel in a “time beyond time” symbolizing the World to Come.  With this in mind could it be that Yeshua’s Hakhel (Transfiguration) took place on the eighth day of Shemini Atzeret symbolizing a future kingship that would inspire awe and fear of G-d in a way that goes beyond this present earthly existence?

By placing the Transfiguration on Shemini Atzeret many details seem to fall into order and sensibility. First of all the discrepancy of days between the accounts in Matthew and Luke can be reconciled.  Matthew’s account speaks of six days elapsing between Yeshua’s statement that “some shall not taste death till they see the son of Man coming in his Kingdom” and the actual event of the Transfiguration.  Luke’s gospel relates that “about eight days” elapsed.  Why would the gospels bother with number of days and elapsed time if the Transfiguration occurred at some unspecific point in the month of August?

Interestingly, in the Luke account, the Greek word translated “eight” (oktō) (ὀκτώ), can also mean “eighth”.  Therefore, Luke could be relating that “after these sayings, on the eighth day” which is the way the verse is rendered in the Young’s Literal Translation.  The King James Version, also presents an awkward and strained translation of Luke 9:28 which states; “it came to pass about an eight days” which is poor English, or perhaps reflects a difficulty with translating a Greek word which can mean “eight” or “eighth”.  Therefore, the Luke account may be relating that the Transfiguration took place on the eighth day (after Sukkot, Shemini Atzeret).

 If this is the case, then based on Matthew’s account of “six days” elapsed time  Yeshua’s teachings to the disciples regarding “taking up their cross” and the promise that some would witness him in his Kingdom glory before their death, would have occurred on the second day of Sukkot, the day that the Babylonian Talmud relates as Hakhel in the eighth year.  Based on historic accounts (including Talmud, Sotah 41a), King Agrippa performed Hakhel in 42 CE.  If 42 CE was the beginning of the “eighth year” then the previous Hakhel would have taken place in 35 CE.  Although the exact dates of Yeshua’s birth, ministry and/or crucifixion are unknown, scholars in general place his crucifixion during the governorship of Pontius Pilate between the dates of  26-36 CE.  Therefore it is possible that Yeshua’s final celebration of Sukkot (also related in John 7) could have taken place on the “eighth year” in which Hakhel would have been performed.

 This might also explain Yeshua’s strange and puzzling reaction to his brothers who encourage him to attend the “festival of booths” in order to “show himself to the world” (John 7:3-4).  Yeshua answers by saying that his time “had not yet come” prior to attending the festival in secret and remaining hidden and elusive until the mid-point of the feast at which time he enters the Temple to teach.

 If the Feast of Tabernacles was a Hakhel year, Yeshua’s arrival to the Temple precinct publicly and openly may have distracted from the king’s rightful role to inspire the people to awe and fear of HaShem through the reading of Torah. The truth of this is seen in John 7 which relates that Yeshua was seriously sought after and the topic of popular conversation among the throngs during the early days of the feast in which he remained secretive and allusive.  In this way, Yeshua’s time had “not yet come” to assume the role of a king teaching the nation from an exalted position that related G-d’s glory. That time would occur in the Messianic age of the future. To show up at the feast openly at first may have led to role confusion.

Perhaps out of deference toward the king and his honor and glory in performing Hakhel, Yeshua attended the early days of Sukkot in secret.  On the second day, the day on which the king would have performed Hakhel, with the glory of majesty and the awe of Torah fresh on their minds, Yeshua taught his disciples about his kingly role and assured them that some would see proof of this reality before they “tasted death”.  Six days later, on the eighth day of Shemini Atzeret, Yeshua took Peter, James and John to the mount and was transfigured before them.  It is here that they received a taste of his role as king in the Kingdom of G-d, as the one intimately acquainted with Torah (Law and Prophets) and who speaks with the undeniable glory of G-d upon him, inspiring awe and fear into his disciples. Yeshua told his disciples not to speak of this until his resurrection from the dead, but why?  Because his rightful role of king over the Kingdom of Heaven would not be confirmed and realized until then, until G-d raised him from the dead.

Understanding the Transfiguration to have taken place on Shemini Atzeret also vindicates what seems to be Peter’s confusion in both Mark and Luke regarding his suggestion that “booths” (sukkahs) be constructed for Yeshua, Moses and Elijah.  Typically this reply is understood to be a mindless or tongue-tied reaction to an overwhelmingly miraculous situation.  Having just awakened from sleep and with the festival of Sukkot concluded on the previous day, Peter’s overwhelmed reply, although incorrect, is understandable. On Shemini Atzeret the sukkah is still standing (due to the prohibition of work on a Sabbath day) but is not used because the festival is concluded.  Therefore both the Mark and Luke accounts explain Peter’s suggestion as “not knowing what to say” due to fear (Mark 9:6) and “not knowing what he said” in error (Luke 9:33).

It is also interesting to note that after the conclusion of Sukkot in John 7, Yeshua is said to have gone to the Mount of Olives (in 8:1).  The next day, Shemini Atzeret, early in the morning, Yeshua sat in the Temple and taught the people. Sometime during that day, perhaps as it was coming to a close, Yeshua took Peter, James and John and ascended a mountain, within a Sabbath’s day journey of Jerusalem for Shemini Atzeret is a Sabbath day.  Presumably the mount would have been Olivet which Acts 1:12 confirms is within a Sabbath’s day journey from the city, and which seems to be the mount Yeshua was residing upon during Sukkot.  Perhaps as the day began to wind to a close Yeshua prayed and the exhausted disciples fell asleep. They were then awakened to see the amazing witness of Yeshua in his Kingdom role transfigured before them as a Hakhel-like scene was played out before their very eyes.

Both Matthew and Mark speak of the mount of Transfiguration as a “high” mountain while Luke leaves this detail out of his account.  How could it be suggested that the Mount of Olives was the place of the Transfiguration for it certainly is not a “high” mountain? The Greek word translated “high” (hupsēlos) (ὑψηλός) can mean “lofty” in “place” or “character”.  Not only can it denote physical height but also a place or situation that is “highly” esteemed. The Mount of Olives was esteemed among the Jews of Yeshua’s day, for in Ezekiel (11:23) its holy character is alluded to as the Glory of the L-RD is said to have stood upon this mountain “east of the city”.  It is the mountain identified with the End of the Age in which the feet of the L-RD will stand to do battle (Zechariah 14:3-4).  Jews have been buried there since Bible times with the traditional hope that those buried on this holy mount will be raised first at the resurrection.

Yet another hint regarding the Mount of Olives as the possible Mount of Transfiguration is found within the Luke account, which alone reveals the subject of Moses’ and Elijah’s conversation with Yeshua on that day. The subject is described as Yeshua’s “departure” (ESV), “decease” (KJV), and “outgoing” (YLT) and is generally understood to be a discussion about his upcoming crucifixion which would occur in Jerusalem.  Yet, the Greek word used here is “exodos” (ἐξοδος) which literally means “exit”.  Therefore it’s feasible that Moses and Elijah were speaking with Yeshua about his “exit” from this world which would occur as he ascended from the very mountain upon which they stood, the Mount of Olives in the vicinity of Jerusalem.  

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

Little did I realize that the study of Deuteronomy 31 would hold both comfort and inspiration for me in a time of questioning and role confusion in the midst of Days of Awe and repentance.  For even among the most brilliant minds in Judaism the presence of a stranger listening to Torah in order to inspire fear and awe of HaShem and obligation to all the commandments is a confusing issue with many possible perspectives.  

Like the stranger in the Hakhel crowd, I am a ger invited to hear and learn Torah, via a Jew, named Yeshua of Nazareth.  Like the stranger in the courts I have an active desire to be a legitimate part of G-d’s people, to be filled with awe of His majesty and sincere fear for His word.  But unlike the thousands of unnamed faces of gerim participating in Hakhel, I do not have the option to convert to Judaism.  As a matter of fact, I am prohibited from such a conversion as a Gentile believer according to the teachings of Paul.  My identity must be found only in Yeshua, but what then should I understand my identity and role to be?

[1] Ibn Ezra as cited in; Rav David Silverberg, Parashat Vayelekh/Rosh Hashana, available at:  http://vbm-torah.org/archive/salt-devarim/52-11vayelekh-rh.htm

 [2] Rav Shabtai Dov Rosenthal as cited in; ibid.

 [3] Maharil Diskin as cited in; ibid.

 [4] Rebbetzin Chana Bracha Seigelbaum, Parashat Vayelech/Mitzvah of Hakhel, available at: http://www.breslev.co.il/articles/torah_portion/chanas_blessing/learning_to_listen.aspx?id=13735&language=english