Torah Apologetics - Apologetics & Daily Life

Parashat Vayeira Commentary (2025)

Mon, 03 Nov 2025 01:39:38 GMT

When Heaven Touches Earth

"Then Adonai appeared to him…" These opening words set the tone for what we discover to be one of the most theologically charged passages in the Torah. Genesis 18-22 walks us through a theophany (a form of visible appearance of the Most High), covenant promises coming to fruition, intercessory prayer that holds God's attention, and a test of faith so extreme it nearly breaks the narrative itself. For followers of Yeshua, this parsha shines with a particular richness and depth. The patterns established here in this parsha don't just repeat in the New Testament: they culminate in it. In fact, Vayeira is one of the most referenced sections of Genesis in the New Testament (after last week’s Lekh-Lekha and of course the opening parsha, Bereshit). This parsha is a common referent in the Mishnah as well, and for good reason, there are so many meaty passages here. No doubt, the young Bar or Bat Mitzvah who has Vayeira as their parsha has no shortage of topics to drash about. But enough of that for now. (Note: I am proceeding with the assumption you have already read the parsha, and if you haven't...pause for a few minutes and go do that first, please!)

Convergence: Where Heaven and Earth Meet

In many of his works and lectures, scholar and theologian N. T. Wright refers to passages of Scripture that depict God meeting with humans – whether a theophany as in the present parsha in the form of Messiah Yeshua, or in the form of the Tabernacle / Temple – as convergence. In a post-resurrection world like ours in the 21st century, we would do well as students of Scripture to pay close attention to such passages, as their significance is all the more magnified in light of the work and revelation of Yeshua. So now back to Genesis.

There's something striking here about how Abraham responds when three strangers appear at his tent. He's not just being polite. He's ninety-nine years old, recently circumcised (still in that brutal phase of healing on day three when even the most basic of movement yields genuine suffering, if we are to believe Rabbi Hama bar Hanina, according to Baba Metsia 86b). Yet the text tells us he ran to greet them. He hastened to Sarah, who had to hasten to bake bread. The servants hastened to prepare the meat. Everyone is moving at full speed. This isn't the typical ancient hospitality protocol. This is a man who senses something significant is happening and he doesn't want to miss it.

The Genesis account maintains an interesting ambiguity here though. It opens with "Adonai appeared to Abraham," but then immediately shows us three men. Jewish tradition has worked through this puzzle for centuries and has produced a rather underwhelming answer: the Rabbis say it was three angels (specifically, Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael). The Talmud claims Michael was sent to announce the birth of Isaac, Gabriel to overthrow Sodom, and Raphael to heal Abraham. They then further probe how two of these beings went to Sodom, and land on it being Gabriel to overthrow, and Michael to rescue Lot. It’s worth pointing out, however, that while the Talmud (B. M. 86b) claims this, the Midrash disagrees, claiming it was Raphael who went on to rescue Lot. From what I can tell, the discrepancy is in how the name of each angelic being relates to their job function: Raphael (rapha) refers to healing and Gabriel (gibbor) refers to might, so the assignments of healing Abraham and overthrowing Sodom make sense. With Michael, his name refers to there being none like God (recall the words of the michamocha: who is like You, oh Lord?), so it is thought he is a declarer or bringer of news. He is at times also seen in a rescuing or protecting role (see Dan. 10-12). But I am getting off track. The point is, while the Rabbis disagree about the exact identities of the messengers in question, they pretty much all agree that the three beings were, in fact, messengers. And this is where they diverge too far from the Biblical text. The opening passage of the parsha is clear: Adonai appeared to Abraham. In light of the additional revelation of Yeshua in the New Testament, we have a means of better understanding the full picture. Yeshua says in John 8:56 that Abraham saw his day, and in 14:8-11 he adds that whoever has seen him, has seen the Father. Comparing this with John 1:18’s declaration that no one has seen God (additionally 1 John 4:12), and Col. 1:15 stating that Yeshua is the image of the invisible God, we can – I believe – safely say that Yeshua is the form of God that has been seen by humans. And as such, Yeshua ate with Abraham that day.

Now, what I additionally find fascinating about this passage of Gen. 18 is that Abraham's hospitality directly anticipates something Yeshua would teach his disciples centuries later. The writer of Hebrews may also have had this in mind, writing, " 2Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers—for in doing so, some have entertained angels without knowing it." (Hebrews 13:2). But it goes deeper than that.

In Matthew 25, when the King separates the sheep from the goats, he tells the righteous ones: "I was a stranger and you invited me in." (vs. 35) When they ask confused questions, he responds,
“Whatever you did to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.”

This creates continuity across the entire arc of Scripture. Abraham's posture at the tent door becomes the posture Yeshua calls his followers to maintain. We're supposed to be the kind of people who see strangers and recognize them not as threats or inconveniences but as bearers of heaven itself. Every act of gemilut chasadim—acts of loving-kindness—becomes a potential encounter with Messiah.

Sarah's Laughter: From Joke to Joy

When God announces that Sarah will have a son within a year, she laughs. But this isn't Abraham's laughter from Genesis 17. His was surprise mixed with wonder. Sarah's laugh comes from somewhere deeper: decades of barrenness, the exhaustion of hope deferred, and probably a bit of resentment and sarcasm. And who could blame her? The thought is almost absurd enough to be funny (if it weren't so painful). And God doesn't let it slide.

He asks Abraham directly: "Why did Sarah laugh?" And then comes a line that seizes the narrative: "Is anything too difficult for Adonai?" (Genesis 18:13-14). When Sarah denies laughing (out of fear), God doesn't retreat; rather, he reasserts himself – almost sarcastically – with "No, for you did laugh."

Here's where grace gets interesting. God doesn't retract the promise. H doesn't say, "Well, with that attitude, you can forget about the child of promise." He doubles down and reaffirms it with precision: "At the appointed time I will return to you—in about a year—and Sarah will have a son." (Genesis 18:14).

Sarah's journey is instructive for anyone who has struggled to believe the promises of God. Her laughter transforms from cynical disbelief into celebration: " God has made laughter for me! Everyone who hears will laugh with me." (Genesis 21:6). It happens at exactly the time God said it would, which is, I think, the point here—divine promises don't expire just because we struggle to believe them.

Abraham's Intercession

What unfolds between Abraham and God over Sodom and Gomorrah is remarkable. God reveals his intention not to hide what he's about to do, because he's chosen Abraham specifically to "command his sons and his household after him to keep the way of Adonai by doing righteousness and justice" (Genesis 18:17-19). God is educating Abraham about his character and methods. He's teaching him the divine curriculum, if you will, of justice and mercy.

Abraham then does something that I think many of us today would find quite audacious. He challenges God: "Will you really sweep away the righteous with the wicked? ...Far be it from you to do such a thing – to cause the righteous to die with the wicked…Shall the Judge of the whole world not exercise justice?" (Genesis 18:23-25). The posture matters—Abraham "remained standing before Adonai" (Genesis 18:22), and he stays there, negotiating. Fifty righteous? God agrees. Forty-five? Agreed. Forty? Thirty? Twenty? Ten? Each time, God says yes.

It's not that Abraham is being presumptuous. He's doing what friends do, what mercy demands—he's advocating honestly, pushing back a little, trying to find the way through that preserves both justice and mercy. His nephew Lot is in that city, sure, but the fact that Abraham negotiates all the way down to just ten righteous people suggests his concern extends beyond family. It seems he genuinely wants these people spared if there's any righteous reason to spare them.

This conversation establishes something foundational: the idea of the righteous remnant. God will preserve a people, a place, or a witness—sometimes on the basis of just a handful of faithful ones. Centuries after Abraham’s encounter, Isaiah picks up on this same motif: "Unless ADONAI-Tzva’ot had left us a small remnant, we would have been as Sodom, we would have been as Gomorrah." (Isaiah 1:9). And here's where it gets even more Messianic. Abraham stands between God and a condemned city, advocating for mercy without denying justice. That's exactly what Yeshua does as High Priest—he’s "always living to make intercession" for us (Hebrews 7:25). But where Abraham’s finite humanity could only argue and negotiate (how very lawyer-ish of him, eh?), Yeshua actually offers himself as the one who satisfies divine justice while extending divine mercy. He doesn't just advocate from the sidelines.

Covenant Faithfulness: Enter Isaac

Genesis 21 opens simply, "Adonai visited Sarah just as he had said, and Adonai did for Sarah just as he had spoken" (Genesis 21:1). The Hebrew there for “visited”—paqad—isn't casual. It means God actively intervened, that he paid attention, that he remembered and acted. (There’s a whole side-quest here on how this word is actually different from the usual word in this case, zakar, such as we find with Rachel’s barrenness, but…that’s for a later drash)

Twenty-five years had passed since God first made the promise. Twenty-five years of waiting, of Sarah and Abraham getting old enough that the whole thing became physically impossible. Yet at the exact moment God had specified, it happened. Sarah "became pregnant and gave birth to a son for Abraham in his old age, at the appointed time that God had told him." (Genesis 21:2).

The precision matters. God doesn't just keep promises, he keeps them on his timeline, not ours. Which, honestly, is usually the hard part. More than just a promise kept, Isaac's birth also carries prophetic weight. Paul explicitly connects Isaac to the Spirit's promise and the Gentile inclusion through faith, contrasting him with Ishmael born of the flesh (Galatians 4:23-31). The pattern repeats throughout Scripture—impossible births that signal God's intervention: Joseph, Samuel, John the Immerser, and ultimately Yeshua himself. Each one demonstrates that God's redemptive story moves forward not because of human capability but because God intervenes.

In fact, even his name itself is telling: Isaac (Yitzchak) means "he laughs” and it is a permanent reminder of both Sarah's doubt and her joy. When she declares, "God has made laughter for me; everyone who hears will laugh with me" (Genesis 21:6), that laughter has shifted from the cynicism of impossibility to the genuine delight of fulfillment.

Grace Beyond the Covenant Line: Hagar and Ishmael

The expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael is uncomfortable. Ishmael mocks Isaac at the weaning celebration, and Sarah demands their removal. (Side quest: the interpretations of what exactly it meant that Ishmael mocked Isaac vary widely. Rashi connects it to idolatry based on the word tsachaq here, meaning “to make fun” and the same word appearing in Exodus 32:6 which refers to the sin of the golden calf and the people rising up to “make merry.” Meanwhile, the Midrash offers multiple possible explanations, from Ishmael being an idolater, to claims that Ishmael was a bad influence because he forced himself on women, to claiming that he was threatening Isaac’s murder. The last offered explanation, though, perhaps offers the best resolution of the text that follows, which claims that Ishmael was mocking Isaac because while Isaac was Abraham’s son, Ishmael was still Abraham’s firstborn, and as such, he was still set to be the primary inheritor. This, I feel, explains Sarah’s response that Ishmael and Hagar be banished so that Ishmael would not “be an heir with my son – with Isaac” though once again, the text is not explicit here as to the reason).

Abraham is troubled—Ishmael is his son too—but God tells him to listen to Sarah while assuring him that Ishmael will also become a nation (Genesis 21:12-13).

Sent into the wilderness with minimal supplies, Hagar and Ishmael face death. When the water runs out, Hagar puts her son under a bush and sits down away from him—she can't bear to watch him die. The text says she "lifted up her voice and wept" (Genesis 21:16).

Into that moment of absolute despair, God intervenes. "God heard the boy’s voice, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, 'What troubles you, Hagar? Do not be afraid, because God has heard the boy’s voice where he is. Get up! Lift the boy up, and hold onto him with your hand, for I will make him a great nation.'" (Genesis 21:17-18).

Here's what strikes me: Ishmael is not the child of promise. In fact, he is the direct result of Abraham and Sarah’s attempts to force the promise to come about by human means. Yet God doesn't abandon him. His cry is heard. He's rescued. He's given a future. This is God's grace operating even in ways that seem beyond us and our categories. The God who heard Ishmael in the wilderness is the same God who "came to seek and save the lost" (Luke 19:10). The same one who opens the door to non-Jews being included in God's covenant family through faith, being grafted in.

The Akedah: When Everything Hangs in the Balance

Then comes the test that nearly breaks the narrative: "God tested Abraham" (Genesis 22:1). And the command: "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you" (Genesis 22:2).

Let that sink in for a moment. This is the child God promised. The son through whom Abraham's descendants would become innumerable. The one through whom all the earth would be blessed. The entire covenant hinges on Isaac. And God is telling Abraham to sacrifice him?

It looks like God is asking Abraham to nullify his own promises. Moreover, child sacrifice was an abomination practiced by the pagan cultures surrounding Israel—exactly the kind of practice the Torah would later explicitly condemn (Leviticus 18:21; 20:2-5). So, Abraham is being asked to do something that looks like pagan barbarism, something that would destroy God's covenant promise, something that has no logical justification. Right?

And then Abraham…obeys. He wakes up early, saddles his donkey, takes Isaac and two servants, and begins the three-day journey to Moriah (Genesis 22:3). No argument. No negotiation like at Sodom. Just obedience.
The writer of Hebrews gives us the key to understanding Abraham's mind: "He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back" (Hebrews 11:19). Abraham's faith had reached the point where he believed God could resurrect the dead. If he completed the sacrifice, God would raise Isaac. His belief in God's power and character had become that absolute.

Now, if you read this as a believer who recognizes Yeshua as Messiah, the typological parallels become almost impossible to miss: Both are beloved, only sons of promise. Both carry the wood for their own sacrifice. Both are sacrificed on the same mountain. Both involve resurrection on the third day. (Abraham traveled three days to Moriah and "on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place from far off" (Genesis 22:4)). Isaac is figuratively "received back" from death on the third day, which foreshadows Yeshua's literal resurrection.

Both are willing participants. Isaac could have resisted his elderly father, but he doesn't. Instead, he asks a question that cuts to the theological heart of the narrative: "Where is the lamb for a burnt offering?" (Genesis 22:7). Abraham's response is extraordinary: "God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son" (Genesis 22:8). That statement functions on two levels simultaneously: it reassures Isaac, but it's also prophetic. It echoes across the centuries to John the Baptist's testimony: "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29).

The Akedah, read through Messianic eyes, becomes prophecy. The beloved son, carrying the wood, willingly submitted, figuratively raised from the dead on the third day—it all points to Messiah. But at that pivotal moment, things invert: the grief Abraham was spared becomes the grief that Adonai experiences. The resurrection that Isaac experiences figuratively, Yeshua experiences literally.

Friendship With God

James reflects on Abraham's willingness to give up Isaac and concludes: "And the Scripture was fulfilled that says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness'—and he was called a friend of God" (James 2:23). The title is extraordinary. Not servant. Not subject. Friend.

Friendship with God is the ultimate goal of the covenant relationship. It speaks of intimacy, of confidence, of mutual affection. Abraham's friendship was forged through decades of testing, waiting, trusting, and ultimately proving willing to give up everything.

Yeshua extends this same invitation. He tells his disciples: "No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you" (John 15:15). Through Messiah, what Abraham experienced becomes available to all who trust God and demonstrate that trust through obedient action.

Contemporary Application

Vayeira isn't just history. As with the rest of Scripture, it is instruction and was written to build us up and instruct us (2 Tim. 3:16). But in a few short snippets, here's what jumps out:

Practice radical hospitality. Abraham shows us what it looks like to be alert, available, and generous with strangers. We might never know when we're serving angels. Every stranger we welcome might be bearing heaven, and they are all imagers of God.

Trust God's timing. Sarah's journey from a derisive laugh of disbelief to laughter of joy teaches us something essential: God's delays are not denials. When things seem impossible (whether biologically, financially, or circumstantially), we serve the God for whom nothing is too difficult (Genesis 18:14). His Word will show up; maybe not on our time, but always at the appointed time.

Stand in the gap. Abraham's intercession shows us that prayer can be bold, even argumentative with God, while remaining deeply reverent. We're invited to stand before HaShem and advocate for others, trusting that God delights in justice and mercy.

Recognize grace beyond your boundaries. Hagar and Ishmael teach us that God's compassion extends beyond our religious categories and ethnic boundaries. We need to be careful not to limit God's grace only to those within our tribe (or our congregation or denomination or theological tradition).

Let testing refine your faith. The Akedah teaches that God's tests aren't designed to trap us but to reveal and deepen genuine faith. When we're tested to the breaking point, we discover whether we truly believe God can resurrect the dead. (And remember: he is not the God of the dead, but of the living! [Matt. 22:31-32])

See Yeshua in the patterns. Throughout Vayeira, if you're paying attention, you see the shadow of Messiah, over and over again. Training ourselves to read Scripture with Christologically—to recognize the patterns and types pointing to Yeshua throughout—transforms how we understand both Testaments and helps us gain a greater appreciation for both. Messianic believers often need the reminder that “The Gospels are Scripture, too!” just as much as normative Christians need the reminder that the Torah is Scripture, too!

The God Who Appears

"And Adonai appeared to him"—that's where this portion begins, and it's the heartbeat that pumps through all of it. Adonai appears to Abraham as an honored guest, as a conversation partner in the struggle for justice, as the promise-keeper in Isaac's birth, as the defender of the abandoned in the wilderness, and as the provider of the sacrifice on the mountain. Each appearance tells us something about who God is: his desire for intimate friendship with his people; his commitment to justice tempered by mercy; his absolute fidelity to covenant promises; his compassion that transcends ethnic and religious boundaries; and his willingness to provide the sacrifice that makes relationship with him possible. Vayeira isn't just narrative, it’s also prophecy. The God who appeared to Abraham has appeared definitively in Messiah Yeshua: Immanuel, God with us (Matthew 1:23).

As you work through these chapters, you're not just observing Abraham's faith journey from the outside: you're encountering the same God Abraham encountered. A God that invites you into the same posture of trust, intercession, radical hospitality, and friendship. We should remember to be thankful for the God who continues to appear, to speak, to provide, and to fulfill every word of promise spoken to Abraham.

Want more? Click Here to purchase a copy of my book, The Law and the Promise: A Pronomian Pocket Guide to Galatians 3-4.

The Sabbath Today

Fri, 18 Apr 2025 14:21:49 GMT

Introduction

In an age of perpetual connectivity, relentless productivity, and digital distraction, the biblical concept of Sabbath stands as a radical counter-cultural witness. For many Christians today, the Sabbath represents little more than an antiquated religious observance largely replaced by Sunday worship or abandoned altogether in favor of a secularized weekend. However, a careful examination of Scripture reveals that the seventh-day Sabbath was never abrogated but rather remains a divine gift and commandment with profound theological and practical significance for all believers in Messiah.

This article seeks to articulate the continuing relevance and necessity of seventh-day Sabbath observance for contemporary Christians. Drawing from both Testaments and examining the Sabbath through a Messianic Jewish lens, we will explore how this divine institution serves as a powerful means of sanctification, spiritual formation, and faithful witness in our present age. Far from being merely a legalistic obligation, the Sabbath represents an opportunity for believers to enter into deeper communion with God, experience authentic rest, and participate in the divine rhythm established at creation itself.

Creation and Covenant

The Sabbath's origin predates the Mosaic covenant, the nation of Israel, and even human sin. Its establishment is woven into the very fabric of creation itself:

"And so the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their heavenly lights. By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because on it He rested from all His work which God had created and made." (Gen. 2:1-3 NASB2020)

Three divine actions establish the Sabbath's significance: God rested (shavat), blessed (barakh), and sanctified (qadash) the seventh day. Significantly, this occurs before the entrance of sin into the world, demonstrating that Sabbath rest is not a remedial provision for fallen humanity but rather part of God's perfect design for creation. The pattern of six days of work followed by one day of rest reflects the divine rhythm embedded in the cosmos itself.

The Sabbath reappears prominently in the Ten Commandments, where it serves as the bridge between commandments regulating our relation to God and those to our fellow human:

“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. For six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God; on it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male slave or your female slave, or your cattle, or your resident who stays with you. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; for that reason the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” (Exod. 20:8-11 NASB2020)

This commandment explicitly connects Sabbath observance with creation, reinforcing its universal scope and enduring validity. Notably, the Sabbath command is unique among the Ten Commandments in beginning with "remember" (זכר, zakhor), suggesting that it recalls something previously established rather than instituting something new.

In Deuteronomy's retelling of the Big Ten, the Sabbath is additionally linked to Israel's redemption from Egypt:

“And you shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to celebrate the Sabbath day.” (Deut. 5:15 NASB2020)

This dual foundation—creation and redemption—establishes the Sabbath's theological richness. It simultaneously commemorates God as Creator and Redeemer, inviting believers to enter into rest as both creatures made in God's image and as those liberated from slavery.

Sabbath in Prophetic Literature

The prophets consistently upheld Sabbath observance as essential to covenant faithfulness. Far from being a Jewish-only observation, in Isaiah 56, the prophet explicitly includes Gentiles in the expectation of Sabbath keeping:

“Also the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord, To attend to His service and to love the name of the Lord, To be His servants, every one who keeps the Sabbath so as not to profane it, And holds firmly to My covenant; Even those I will bring to My holy mountain, And make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar; For My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples.” (Isa. 56:6-7 NASB2020)

This universal vision challenges any notion that Sabbath observance was intended exclusively for ethnic Israel. Rather, it stands as an invitation to all who would covenant with the God of Israel. It bears pointing out, too, that this expectation is not just that non-Jews who volunteer to go above and beyond and in joining themselves to Israel should keep the Sabbath. Instead, it is clear that the expectation is all those who join themselves to God, all believers and followers of the God of Abraham, should be keeping themselves from profaning the Sabbath, and should be holding firmly to the covenant. As we come to the New Testament era, this will be highlighted by the apostles in their own writings, wherein they anticipate and expect the full participation of the Nations with the people of Israel.

The Two-fold Nature of Sabbath Prohibition: Creative and Servile Work

Perhaps you read this and think, “Okay, but what does it mean to not ‘work’ on the Sabbath?” That is a question that every believer should ask, and one that every 7th-day Sabbath keeper has no doubt grappled with at some point. Can you pull weeds from your garden and mow your lawn? Can you wash a load of laundry? Can you volunteer at a charity event? We have all asked "what constitutes work?" and why the answer vary, it is important to understand that Scripture does not mention only one kind or category of work.
Like any good in-house debate, you’ll get at least as many answers as there are people answering. But for our present examination, a more nuanced understanding of Sabbath requires recognizing the distinction between two categories of prohibited "work:" creative work (מְלָאכָה, melakhah) and servile work (עֲבֹדָה, avodah). These categories, while overlapping, highlight different aspects of Sabbath sanctification. I will further argue, that in the majority of cases, it is the latter which is largely applicable to believers today, as the former pertained to the Tabernacle / Temple.

Creative Work (מְלָאכָה, melakhah)
The primary prohibition on the Sabbath concerns melakhah, typically translated as "work" but more precisely referring to creative or constructive activity. This concept derives directly from God's creative activity in Genesis, where the same Hebrew term is used to describe God's work of creation from which He rested on the seventh day.

Melakhah pertains to activities that demonstrate human mastery over the natural world—acts that transform or create. The classic Rabbinic tradition identified thirty-nine categories of melakhah based on the activities involved in constructing the Tabernacle, including planting, harvesting, cooking, building, writing, kindling fire, and carrying a load between domains. What unites these diverse activities is their creative, world-altering character. By refraining from melakhah, the Sabbath observer acknowledges God's primacy as Creator and recognizes human limitations as creatures. This cessation is not merely negative but positively affirms our dependence on God as the ultimate Source of all creation. The specific acts noted by the Rabbis are extrapolated from Exodus 35-40. Each of the categories that the Sages identified as prohibited are those that related to the Tabernacle’s construction. This is a key point in some of these categories, too. For example, kindling a fire is a Rabbinic prohibition but is also taken directly from Exod. 35:3. The context for this injunction, however, is not entirely exhaustive. That is, it relates specifically to fires used for the construction of the Tabernacle (think along the lines of industrial fires for smelting gold). This can additionally be seen one chapter later, as in 36:6, Moses commands the people to stop bringing contributions and doing melakhah (creative work) for the construction of the Tabernacle. So I would assert, you should not be concerned about flipping on a light switch or starting your engine on Sabbath. The overarching point of these categories is to cease from doing the creative, domain-expanding work that mirrors creation. In this light, I would advise someone not to pull weeds or mow the lawn on Shabbat.

Servile Labor (עֲבֹדָה, avodah)
The second category, avodah or servile labor, relates to the Sabbath's redemptive aspect. This prohibition calls us to cease from the toilsome, burdensome work associated with slavery and economic necessity. Deuteronomy's connection between Sabbath and liberation from Egyptian bondage underscores this dimension:

“And you shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to celebrate the Sabbath day.” (Deut. 15:5 NASB2020)

This aspect of Sabbath observance highlights God's role as Redeemer. By ceasing from servile labor, believers commemorate their spiritual freedom from sin and oppression while anticipating the ultimate redemption to come. Additionally, the universal application of Sabbath rest to all members of the household—including servants, aliens, and even animals—establishes the Sabbath as a powerful social equalizer that regularly disrupts hierarchical relationships. Resting from servile labor in today's world is mostly just not working your day-job (more on this below). This is the sort of work related to earning one's living via employment. So while creative work primarily carries a connotation of rest from world-building, servile work denotes a sense of ceasing from wage-earning labor that is used to support one's livelihood.

Understanding this two-fold nature of prohibited work helps believers grasp the Sabbath's comprehensive theological significance. We rest from creative activity to honor God as Creator, and we rest from servile labor to celebrate God as Redeemer. Essentially, in our rest we are ceasing from building our own kingdoms – which normally is often at the expense of others (the waiter at the restaurant, the cashier at the supermarket) – in order to focus more on the building of God’s Kingdom. Together, these employment and work prohibitions invite us into a day set apart from ordinary time—a day that points both backward to creation and forward to the ultimate redemption of all things.

The Sabbath in New Testament Perspective

A common misconception among normative Christians today suggests that the New Testament abolishes or perhaps at the very least diminishes Sabbath observance. However, a careful examination of the texts themselves reveals a more nuanced picture; one that upholds the Sabbath's ongoing validity for believers today, while also somewhat reframing its observance (specifically around Yeshua the Messiah).

Yeshua's Sabbath Practice
Contrary to popular interpretations, Yeshua neither broke nor abolished the Sabbath. Instead, Scripture consistently shows Him participating in Sabbath worship:

“And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up; and as was His custom, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath, and stood up to read.” (Luke 4:16 NASB2020)

Yeshua's controversies with the leaders of His day were centered not on the validity of Sabbath observance, but on its proper interpretation and with the proper ordering of commandment-keeping. His healing miracles on the Sabbath demonstrated that acts of mercy and liberation align perfectly with the Sabbath's purpose, as is shown in the encounter in Mark 3.

“And He said to them, “Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath or to do harm, to save a life or to kill?” But they kept silent. After looking around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, He said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored. (Mark 3:4-5 NASB2020)

Yeshua explicitly affirmed His role not as the Sabbath's abolisher but as its rightful interpreter and indeed its Master:

“Then He said to them, “Shabbat was made for man, and not man for Shabbat. So the Son of Man is Lord even of Shabbat.” (Mark 2:27-28 TLV)

This statement, far from diminishing the Sabbath, reinforces its divine purpose as a gift for humanity while establishing Messiah's authority to define its proper observance. After all, God doesn’t need rest: He chose to rest. We, however, need rest if we are to stay in balance, and keep things in the right order.

The Apostolic Practice
Moving beyond the Gospels, the book of Acts also demonstrates that the early believers, both Jewish and Gentile, continued to observe the Sabbath after Yeshua's resurrection:

“Setting sail from Paphos, Paul’s company came to Perga in Pamphylia. John left them and returned to Jerusalem. But they passed on from Perga and came to Antioch of Pisidia. Entering the synagogue on the Shabbat, they sat down.” (Acts 13:13-14 TLV)

“As was his custom, Paul went to the Jewish people; and for three Shabbatot, he debated the Scriptures with them.” (Acts 17:2 TLV)

“And he was debating every Shabbat in the synagogue, trying to persuade both Jewish and Greek people.” (Acts 18:4 TLV)

These passages indicate that Sabbath observance remained the norm among the early believers, including in mixed congregations of Jews and non-Jewish disciples.

Paul's Teaching on the Sabbath
As most Messianic believers know, there are few more contentious Biblical writers than the apostle Paul. In fact, nearly every time an antinomian argument is advanced, it is one of Paul’s letters that is presumed to be the smoking gun. To be sure, Paul's epistles contain several passages that are often misinterpreted as abolishing Sabbath observance altogether. However, a closer, contextual reading reveals this is not actually the case. In the spirit of being somewhat exhaustive here, let’s examine these passages.

In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul writes:
“Therefore, do not let anyone pass judgment on you in matters of food or drink, or in respect to a festival or new moon or Shabbat. These are a foreshadowing of things to come, but the reality is Messiah.” (TLV)

Rather than abolishing these practices, Paul is arguing against their use as grounds for judgment. The Greek construction "let no one judge you" (μὴ οὖν τις ὑμᾶς κρινέτω) defends the Colossians' right to observe these practices against those who would condemn them. That is, Paul is actually doing the opposite of what people are using his Colossian correspondence to claim: he is defending those who are keeping the Sabbath from those who are not. The "shadow" language, far from diminishing these observances, connects them to their fulfillment in Messiah. (Note, for more on this particular passage, see Watson’s book in the Pronomian Pocket Guide series [affiliate link])

Hebrews and the Sabbath Rest
The book of Hebrews offers perhaps the most profound New Testament theology of Sabbath in chapter 4:

“So there remains a Shabbat rest for the people of God. For the one who has entered God’s rest has also ceased from his own work, just as God did from His.” (Heb. 4:9-10 TLV)

The author uses a unique term, sabbatismos (σαββατισμός), found nowhere else in Greek literature, to describe the "Sabbath rest" that remains for God's people. Now to be sure, the author is speaking of an eschatological reality, a sort of deeper meaning than just a weekly Shabbat. However, that greater, spiritual reality does not negate the physical for the world here and now. Further, had the New Testament writers been in the habit of teaching that Shabbat were abolished in Messiah, there would then be no need to speak of a sabbatismos, a remaining keeping of the Sabbath, even as an object lesson. The whole thrust of the passage, that of the importance of Shabbat, makes sense only if the Sabbath is still to be observed.

So then ultimately, this indicates not the abolition of weekly Sabbath observance but its eschatological fulfillment. Weekly Sabbath keeping becomes a foretaste and anticipation of the ultimate rest in God's kingdom while remaining a present obligation for believers today. An example of the “Now, but not yet” sort of theology we find so often in the New Testament.

Now that we have covered the relevant Biblical passages pertaining to the Sabbath and the importance of observing it, we can turn to the question of: what does it do? Why does it matter, especially for believers in a modern age?

Sabbath Purpose

Sabbath as Sanctification
One of the primary purposes of Sabbath observance is sanctification—the process of being set apart for God's purposes and conformed to His character. The Hebrew root kadosh (קדש), meaning "holy" or "set apart," is explicitly connected to the Sabbath in Genesis 2:3 when God "made it holy" (vayekadesh oto). This is not a happenstance, nor is it an aside from the author of Genesis 2. Rather, it is an intentional theological message: Shabbat is a time of special connection with God. Additionally, Adonai, through Ezekiel proclaims, “I also gave them My Shabbatot, as a sign between Me and them, so that they would know that I am Adonai who made them holy.” (Ezek. 20:12 TLV) God gave us the Sabbath as a sign, a point of connection and convergence between us and Him, because He is holy, and we need to be as well.

Sabbath and Identity Formation
Regular Sabbath observance also works to shape believers' identity by reordering our priorities and allegiances. In a culture that defines worth by productivity and consumption, the Sabbath declares that our primary identity lies not in what we produce or consume but in our relationship with God. For believers today, Sabbath keeping continues to function as a powerful counter-formation to the dominant cultural narratives of unlimited productivity, consumption, and self-sufficiency. It stands as a weekly declaration that we find our true identity not in what we do but in whose we are. There is a reason that scholars across the spectrum of theological views agree that Sabbath keeping is one of the core identity markers for Second Temple era Jews.

Sabbath and Spiritual Maturity
Sabbath observance fosters spiritual maturity by cultivating several essential virtues:

Trust: By ceasing work for a full day, we exercise trust that God will provide for our needs despite our inactivity. This directly challenges the anxiety-driven hyperactivity of contemporary culture.
Humility: Sabbath acknowledges human limitations and dependence on God. The deliberate cessation of creative activity recognizes that we are creatures, not the Creator.
Gratitude: By pausing productive activity, Sabbath creates a space to recognize and appreciate God's provision and goodness.
Communion: Sabbath fosters deeper relationships with God and others by removing the barriers of busyness and distraction.

These virtues align with what should be our vision of spiritual maturity, and with the fruit of the Spirit. Far from being an obsolete legal requirement, Sabbath observance serves as a divine means of grace that aids in forming believers into the image of Messiah. We do the Sabbath as Yeshua did, because we want to imitate Him.

Practical Application: Sabbath Observance for Contemporary Believers

Observing Sabbath in a 24/7 culture presents unique challenges that require intentionality and often community support. This is perhaps one of the most challenging aspects, especially for newcomers to the Messianic walk. This is challenging even for the veteran Messianics, especially those who have taken the Lone Wolf approach, and have deemed their theological leanings to be of a greater importance to them than their fellowship with a community of believers. In either case, regardless of which end of the spectrum you find yourself on (or like most of us, somewhere in the middle), practically walking out shabbat in today’s age is a challenge.

So to, hopefully, assist with this, the following guidelines provide a framework for meaningful Sabbath practice that honors both the letter and spirit of this delightful divine institution.

Preparation for Sabbath
Meaningful Sabbath observance begins with preparation. Just as God "finished His work" before the seventh day (Genesis 2:2), believers should arrange our affairs to minimize disruptions to Sabbath rest. Practical preparation might include:

Physical Preparation: Completing necessary shopping, cleaning, and meal preparation before Sabbath begins.
Work Preparation: Setting clear boundaries with employers and colleagues, completing pressing tasks, and establishing systems to cover responsibilities during Sabbath hours.
Mental Preparation: Consciously transitioning from work-mindset to rest-mindset through prayer, worship, or other transitional rituals.
Social Preparation: Communicating Sabbath intentions to family, friends, and community to establish supportive understanding.

As much of a challenge as it may be, Shabbat is never a surprise. By that I mean, it is always the same time every week: the 6th day ends, the 7th day begins. While our priorities may cause us to get mixed up at times (or perhaps, like me, you take allergy meds during the Spring and sometimes forget what day it is), the Sabbath is nevertheless pretty easy to schedule for in the grand scheme of things. While there are a couple caveats – see below – in general, we can all do a better job of taking the Sabbath seriously in our lives. It mattered enough to God to set the day apart; it should matter enough to us to take it seriously.

Core Sabbath Practices
All that being said, while Sabbath observance should not devolve into legalism, certain core practices align with biblical principles:

Ceasing from Work: Refraining from servile labor (ie. your “day job”) for the Sabbath's duration (from Friday evening to Saturday evening).
Refraining from Commerce: Avoiding buying and/or selling in accordance with Nehemiah 10:31 (or 32, if reading from a Jewish translation)—"When the peoples of the land bring merchandise or any kind of grain on Shabbat, we will not buy from them on Shabbat or on a holy day."
Avoiding Causing Others to Work: Not patronizing restaurants, stores, or entertainment venues where others must work to serve you. This honors the universal application of Sabbath rest in Exodus 20:10. Additionally, if you do not cause others to work, you also are not buying / selling with from/to them.
Worship and Scripture Study: Participating in corporate worship and engaging with Torah, following Yeshua's custom of synagogue attendance (Luke 4:16).
Communal Meals: Sharing unhurried meals with family and community as opportunities for connection and celebration (Acts 2:42).
Rest and Renewal: Engaging in activities that restore body, mind, and spirit rather than depleting them. Worship, fellowship, and meditation on Adonai’s Word and His goodness all serve this purpose well.
Acts of Mercy: Following Yeshua's example of healing and liberation on Sabbath (Luke 13:10-17). Remember Yeshua’s rhetorical question: Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath?

These practices should be embraced not as rigid requirements for mechanical religion, but as life-giving boundaries that create space for communion with God and others.

Challenges and Adaptations
Now, having said all that, I absolutely understand that this is easier said than done, especially if you’re new to this whole thing. Contemporary believers face unique challenges in Sabbath observance that require wisdom and discernment:

Essential Services: Some believers work in healthcare, emergency services, or other fields where complete cessation from work may not be possible. In such cases, the principle of pikuach nefesh (פיקוח נפש)—the preservation of human life—takes precedence, as affirmed by Yeshua's healing ministries on Sabbath.
Family Considerations: Unbelieving spouses or family members may not share Sabbath commitments. Romans 14:19 encourages pursuing "what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding," suggesting that accommodation and gradual transition may be appropriate. In all things, be the one who exhibits grace and compassion and love for your neighbor.
Cultural Context: In societies not structured around Sabbath observance, believers may need to be creative in carving out sacred time. Starting with partial observance and growing toward fuller practice may be a wise approach. If your job does not afford you Sabbath days off work, consider what it would take to transition to a different role, department, or even employer.
Technological Boundaries: Digital technologies present unique challenges to Sabbath rest. Establishing clear boundaries regarding devices, social media, and work-related communications helps preserve the Sabbath's distinctiveness.

Regardless of challenges, the core principle remains: setting apart time for rest, worship, and communion with God and community in accordance with the divine pattern established at creation.

Building Sabbath Community
Sabbath was never intended as a purely individual practice. The communal dimension appears throughout Scripture, from the household-wide application in Exodus 20:10 to the corporate worship assumed in Leviticus 23:3 ("a holy convocation"), to the refusal to forsake the assembly (Hebrews 10:24-25).

Contemporary believers benefit from joining (or, as some cases warrant, creating) communities that support Sabbath observance. Messianic congregations, Torah observant fellowships, and other Sabbath-observant communities provide structural support for this counter-cultural practice. Within such communities, members can share meals, worship together, study Scripture, and mutually encourage faithful observance. This communal dimension protects against both legalism and laxity while fostering the joy that Scripture associates with true Sabbath keeping.

The Ox in the Ditch
To be sure, I do not write this to come across as harsh or legalistic. To some - perhaps even many - readers, having such a strict observance of Sabbath can be seen as a burden. To this, I would argue we should be using God's definitions and not ours. However, I do recognize that at times there will be things that are unavoidable. As mentioned above, there are certain constraints such as emergencies. These are often portrayed as the "ox in the ditch" scenario. In Luke 14, when the Scribes and Pharisees were questioning Yeshua on His sabbath-keeping as He healed a man with extreme swelling (edema), we read in verses 5-6, "And He said to them, “Which one of you will have a son or an ox fall into a well, and will not immediately pull him out on a Sabbath day?” And they could offer no reply to this."

Life in the modern world (really, even a pre-modern one) certainly affords us no shortage of ditches (or wells) for our oxen to fall into. A tire blows out on the Interstate on the way to Sabbath service. A child slips on the playground and requires an X-ray during oneg. Unexpected visitors show up at your house on Friday evening, and you don't have enough food to feed them. Whether calling for a tow-truck driver, going to the doctor, or feeding the physical needs of someone else, all of these are very common occurrences in our world. Each of these should be met with the same compassion and grace that our Master exhibited. So to these, personally, I would say: fix your tire, go to ER, and go buy some stuff for sandwiches and bagels for the family in need, as these oxen have certainly fallen into the ditch.

But before we go too far, let me also say this: if your ox has a habit of falling into the ditch every Sabbath, you have a responsibility to be a better steward and caretaker of that ox. Stop leaving the gate open and stop letting him out. If you know your tires are down to exposed belts, replace the tires on Friday. If you frequently get visitors that you will need to feed, keep a lasagna in the freezer or some extra chicken and rice on hand. (As for the x-ray, well, I am not sure how one could prepare for that, aside from carefully parenting as best as you can). My point remains: while our oxen do at times fall into ditches, we should not let that become the norm, nor our excuse, to be negligent towards our Lord's Holy Day.

Conclusion: Sabbath as Witness and Blessing
So at the end of it all, what can be said? Far from being an obsolete legal requirement, Sabbath observance represents a profound opportunity for contemporary believers to experience God's blessing and bear witness to His character in a restless world. By entering into this divine rhythm established at creation, affirmed in the Torah, modeled by Yeshua, and anticipated in the coming kingdom, believers participate in a practice that simultaneously looks backward to creation, engages the present through rest and worship, and looks forward to the ultimate restoration of all things.

The Sabbath invites us into a different economy—one where value derives not from productivity but from relationship, where identity stems not from achievement but from divine grace. In a culture characterized by burnout, anxiety, and fragmentation, Sabbath stands as both critique and alternative, offering the radical possibility of rest, renewal, and realignment with God's purposes.

For Jewish and Gentile believers alike, Sabbath observance provides a tangible means of sanctification, spiritual formation, and prophetic witness. As we keep the Sabbath, we declare our allegiance to the Creator and Redeemer of all things, participate in the divine rhythm woven into creation itself, and anticipate the ultimate Sabbath rest that awaits in God's coming kingdom.

In the words of Abraham Joshua Heschel, "The Sabbath is the presence of God in the world, open to the soul of man. God is not in things of space, but in moments of time." By entering into this sacred time weekly, believers encounter not merely a day but the God who sanctified it—the One who invites all creation into His rest.

A Review of the "Eth Cepher" - Part 2

Thu, 22 Feb 2024 01:36:42 GMT

If you landed on this page and have not yet read part 1, please go do that first. Unless of course you already have read it, in which case, welcome back: it has been quite a while! This is the second part of my review of the Eth Cepher. I initially reviewed and critiqued some of the translations and canonical texts of the Eth Cepher. In this part, I will address more of the claims made by its author / publisher. These references will come directly from the Millennium Edition of the Cepher, from its own Preface. I will be addressing and arranging the material herein in the order which the Cepher’s own Preface progresses, so if you have one (or want to look it up on their website) to follow along, it may make more sense.

This may feel like a silly place to start critiquing a book, but the table of contents itself is actually quite telling in this book. First, the way the sections are arranged – and some of their Hebrew transliterated titles – once again betray a lack of understanding of Biblical languages.

The first section is Torah, and that one makes the most sense. The book names are transliterated in a bit of a non-standard way, but hey, let’s just say for the sake of argument that transliteration is fluid, since it’s not an exact science anyway.

The second section is given as Cepheriym Sheniy, which I would write as seferim sheni, meaning “second books.” Here the author places “Yovheliym, Chanoch, and Yashar.” (Or, Jubilees, Enoch, and Jasher). One must wonder why the author simply refers to Enoch as Enoch and not the proper title of the book as it is known: 1 Enoch. The reason I point this out is that there are multiple ancient texts attributed falsely to Enoch. In my experience, the folks who accept 1 Enoch as canonical and authentically Enochian tend to reject 2 and 3 Enoch, and thus they reject the 1 on account of how it connects the text to these additional, later, pseudepigraphal works. At any rate, to call any of these three books “second books” and place them immediately after the Torah is bizarre. Jubilees and 1 Enoch are sectarian works of the Second Temple era, and Jasher is a late medieval period Rabbinic commentary and retelling of the material of Genesis through Joshua.

The third section is Neviy’iym, or the “prophets.” Here the Cepher includes Tobit as well as 1 and 2 Baruch. While 1 Baruch somewhat makes sense at least, on account of how the text claims to have been written by Baruch the scribe of Jeremiah, 2 Baruch and Tobit do not make sense. Tobit tells of a time during the Assyrian exile and is not a prophetic book but a narrative, describing an ideal of righteous living despite being in exile. 2 Baruch is a later apocalyptic text, written after the destruction of the second Temple in 70 CE. It mirrors the style of Jeremiah in some cases, in terms of including prayer and lamentation. It claims to address the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar but is most likely referring to the destruction by Rome in 70 CE. The text was also originally written in Syriac, which is a language that did not exist during the time of Baruch and Jeremiah.

The fourth section, referring to the 12 minor prophets, is called Trei Asar, which is also bizarre. These books in Hebrew are called Sh’neim Asar, or “two and ten.” Yet Trei Asar is the Aramaic phrase that is used to refer to the books, so why the author opted for that title instead of the Hebrew one is a mystery to me. One more that sticks out here is that, just as the Cepher completely misses the Hebrew of “Yeshua” (for, instead, the made-up “Yahusha”), so, too, it misses Hoshea (Hosea) for “Husha.”

The rest of the books are generally just those of the apocrypha, arranged in an odd way. Coming into the New Testament, the author puts first the synoptic Gospels, then Acts, then James, 1 and 2 Peter, and Jude, and then Paul’s letters. Why Paul comes after these – and yet still before John – must be because Revelation is listed among John’s Gospel and his epistles. Again, just weird. I have seen similar such arrangements in some cases before that seek to minimize Paul’s writings and thus relegate him to “last place” before Revelation. But I can’t say for certain that is what is happening here. Hebrews is also listed as a Pauline epistle – though it likely is not Pauline – and Paul’s letters are arranged in a strange way as well. They are not alphabetical, nor arranged canonically as in most Bibles, nor even chronological, as Galatians – one of Paul’s earliest – is listed in the middle after Romans, which was one of his latest. Further, 1 Timothy, a later letter, is listed first, with Philemon last (before Hebrews). Again, I don’t know why, it’s just odd.

The Preface

The preface opens with this (run-on) sentence:

This collection of writings…is a restoration of the books traditionally recognized as set-apart Scripture and includes certain writings retained in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Chanoch and Yovheliym), together with the recaptured writing of Cepher Ha’Yashar (Yashar) and the Apocalypse of Baruch (2 Baruch), the recapture of those books recognized in the Septuagint, and is completed with the last two writings of the Makkabiym (2 and 3 Makkabiym). [1]

First, that’s an exhausting sentence to read in a single breath. Second, what’s the big deal? Sounds like a common enough thing to hear in Messianic-adjacent groups, right?

Well for starters, I’m not sure what exactly “recaptured” means, but from context here the author seems to be implying that these books belong in the Bible and he has helped to restore them. Yet there has never been a time when 1 Enoch, Jubilees, 2 Baruch, 3 and 4 Maccabees, and Jasher, have all been in the canon. 3 Maccabees is canonical to the Eastern Orthodox, and 4 Maccabees is considered deuteron-canonical to them. Jasher has never been canonized by any group: ever. 1 Enoch and Jubilees are only considered deuteron-canonical by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and Beta Israel, and trito-canon by the Orthodox. 2 Baruch is considered trito-canon by the Orthodox and that is all. (Note: deuteron-canon means secondary rule, and trito-canon means tertiary rule or perhaps you could say “third rank.” These very definitions mean these books are not consider canonically equal to Scripture). For the author of the Cepher to say he has “recaptured” books that were “traditionally recognized as set-apart Scripture” is intellectually dishonest at best, and intentionally deceptive at worst.

I won’t go into a discussion of why “Yahuah” and “Yahusha” are absurd terms and not at all even Hebrew names, as that is beyond the scope of the present article. I will, however, direct the reader to the two PDF documents on my Resources page by Adam C. Drissel which directly address both of these names in full.
After skipping over these and the terms Yachiyd and Yachad (because those are of minor import to me here), let’s look at what the author says regarding the name Heylel:

Yesha`yahu (Isaiah) 14 is well known as the only place in all of Scripture where some Bibles have substituted the name Lucifer, yet the name Lucifer (the light bearer) does not actually appear in the original Ivriyt. […] The term הילל reading right to left looks conspicuously like hey, yod, lamed, lamed hyll, or hell. The pronunciation however places more vowels yielding heylel. There are but two angels identified in the Protestant Bible – Miyka’el and Gavriy’el. Both names end with the identifier “el.” We have the same condition with heylel, leading to the possible conclusion that the word is actually the name of an angel – in this case, possibly the fallen angel Heyl’el. However, this same word may simply be the word ילל– yawlal, set with the hey as a prefix meaning the. This word is not referenced or interpreted in any other English text besides this תא CEPHER. The word ילל– yawlal means “howling.” Hence, the phrase which formerly referenced Lucifer now reads as follows: How are you fallen from heaven, O Heylel, son of the howling morning! how are you cut down to the ground, which did weaken the nations! [2]

Oh boy…where to begin…

First, I don’t have any complaints about removing the term Lucifer. That’s a holdover from the KJV’s Latin influence anyway. Yet here again, the author demonstrates he has no business (or experience) translating Hebrew. He says “heylel” sounds like hell…it doesn’t, but let’s pretend that it does. He notes that names of angels commonly have “-el” at the end, meaning “God.” That is correct: Gabri-el, Micha-el, etc. But the word heylel (הילל) is not related to these words, as the “el” at the end is not אל at all. Further, the word is not etymologically linked to yalal (ילל) with a “hey” (ה) prefix. If yalal is a name, it can’t take a hey prefix, because proper nouns in Hebrew do not take definite articles. Proper nouns are definite by their very nature. That is why you will never read “the David” or “the Judah” or “the Isaiah” in Hebrew. So if heylel is a name, then the hey is part of the word itself.

But setting all that aside, the word heylel isn’t related to yalal anyway: it is derived from hallal, meaning to shine. Hence why “heylel” is “shining one” or in some cases, “morning star.” The rest of the sentence here, which the author above has as “son of the howling morning” is also incorrect. Here again he randomly inserts the word he wants (howling) before “morning” to make his point. Quite simply, the Hebrew says אֵ֛יךְ נָפַ֥לְתָּ מִשָּׁמַ֖יִם הֵילֵ֣ל בֶּן־שָׁ֑חַר, “How you have fallen from heaven shining one, son of the dawn [heylel ben-shachar].” The author then states “This word [ie. howling] is not referenced or interpreted in any other English text besides this את Cepher.” Here again, he’s correct, but not because he is the only person to ever translate it; rather, because he is the only one (of which I am aware at least) to invent this word and add it to the text!

I think my chief gripe with this rendering here is not just that it’s incorrect, but that the author goes through such trouble to butcher the text, only to not end up making the text any more significant. It does not answer to whom the text refers; it does not make the text any easier or clearer to understand. Perhaps the hope is that, by removing the reference to this being as the “morning star” it saves Yeshua from bearing the same title in Revelation 22:16. But even that is easier (and more accurately) resolved in other ways. Irrespective of the author’s motives, this rendering is nevertheless terribly wrong, and demonstrates one of the primary concerns I raised in part 1 of my review: ad hoc alterations to the text.

Dead Sea Scrolls

This next section is set up in an odd way. The section is titled “Dead Sea Scrolls,” but the opening paragraph serves only to challenge the exclusion of the Apocrypha and other books from the canon. It further dives into introducing the Septuagint, and claims its inclusion of some additional books as a basis for their inclusion in the Cepher. It also contains no trace references whatsoever to the discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran at all. It really should have been titled “The Canon” or something of that nature.

There are also some historical inaccuracies here to note. First, it claims that the books of the Septuagint were translated by 70 Rabbis in the 2nd century BCE. The history and origin of the LXX is certainly shrouded in a bit of myth and legend, but what the sources (namely, the Letter of Aristeas, Philo of Alexandria, and Josephus) agree on is that it was Ptolemy II Philadelphus, the Hellenistic king of Egypt, who commissioned the creation of the LXX in the first half of the third century BCE, not the second. Perhaps that is splitting hairs, but if one is making a claim which can be validated with a simple Google search (let alone cracking open an encyclopedia), it should at least be accurate. The author also states that these 70 Rabbis translated 54 books from Hebrew to Greek. Yet that is not the case: the original translators translated only the Torah, not the entire text. The rest of the books would be translated in a handful of different versions over the next few centuries. [3] No source is given in any form by the author as to where he gets this information from.

The author then refers to the Council of Laodicea and claims that this council made up the canon of Scripture when they issued Canon 60 (“canon” here meaning "rule" or a determination / decision handed down by the council). He further states that “many scholars” doubt the authenticity of Canon 60. He then bounces around a bit and ends up blaming the bishop Brooke Foss Westcott (B. F. Westcott) for creating the list based on a writing by Cyril of Jerusalem. The author claims the canon list should not be trusted because it was a later addition, excludes the book of Revelation, and was simply the opinion of Cyril. Let’s stop here for a moment.

First, the author is correct in asserting that most scholars doubt the authenticity of the canon list in Canon 60 of the council. But there is far more history at hand that just whether this particular enumerated list of canonical books was written as a result of that particular council. Second, Westcott cannot be blamed for popularizing the 60th canon or inserting it spuriously into the list. Westcott, in his own words, states, “On the whole then it cannot be doubted that external evidence is decidedly against the authenticity of the Catalogue [of books] as an integral part of the text of the Canons of Laodicea, nor can any internal evidence be brought forward sufficient to explain its omission in [the manuscripts of] Syria, Italy, and Portugal, in the sixth century, if it had been so.” [4] Meaning in short: there is no doubt that the catalogue (ie. list of enumerated books) is a later addition. To turn this into the opposite statement, such to blame Westcott for popularizing the canon list, is a direct misrepresentation of the facts.

Continuing then in the Preface (still under the header of Dead Sea Scrolls), the author states, “The 60th Canon has little or no value as the absence of Chizayon (Revelation) from the New Testament is fatal to its reception as an ecumenical definition of the canon of Holy Scripture to all orthodox believers, as is the absence of the book of Wisdom, etc., from the Old Testament to its reception by those who accept the books of the Greek collection (Septuagint), as distinguished from the Jewish collection (Tanakh).” [5] Here the author introduces two fatal flaws of his own, and I’ll let his own arguments work against him.

First, he claims that the canon list rejecting Revelation is, itself, a reason to reject the list. But this is a discussion of the canon, as in, why should we accept Revelation to begin with? He starts by assuming his conclusion, namely, that Revelation is canon. This is circular reasoning at its finest. Second, he says the very fact that the council rejected the book of Revelation (and Wisdom of Solomon) is proof that the council’s decision was not binding and not ecumenical for orthodoxy. If this is taken as the basis for forming the canon (that is, ecumenical agreements on canonicity) then 1 Enoch, Jasher, Jubilees, and a whole slough of other books that the author has added to the Cepher would also be removed, as they are not all ecumenically accepted as orthodox themselves. So it is clear he is not being genuine when stating that the issue with the canon list is that it is not binding for believers because it was not an ecumenical, orthodox, and universally accepted decision.

In the next paragraph the author engages in some intellectual sleight of hand. He claims, “The delineation of sacred Scripture by rule or canon began to emerge in the late 4th Century and early 5th Century with the work of St. Jerome, aka Eusebius.” [6] First the obvious one: Jerome is not Eusebius. Eusebius of Caesarea lived 260-339, and Jerome wasn’t born until 347, living until 420 (ish). The author could very well be referring to Jerome by his birth name, which actually was Eusebius Hieronymus, but I can think of no reason to refer to him this way, except to cause confusion with Eusebius of Caesarea. But on this, I digress. To the main point at hand, then. The delineation of sacred Scripture by rule came about because of disputes over books, and the books we have today arose after many centuries of debate and dispute over many of the same books that the Cepher includes. Books that were rejected for various reasons (and others, like Jasher, that did not even exist when these debates were taking place).

As with the above statement that no rule of the list of books was present until the late fourth, early fifth centuries, the author then states that the exact list of books of the New Testament were set forth by Athanasius in 367 CE, and that this list was “later affirmed in the Muratorian fragment, a 7th century Latin translation of a Greek original written around the 4th century.” [7] While the Athanasian canon list is indeed from his 39th Festal Letter in 367, the Muratorian fragment predates that letter. Most scholars would date the fragment to mid-to-late second century, with only a couple dissenters claiming a later date (ie. Hahnesmann and Sundberg), and even then largely because other canon lists begin to pop up in the fourth century, not because of any specific external or internal manuscript evidence. So with this, then, it would be untrue to state that no canon lists existed prior to the late fourth or early fifth century. What else is necessary to understand here is also that early Christian groups tended to not define the canon, so much as utilize only a subset of books. John Chrysostom, for instance, quotes from nearly every New Testament letter, and other Church Fathers similarly refer to different works as sacred and others as spurious. On this topic the aforementioned 1881 book by Westcott offers a very helpful survey of some the Church Fathers' own statements regarding which books are accepted for reading in the Church and which are not. As I have previously noted in my article on Peshitta Primacy, some early groups like the Assyrian Church rejected 5 books of the canon including Revelation. Similarly, Revelation remained one of the most disputed books for centuries. The point here overall is that whether we have a singular list of books or not, it was well-known that certain books were Scripture and others were not, and while some small sects may have used certain books that others did not use, it does not qualify them to be authoritative by default.

In the last section under the Dead Sea Scrolls heading, the author notes that these additional books are deuterocanonical. Here he is correct, though he seems to misunderstand what it implies. Deuterocanonical, as the term was first used in 1566 by Catholic theologian Sixtus of Siena, meant books that were not primarily accepted early on, but came to be accepted later, thus his meaning of “secondary canon” really means “subsequent canon.” [8] As the term is generally used among scholars today, it refers to books that are not part of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh). This, alone, should give us pause, but perhaps more on that at a later date. The author, weirdly, upholds the Catholic Council of Trent of 1546, and quotes extensively from it to give some sense of authority to his list of included books, then concludes that it did not go far enough because it didn’t include 1 Enoch and Jubilees, or 3 and 4 Maccabees. [9]

Chanoch (Enoch)

Under this section the author claims that the Ethiopian Bible is the earliest complete collection in the world and has always contained 1 Enoch and Jubilees. One would have to very carefully use the word “complete” in order to make this definition fit. If by “complete” one means that the entire Bible, along with apocryphal works, were translated all into Ge’ez (Ethiopic) and compiled together, then yes, it is indeed one of the earliest “complete” collections of the Bible in a different language. The author also notes that it was easy to include these books since they were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and that while some fragments have disparities, “the Ethiopian texts comports with these fragments.” [10]

This is a drastic overselling of the evidence. What is true is that some fragments have been found at Qumran in Hebrew and Aramaic. What is not true is that the texts “comports” with the findings in those fragments. There are numerous textual differences, from the names of some of the angelic beings (Asa'el instead of Azazel, confusing later legends about the scapegoat with the names of one of the Watchers), to the contents of the majority of the book after chapter 36 (because there are no Hebrew or Aramaic fragments that support the later chapters of 1 Enoch, they exist solely in Ethiopic and scholars agree are later Christian additions to a Jewish original work).

The author finally gives a citation (albeit in-text only) to a work by Tertullian, referring to 1 Enoch as Scripture. There is no dispute that Tertullian considered it such, but that does not a Scripture make. The author claims that 1 Enoch upholds Yeshua as Messiah, but that is untrue. Rather, 1 Enoch upholds the figure of Enoch as the Messiah. As David Wilber has demonstrated in this article, 1 Enoch does not support a Messianic / Christian understanding of Yeshua as Messiah.

Yovheliym (Jubilees)

I don’t have that much to say about this section; much of it is accurate, namely that there are fragments of the text from Qumran, the primary editions are from the Ethiopic text, and that various Church Fathers refer to the text. My primary complaint with the text is that, despite it being used in the early centuries BCE and CE, there are no references to it – in any form – in any of the books of the Tanakh. If Jubilees were in fact an authentic text written by Moses as it claims about itself, one would expect to see references to it somewhere in the Tanakh, especially during the return from exile, as we do with the Torah. But that is not the case. (Yes, I know: it’s a bit of an argument from silence). Further, there are no references to the text as "Scripture" in the NT either.

Yashar (Jasher)

This one really bugs me. Again the author provides, largely, an accurate representation of where Jasher texts have come from since the middle of the 16th century. He barely glosses over the history before this though, perpetuating the myth of the “hidden library” in the Temple, where a Roman officer named Sidrus took some hidden scrolls from the Temple before it was burned down. Among them was this particular text, which somehow survived 1500 years of travel to make it to Spain, and then the book was published in Hebrew.

This "book of Jasher" is fascinating, yet it contains many issues. First, there is no provenance, as in, we have no real record of where it comes from or who the author was. It is decidedly not from the first century CE, as the language used is not Biblical or even hardly Mishnaic Hebrew. It contains a number of Rabbinic midrashic legends, but also contains references to places such as לומברדי (Lombardi) and אפריקא (Africa), words that did not exist in the first century CE when the Temple was destroyed. The Cepher recycles old arguments about Jasher, stating that it is referenced in 2 Samuel and Joshua, and that Paul refers to it in passing in 2 Timothy. [11] The author also adds another reference and makes a bizarre statement that Jasher is the original source for these quotes, including a quote from Ezekiel. To the this, he claims that Ezekiel is quoting from Jasher, but Ezekiel (29:3) is not quoting any text; rather, he is giving a direct word from God. If the argument here really stands on a clause in Hebrew being the same, and therefore implying that Jasher is an older text, it really is no argument at all.

Ezra (Esdras)

No major disagreements here, as the author correctly states that 3 Ezra is essentially just a combination (in Greek) of Ezra and Nehemiah, and that 4 Ezra is a completely different apocalyptic work.

Baruch

Pretty much the same as above.

Conclusion

I covered some of the major issues from the New Testament portion of the Cepher in part 1 of this review, so I will not rehash them here. I would like to simply summarize my contention in two parts.

First, the Cepher is an ideological pet project that lacks even a modicum of honest scholarship. I know, that’s harsh. But it is. It has been hacked up and modified in multiple places (as demonstrated here and in part 1) that are not, even a little bit, supported by the texts of Scripture themselves. Instead, it pushes and agenda. This includes with the way it adds words that aren’t there as well as includes extra books and claims them to be sacred Scripture when they are not, and should not be. Yes, 2 Peter and Jude refer to 1 Enoch; the same way Paul quotes two pagan Greek philosophers and a hymn to Zeus. Not to call any of those things sacred Scripture, but because they were ancient sources and writings. They were points of reference for the audience.

Second, the Cepher is dangerous. When somebody reads a Bible, they take for granted all the thousands of years of hard work that went into the original texts, the copies of those manuscripts, the training in languages and translation, the blood, sweat, and tears of countless believers who work and have worked to preserve the texts, and more. When you read a Bible, it is normal to question a certain translation. But you should at the very least feel confident in the methodology laid out, and that those involved in translating it were honest about their intentions and how they arrived at their conclusions. One does not find that with the Cepher.

Lastly, while I myself would, I am sure, agree with the Cepher’s author on numerous conclusions (such as the ongoing validity of the Torah for all believers today including Sabbath and Feast observance, dietary laws, etc.), I will firmly assert that under no circumstances should the text of Scripture be butchered to make it suit my ideology, even if I have a hard time understanding and interpreting certain passages.

In short, the Cepher does not present honest and trustworthy translations of the texts is contains. It contains, at best, mischaracterizations of many of its justifications for textual decisions, and it makes conspiratorial claims about the canon that hinder, not help, a believer’s faith and trust in Scripture.

And with that I will, once again, recommend that you, the reader, stick with a Bible translation that was compiled by a committee like the NASB2020 or, if you want a Messianic flavored one, the TLV.

References

[1] 2021. Eth Cepher, Millennium Edition. Everett, WA: Cepher Publishing Group, LLC. Page 6.
[2] Ibid., page 10.
[3] Johnston, J. William. 2016. “Septuagint.” In The Lexham Bible Dictionary, edited by John D. Barry, David Bomar, Derek R. Brown, Rachel Klippenstein, Douglas Mangum, Carrie Sinclair Wolcott, Lazarus Wentz, Elliot Ritzema, and Wendy Widder. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.
[4] Westcott, Brooke Foss. 1881. A general survey of the history of the canon of the New Testament. Cambridge, London: Macmillan & Co.
[5] Cepher, page 12.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Klippenstein, Rachel, and John D. Barry. 2016. “Deuterocanonical.” In The Lexham Bible Dictionary, edited by John D. Barry, David Bomar, Derek R. Brown, Rachel Klippenstein, Douglas Mangum, Carrie Sinclair Wolcott, Lazarus Wentz, Elliot Ritzema, and Wendy Widder. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.
[9] Cepher, 12-13.
[10] Ibid., 13.
[11] Ibid., 21.

The Proverbs 31 Husband

Thu, 20 Jul 2023 16:44:54 GMT

It’s hard to imagine anyone reading this that isn’t familiar with the “Proverbs 31 woman." ‌There is no shortage of commentaries, devotionals, sermons, and blog posts on the topic. But there is more to the passage than a handbook for women. There is an important portrait that men need to see.

Most interpreters have viewed the passage as an ideal: something for women to strive to attain, as an archetype of womanhood, being the assistant and helper to her husband[1]. Others have viewed the passage as nothing more than ancient poetry[2]. Then there are those who view it negatively because of the prior listed reasons. It has, at times, been weaponized against women, a measuring stick that many (perhaps most? All?) feel to which they cannot measure up. (Note: for a brief but good discussion on this aspect, see Derek Leman’s Messianic Commentary on Proverbs).
‌
The text is treated by many as a guidebook for how women should behave, how they should be industrious homemakers, how they should bring honor to their husbands. It’s also often treated as a positive instruction manual for keeping peace in marriage. On this note, Wiersbe even says, “Husbands occasionally create problems for their wives, but Solomon doesn’t mention any of them. However, he does name some of the problems a wife might create for her husband.”[3]
‌
While we have all no doubt heard numerous sermons and devotionals about the Proverbs 31 woman, there is another player in the text that has been largely neglected: the Proverbs 31 man. This present article is not intended to add to the noise of what women should know, how they should behave, what they should think, or who they should emulate. No, there is quite enough of that material out there already. The present article seeks to address the man - the husband - featured in Proverbs 31.

Nary a Bible-believing man alive (or since passed) has ever thought, “I sure don’t want a Proverbs 31 wife.” Quite the opposite, men are taught in Torah study and Sunday school alike to desire a virtuous wife as found in Proverbs 31. Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that is a bad goal. After all, none of us desire to marry a narcissist. A virtuous spouse is important. But for all the emphasis that is placed on women measuring up to the standard of the Proverbs 31 woman, let’s take a look at the Proverbs 31 man as well.
‌
First, note that Proverbs 31 is not itself addressed to a woman. This should be telling right off the bat: it is addressed to King Lemuel,[4] as taught to him by his mother. After all, who better to understand women than a wise queen-mother? The king’s mother issues two warnings for Lemuel, both of which are congruent with the prior royal warnings seen in Proverbs, and both of which refer ultimately to practicing self-control. On the one hand, the king is instructed to stay away from being given to alcohol (as it dulls the senses and intellect), and on the other to avoid “giving strength to women.” This is, in keeping with the theme found in numerous places in Proverbs, a warning against the scandalous woman, who stands opposed to Lady Wisdom. It is likely that the instruction being given by the king’s mother is, itself, an echo of Lady Wisdom’s instruction. In this way it could perhaps be understood as Wisdom guiding a man in finding Wisdom.
‌
The husband found here in this final Proverb is one who is taught and guided by a wise woman to make good decisions. There is no room for misogyny here; there is no room for ignoring the teaching and instruction and direction of women. Perhaps one of the greatest ironies of the attempt to weaponize this passage to control and shape a woman’s behavior is that the instruction itself comes from a woman.
‌
The first 9 verses of the chapter are instructions to the king before transitioning to a discussion of the “excellent wife” (as the NASB2020 puts it). Much metaphorical ink has already been spilled by others to address the phrase eshet chayil, and to understand it as “woman of valor” rather than the common "virtuous wife" or even the NASB's "excellent wife" so I will not go further into that here. Instead, we will begin with verse 11.
‌
“The heart of her husband trusts in her, and he will have no lack of gain.” (31:11)
‌
The husband here is not the suspicious sort; he is not the controlling sort. He trusts her to tend to her tasks and her responsibilities, and he does not micromanage her. The next 11 verses describe this industrious behavior, and in all of it, the woman's accomplishments and dedication are the focus, not the husband's. This is the sort of husband who is paired to an “excellent wife.”
‌
“Her husband is known in the gates, when he sits among the elders of the land.” (31:23)
‌
The husband here is not only respectable at home, but well respected among the community. Not just any man is capable or well-suited to be an elder in the city. A lazy or foolish man does not attain this position. If we compare the instructions for establishing courts and judges in the cities from Deuteronomy 16:18-20, then we see that those who are appointed as judges are those that are trustworthy: they do not distort justice, they do not show partiality, they are not swayed by bribery, and they do not distort “the words of the righteous.” (Deut. 16:19) The Proverbs 31 man is just such a man. He does not distort the wife’s words by twisting them, nor does he attempt to manipulate her. He does not pervert justice by gaslighting her, and his affections are not swayed by the prospect of wealth and fame.
‌
Let's continue.
‌
“Her children rise up and bless her; and her husband, he praises her, saying: 'Many daughters have done nobly, but you excel them all.’” (31:28-29)
‌
Lastly, we turn to the words and the treatment that the Proverbs 31 husband should have for his wife. The husband here praises his wife. His words are crucial to the picture of the responsibilities of the noble husband. He is intentional and careful with his words: he does not demean her, he does not demand of her. He praises her excellence, he speaks well of her. This man recognizes her value and her virtue. She is noticed, she is seen, she is appreciated. You cannot praise someone for work and contributions that you do not notice. The husband here is intentional, he doesn’t overlook her.
‌
All too often men want to make demands of their wives, without holding themselves to the same standard. You do not deserve a Proverbs 31 wife if you’re not willing to be a Proverbs 31 husband. So for the men reading: don't cop out of the full picture. If you want the "Proverbs 31 wife" then you need to be the sort of husband that deserves a woman of valor. Be the sort of honest, righteous man that is befitting a woman of valor. We need more of this in the Body and in the world.

Shalom.

‌References:

Garrett, Duane A. 1993. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs. Vol. 14. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
Fox, Michael V. 2009. Proverbs 10–31: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Vol. 18B. Anchor Yale Bible. New Haven; London: Yale University Press.
Wiersbe, Warren W. 1996. Be Skillful. “Be” Commentary Series. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.
It is not known who this king actually was, or if perhaps his name is a literary device or allusion to something else.

A Review of the "Eth Cepher" - Part 1

Tue, 27 Oct 2020 19:22:36 GMT

Many of you reading this will, no doubt, be familiar with the “Eth Cepher” Bible translation. If you have been to my Resources page in the last 6 months or so, you may have noticed that I put it under “Not Recommended.” This post and Part 2 will go into further detail of why I believe the Cepher should be avoided. Not only that, but also why I consider it dangerous. The reason for splitting it into two parts is because of the length. I tend to write quite a bit into one post and am working on breaking it up into more palatable pieces.

Background
As it regards source texts, remember that first and foremost the Cepher is not a translation; it is a modified King James Version. What this should mean then is that the Old Testament (OT) is translated from the Hebrew Masoretic Text (and indeed, we find it is according to the Cepher website), and the New Testament (NT) is translated from the Textus Receptus. But even in this, we find the author has not stuck to any given text completely. Rather, he has cherry-picked his sources, seemingly those that agree with his theology.

And so this present article will address the textual / translational issues present within the Cepher. I will give examples of where the verses have been modified from the way they were translated in the KJV. I do not claim to know of every such alteration; I have not read through the entire Cepher, nor do I think doing so is beneficial. I believe it is evident (and will present said evidence here for the reader) that the Cepher should not be considered an accurate reflection of the Biblical text.

The second part of this post that follows, will address not the text of the Cepher, but its Preface. Specifically, the claims made by those producing it either in the Preface to the print edition, or on the official Cepher website. The issues in this material should likewise be self-evident to any serious Biblical scholar. The Preface contains claims of conspiracy and heinous plots to keep believers from reading books that were “removed” from their Bibles. It includes spurious claims surrounding late pseudepigraphal texts like Jasher and the alleged 29th Chapter of Acts. It similarly makes a self-defeating claim regarding the number of canonical books in the OT.

But again, I will reserve those observations and criticisms for part 2. For the writing at hand, I will begin my explanation of the texts as they pertain to the canonical texts of Scripture.

Introduction: The Tanakh (Old Testament)
The first alteration of note is the revision of “husband” and “wife.” Namely, that the words no longer exist. “Husband” can be found only a few times, and “wife” does not exist at all. In their place is the generic “man” and “woman.” So in Genesis 2:24 we read that a “man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave unto his woman.”

Now I can’t say this is 100% incorrect, as the words normally translated “husband” and “wife” are indeed “man” and “woman” respectively. Still, this seems an entirely unnecessary – and arbitrary – alteration.
Next, now in Exodus, we encounter a good example of our author’s demonstration of his apparent inability to translate Hebrew. (Note: this is not the first occurrence of this, but it is the first one I came to in my perusal, so I will be using it).

Exodus 6:3: “And I appeared unto El-Avraham, unto El-Yitschaq, and unto El-Ya’aqov, by EL SHADDAI, but by my name YAHUAH was I not known to them.”

In Hebrew, this is: וָאֵרָ֗א אֶל־אַבְרָהָ֛ם אֶל־יִצְחָ֥ק וְאֶֽל־יַעֲקֹ֖ב בְּאֵ֣ל שַׁדָּ֑י וּשְׁמִ֣י יְהוָ֔ה לֹ֥א נֹודַ֖עְתִּי לָהֶֽם׃

See those words in blue? They are el Avraham el yistchaq v’el ya’aqov, or “Unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob.” The word el there is a preposition meaning “to” or “unto.” True, it is spelled alef-lamed, just as the word El (God) is, but it is a completely different word. The author here gives us an indication that he is unversed in basic Hebrew grammar. We will see this again in Greek when we address Galatians below.

There are a handful of other oddities but I admittedly didn’t spend as much time in the Tanakh (Old Testament), as I found fewer changes to it than to the New Testament.

The Gospel of Matthew
To begin, here’s a few examples from Matthew’s Gospel.

First in the opening chapter, the KJV text is revised to follow the Syriac translation in 1:16. From the Cepher:

Matthew 1:16: “And Ya’aqov begat אתet-Yoceph the father of Miryam, of whom was born YAHUSHA, who is called MASHIACH.”

First of all, you may have noticed the את-eth in there. That will be addressed in part as it relates to the Preface.

The point in question is the translation “father” of Mary, instead of “husband” of Mary (or I guess here it would say the “man” of Mary). This comes not from the Greek text of Matthew found in the Textus Receptus, nor from the medieval Hebrew Matthew translations (as the Cepher does claim to also take influence from some of the Shem Tov manuscripts for Matthew as well will see in chapter 23 below). Instead, it comes from a minority within the HRM, who wish to read the Syriac word גברה (gowra) as “guardian” meaning “father” instead of “husband.” Though this word, related to the Hebrew גבר (gever), just means “man” and is used of men of different sorts of relationships (fathers, brothers, uncles, etc.). I address this further in my article on Peshitta Primacy, so I won’t rehash it here.

In short, this simply means the Cepher has diverged from the KJV, as well as the Shem Tov Matthew that it cherry-picks from elsewhere, and borrowed from a poor translation from another source, in this case the Syriac. This is the author’s attempt, I presume, to complete the 14th generation by making this Mary’s genealogy and not Joseph’s (not sure what to say about comparing this to Luke’s, though to be fair, reconciling the two is already a difficult task).

Matthew 6:9-13:
After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father who established yeshu’ah in the heavens, Exalted is your name. 10 Your kingdom come. Your will be done in earth, as in the heavens. 11 Give us this day our daily אתeth-bread. 12 And forgive us our transgressions, as we forgive those who transgress against us. 13 And lead us not into the evil inclination, but deliver us from the outer darkness: For yours is the Kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amein.

The footnotes on verse 9 here state that yeshu’ah (a transliteration of the Hebrew, ישועה, a word used throughout the OT for “salvation” or “deliverance”) means “something saved, deliverance, aid, victory.” Though where the author got this idea, I cannot say. I checked the various Greek texts (starting with the Textus Receptus he claims to be using, followed by the NA28) and then the Syriac Peshitta text. I also checked the DuTillet Hebrew Matthew, which does not include the word “salvation,” nor do any of the Shem Tov manuscripts in George Howard’s “Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.” I checked the Latin as well, just for grins, and again came up empty. In short, I don’t see any textual support for this at all, which leads me to believe he arrived at this alteration based on some interpretation or personal doctrine. At least, that’s my assumption.

Further, we find he writes “evil inclination” instead of “temptation,” likely a reference to what’s known in Rabbinic terminology as the yetser ha’ra. Again, I have found no textual support in all the aforementioned texts for this. I am inclined to believe it is an attempt to reconcile this passage with James 1:13, which states that “God tempts no one” with the apparent “leading into” of temptation. This seems yet another case of eisegesis.

Lastly, the author has “deliver us from outer darkness” instead of “from evil.” I would be stretching the limits of my creative prowess to presume what he intends here. I will simply comment that there is no textual support and move on.

Matthew 23:2-3: “Saying, The scribes and Parashiym sit in Mosheh’s seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever he bids you guard, that diligently guard and do; but do not ye after their reforms and traditions: for they say, and do not.”

This is the place where the author claims to have repaired the verse based on the Hebrew text of Matthew. In this case, he is referring to the idea popularized by Nehemia Gordon that the text should read, “whatever he commands you, do” and not “whatever they command you, do.” The difference here, so the claim goes, is that according to the Hebrew Matthew, Yeshua is commanding the disciples to obey “he” (ie. Moses), not “they” (the Pharisees).

As I pointed out in my article, “The Seat of Moses” this is not the case. Not only does this defy all ancient witnesses to Matthew’s Gospel in Greek, Syriac, Latin, and other early translations, it doesn’t even bear the weight of evidence from the Shem Tov medieval Matthew text. Simply put, only some of the Shem Tov manuscripts (a minority of them) read “he” while they rest read, “they.”

So this alteration found in the Eth Cepher is not only cherry-picked from a medieval Matthew, but from a minority of those very same manuscripts.

Moving from Matthew now to John (the rest of the synoptics haven’t been butchered any worse than Matthew, as far as I could tell). One odd thing to note: along with his alterations to the text and canon, the author also re-ordered the books. So the synoptics are followed by Acts, then the General Epistles, then Paul’s letters, and lastly John’s Gospel and Epistles, and Revelation. For the purposes of this article, I will address things in the more traditional order.

The Gospel of John

John 6:4: “And the Pecach, a Feast of YAHUAH which the Yahudiym observed, was nigh.”

The author seems to be offended by the evangelist’s reference to Passover being a “feast of the Jews” and has (without textual support) changed the words, “a feast of the Jews” to “a Feast of YAHUAH which the Yahudiym observed.”

We see this same addition made in John 7:2 regarding Tabernacles.

John 20:1: “NOW on that certain Shabbath came Miryam of Migdal early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulcher, and saw the stone taken away from the sepulcher.”

Here the author has exchanged the KJV’s, “The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark” for a translation that I’m assuming is eisegetically reading the Sabbath into the verse. If we were to, rather literally, render the Greek of the verse, we would have Τῇ δὲ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων giving us, “Now the one of the week" (or Sabbath, alternatively). Granted, it is an odd wording even in the Greek itself. We find the cardinal one and not the ordinal first. Nevertheless the author ignores the number entirely, instead shifting meaning away from a numeric reference to a theological one: the Sabbath.

While he does the same for Matthew and Luke, he does not alter Mark, which still reads (in line with the KJV), “AND when the Shabbath was past…” So despite his attempts to harmonize the days, he ends up presenting the accounts of Matthew, Luke, and John as occurring on the beginning of the Sabbath while it was still dark; yet Mark stands in contrast to tell us it occurred when the Sabbath was past. Consistency and harmonization may have been his goal, but he has not achieved it here.

The Acts of the Apostles

Acts 13:9: “Then Sha’ul, (as one Pa’al,) filled with the RUACH HA’QODESH, set his eyes on him.”

There seems to be a common thread among these sort of pseudo-translations, that cause them to want to keep from changing Paul’s name. ISR's "The Scriptures Version" originally removed the words "also called Paul" entirely from the 1993 and 1998 editions, only putting them back in with the 2009 update. (Note: for proof, click here to read the verse in the 1998 edition has found on BibleHub).

The Cepher is no exception in this regard, and indeed the author has offered a footnote as to why the name Pa’al is used (unfortunately, he has not offered us any reason why he has removed the word καὶ (“also [called]”) and instead inserted the words “as one”). The footnote reads, “Pa’al: worker, the title that the apostle Sha’ul of Tarsus took whom YAHUSHA called on the road to Damascus.”

Except…he didn’t. Paul's given name, a Jewish name, was Sha'ul (anglicized to Paul), that much is correct. But it was common for Jews of the Roman empire to be known by multiple names. As Craig Keener notes:

"Roman citizens had three names. As a citizen, Saul had a Roman cognomen (“Paul,” meaning “small”); his other Roman names remain unknown to us. As inscriptions show was common, his Roman name sounded similar to his Jewish name (Saul, from the name of the Old Testament’s most famous Benjamite). This is not a name change; now that Paul is moving in a predominantly Roman environment, he begins to go by his Roman name, and some of Luke’s readers recognize for the first time that Luke is writing about someone of whom they had already heard." [1]

Nor is this the meaning of the name which is given here. The Roman name Paulus (from which the Greek Παυλος (Paulos is derived), anglicized as Paul, means “small,” “little,” or possibly “humble.” [2]

Galatians
This one gets really dicey. From my personal experience, there is quite a history of Torah Observant believers trying to grapple with the difficulty of understanding Galatians. Andrew Gabriel Roth, in his translation of the Eastern Syriac Peshitta, noted that while the majority of his text was Paul Younan’s Gospels and Acts, and James Murdock for the rest of the NT, he wrote/translated nearly all of Galatians from scratch. [3] The reason is because, again, Galatians is a very difficult book for Torah Keepers. And not just for Torah Keepers, either; the whole of Christian academia still wrestles with it, as is demonstrated by the nuanced differences in the New Perspective approaches of Wright, Dunn, and Sanders. But that’s neither here nor there.

Galatians 3:19: “Why then the Torah? Grace was added because of the transgression, that the seed should come to the promise; through ELOHIYM in the hands of a mediator.”

Here it is in the KJV, for comparison: “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.”

What it appears the author has done, is misread the Greek χάριν (charin), which means “on account of” or “because of,” for the Greek χάρις (charis), meaning “grace.” This is where we get words like charisma. In doing so, the author has completely reversed the meaning of the text. This verse – a necessary text for Progressive Revelation – is explaining why the Torah was given at Mt. Sinai. And the reason it was so, is because of man’s transgression. By inserting the word grace, the author makes it look like the Torah is the supreme factor here, and that grace was added at Mt. Sinai. (Never mind that grace clearly predates the giving of the Torah, just go read Genesis 6-8).

The author is, at best, inconsistent here. It bears pointing out that this same word is used in Ephesians 3:1;14, and in both places, the author has left it as “for this cause.” Perhaps just as frustrating from a translation perspective, is since he chose “grace” as the definition of charin, he now has no basis for the words “because of.” So at the very least, it would read, “Why then the Torah? Grace added the transgression…” which would clearly also defeat the plain meaning of the passage.

Additionally, he – for some reason – has exchanged “angels/messengers” for his preference of “ELOHIYM.” There is no textual support here for this change, much like most of the others. Furthermore he has somehow lost the Greek διατάσσω (diatasso), “ordained” entirely. I have no guesses as to why this happened.

Galatians 5:2-4: “Behold, I Pa’al set forth as concerning you, except that MASHIACH was circumcised, none of ye benefit. 3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole Torah. 4 Removed by MASHIACH. For whosoever in Torah is so justified, grace has no effect.”

For comparison, the KJV:
“Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.”

The changes here should be evident. First, he has rendered the Greek περιτέμνησθε Χριστὸς as “except that MASHIACH was circumcised.” I assume his intent here is to convey that this verse is about Yeshua’s Torah-keeping, and His own having been circumcised according to the Torah, and not anyone else’s. I can appreciate the attempted clarity, but the grammar doesn’t bear this out. If I had to guess, I would say he probably read an interlinear and saw the word περιτέμνησθε (peritemnesthe), “circumcised” followed by the word Χριστὸς “Messiah, Christ” and thought it justification for rendering the verb as applying to the circumcision of Messiah. But this is a demonstration of an ignorance of Greek.

The word “circumcised” here has the following form: present, passive, subjunctive, second person, plural, verb. That seems like a lot. I’ll skip the long, boring part, and focus on the person. Second person “you, ye” here is who gets the verb, “circumcised.” After all, Paul had just said, “I say unto you” and this word is also second person plural (like the Southern "y'all". The verb in question (and indeed, the whole verse) applies to his audience, not to Messiah. If Paul meant to convey something about Messiah's circumcision, the verb form would be third person (the person spoken about), not second person (the person spoken to).

In verse 4, he has apparently translated the Greek κατηργήθητε ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ (katergethete apo Christou) as “Removed by MASHIACH.” The first word is rendered as “removed” and isn’t a terrible translation; the NRSV and TLV have “cut off.” His (lack of) understanding of prepositions shows again here, by rendering the Greek απο (apo) as “by.” This implies the work of the verb “removed” is accomplished by Messiah. Contextually and grammatically, and indeed in most of its usage, apo means “from” and is always in the genitive case in Greek. For the layman, this implies possession. Meaning, “removed from Messiah” would be the appropriate translation here, and not “removed by MASHIACH.” If Messiah were the one doing the removing/cutting off, we would expect the word to be in the nominative case as He would be the subject, and not the genitive as it is here. [4]

Never mind that he has ended the sentence “Removed by MASHIACH” where the Greek does not indicate the end of the sentence.

1 Corinthians
I suppose these next three are less so a matter of poor translation, and more so an error of using the “find and replace” tool of a word processor.

1 Cor. 2:8: “Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified את-eth the YAH of glory.”

I can’t help but thinking the author is making some odd Modalistic point, but I would rather not comment on the matter. Only that, according to his rendering here, the Father was crucified, not the Son.

1 Cor. 8:6: “But to us there is but one YAHUAH, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one YAHUAH-YAHUSHA the MASHIACH, by whom are all things, and we by him.”

So there’s a distinction between the Father, here called “Yahuah” and the Lord Yeshua, here called “Yahusha,” but yet Yahuah is Yahusha the Mashaich? This causes unnecessary confusion and gets worse when we examine Philippians 2 below.

1 Cor. 12:3: “Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the RUACH YAHUAH calls YAHUSHA accursed: and that no man can say that YAHUAH is YAHUSHA, but by the RUACH HA’QODESH.”

Again this seems Modalistic in its confusion and confounding of the Person of the Father with the Person of the Son. And to be sure, it is not supported by the Greek text, which should instead be reading “Lord” in these places. It’s worth noting that in other places, such as Eph. 1:2, he has “the ADONAI YAHUSHA HA’MASHIACH.” So why these places were not at least rendered “Adonai” seems intentional.

Philippians

Phil. 2:11: “And every tongue should confess that YAHUAH is YAHUSHA HA’MASHIACH, to the glory of YAH the Father.”

This really just compounds the issue I mentioned above in regards to 1 Corinthians; this sort of doctrinal abuse of the Persons of the Father and Son. Yah is the Father, but is also the Son?

Colossians

Col. 2:16-17: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day, or of the New Moon, or of the Shabbath: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come for the body of MASHIACH.”

Compare the original KJV: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”

Stop: grammar time. (Okay, I was going to refrain from using that one, but I figure if you’re still with me now, you deserve to laugh for a moment). I’m going to leave vs. 16 alone, since that’s mostly just a replacing of equivalent terms, and not so much a hijacking of the meaning.

The big difference here comes in the swapping of the word “but” for “for.” Now, no longer are such things a reference to the substance of Messiah, but it makes the claim that these things are for the body, that is, belonging to or intended for. Now theologically, I wholeheartedly agree that Sabbaths and Feasts and so on, are for the body of Messiah. But I dare not butcher the words of holy writ to make that point.

In Greek, we find the word δέ here. In the Cepher, it was rendered as “for,” yet δέ is not a preposition, it is a contrastive conjunction. (Hence why “but” is really the best English translation in this case).

1 John
Only thing I will take time to point out here is that, despite his odd renderings of most passages pertaining to the Godhead or at the very least to the deity of Messiah, he has left 1 John 5:7 in the text. To be clear, if you’re unfamiliar with this issue, I suggest you go read this verse in any translation besides the KJV, then compare the KJV. For further study, you could look up the phrase Johannine Comma.

Revelation

Rev. 13:18: “Here is wisdom. Let him that has understanding calculate the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is χξς.”

Here he has removed the number 666, and instead written the Greek letters themselves, as they appear in the Greek text. It’s not wrong, though he does it for theologically motivated reasons. The author has produced multiple videos on YouTube that go into this issue in depth. He has promoted multiple varied interpretations (from it being a symbol referring to the Bismillah in Arabic, to referring to the snake of the antichrist), but overall he asserts that the letters are not numbers, but instead are a symbol.

I would simply inquire, “Then why does the very same verse say “number” thrice, and “calculate” once, if it has nothing to do with a number?” I digress.

Conclusion
Overall, what do I say? Well there is no perfect translation of the Bible. However, some are worse than others. For the sake of not being completely and totally negative, I would say the Cepher has one redeeming quality: it’s got a lot of books bound up in it. Me personally, I like the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. But I make a clear distinction between those books and Scripture. I’ll address more of the canon and the destruction thereof as it pertains to the Cepher in part 2.

For now, here’s my final word: The Cepher is, at best, a weirdly-modified King James Version. However, in many places, especially in places of doctrine, it either obscures what the original texts state, or it entirely alters the meaning. I find this not only to be a poor practice of translation, I find it to be very dangerous. It presents a falsehood to well-meaning believers, it causes a destruction of our witness to the world at large, and it offers no edification for the body beyond being convinced of a comforting lie.

I have only covered a handful of textual alterations within the canonical Scriptures; I have not even touched on the translations presented in the extra-Biblical books. Nor do I intend to do so. I would strongly advise people consider a translation of Scripture that has been vetted and compiled by a committee, and is not dependent on one person’s theology or opinions. For that reason, I recommend the TLV, NASB, and even the NRSV if you really want the Apocrypha included. For the average believer, the Cepher sets a dangerous precedent: namely, that the text of Scripture can be based on our doctrinal beliefs, and not the other way around.

As for me and my house, we will most certainly not be using it.

Shalom.

[1] Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), Ac 13:9.
[2] Stelman Smith and Judson Cornwall, The Exhaustive Dictionary of Bible Names (North Brunswick, NJ: Bridge-Logos, 1998), vii.
[3] Andrew Gabriel Roth, The Aramaic English New Testament. 4th Edition. Preface.
[4] David Alan Black, Learn to Read New Testament Greek. 2009. Pp. 26-27.

Humility (Yom Kippur 2020 Sermon)

Wed, 30 Sep 2020 19:23:27 GMT

This post is essentially the message I gave on Yom Kippur 2020. It’s probably a little more fleshed out than I was able to present in person. Fasting has a way of making the head a little foggy. Nevertheless, the heart and soul of the message is the same: humility.

A tallit, shofar, and Siddur

Let’s first start by reviewing the applicable portions for today’s readings. First, from Leviticus 23:

26ADONAI spoke to Moses, saying: 27“However, the tenth day of this seventh month is Yom Kippur, a holy convocation to you, so you are to afflict yourselves. You are to bring an offering made by fire to ADONAI. 28You are not to do any kind of work on that set day, for it is Yom Kippur, to make atonement for you before ADONAI your God. 29For anyone who does not deny himself on that day must be cut off from his people. 30Anyone who does any kind of work on that day, that person I will destroy from among his people. 31You shall do no kind of work. It is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings. 32It is to be a Shabbat of solemn rest for you, and you are to humble your souls. On the ninth day of the month in the evening—from evening until evening—you are to keep your Shabbat.” (TLV) [Emphasis mine]

Note for a moment, that there are two things the people are supposed to do on this day: refrain from all kinds of work, and “afflict” yourself. The different way it’s worded in the TLV is a bit odd. The NRSV reads, “you shall deny yourselves,” “practice self-denial,” and “you shall deny yourselves.” The ESV reads “afflict” in all three places, while the NASB reads, “humble” in each place.

The disagreement here is based on the Hebrew word anah (ענה) which is used in all three places. The ESV goes for a more strictly literal rendering of “afflict” while the NASB goes for the alternative “humble.” The NRSV, seeking to be a little more modern, uses “deny.” The TLV, oddly enough, incorporates all three. While I can’t comment on their translation decisions, I’m willing to bet they wanted to incorporate all the facets of the word into their translation.

For our purposes though, what we find is this: we are to humble ourselves, or quite literally, make ourselves lowly. Now this doesn’t explicitly mean to fast, as people have been prone to pointing out recently. And I agree, it does not, at the surface level, command us to fast. Though I would pose a question to the reader at this point: how does one “afflict” himself, Biblically-speaking? How would one even know where to understand what this sort of “affliction” is supposed to mean? Taking from Isaiah 58 (which I believe speaks specifically of Yom Kippur), we find the connection being made to fasting.

[Derailing for a moment, the following is something that I was compelled to add while writing this, and was not part of the message I gave in person to our fellowship. Specifically it looks at fasting and its relation to Yom Kippur]

In context, Isaiah 58 paints the picture that the people of Israel were treating Yom Kippur mechanically. That is, that they honored God with their lips, but their heart was far from Him. Sound familiar?

And the Lord said: “Because this people draw near with their mouth and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men, 14 therefore, behold, I will again do wonderful things with this people, with wonder upon wonder; and the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the discernment of their discerning men shall be hidden.” (Isa. 29:13-14 ESV)

We find something similar in the opening chapter of Isaiah:

11For what is it to Me—the multitude of your sacrifices?” says ADONAI. “I am full of burnt offerings of rams and fat of fed animals. I have no delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs or he-goats. 12When you come to appear before Me, who has required this at your hand— trampling My courts? 13Bring no more worthless offerings! Incense is an abomination to Me.
New Moon and Shabbat, the calling of convocations —I cannot endure it— iniquity with solemn assembly. 14Your New Moons and your Festivals My soul hates! They are a burden to Me. I am weary to bear them.
15When you spread out your hands, I will hide My eyes from you. When you multiply prayers, I will not hear. Your hands are full of blood!” (Isaiah 1:11-15 TLV)

Why was the Almighty mad? Did He hate the Feast days? Certainly not. After all, according to His own word in Lev. 23, they are HIS Feasts. Rather, He hated what Israel had done to them. They were treating it as though they could live and do whatever they wanted, as long as they appeased Him with sacrifices and the mechanical keeping of the Torah. If I were a bit more cynical, I'd say this is a sobering indictment about the state of the Torah-Observant movement as it is presently, as well.

Now to Isaiah 58:

3“Why have we fasted. yet You do not see? Why have we afflicted our souls, yet You take no notice?” “Behold, in the day of your fast you seek your own pleasure, and exploit all your laborers.
4Behold, you fast for strife and contention and to strike with a wicked fist. You should not fast as you do today to make your voice heard on high.

5Is this the fast I have chosen? A day for one to afflict his soul? Is it to bow down his head like a reed, and spreading out sackcloth and ashes? Will you call this a fast and a day acceptable to ADONAI?
6“Is not this the fast I choose: to release the bonds of wickedness, to untie the cords of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to tear off every yoke?

7Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, to bring the homeless poor into your house? When you see the naked, to cover him, and not hide yourself from your own flesh and blood? (Isaiah 58:3-7 TLV) [Emphasis mine]

So let’s wrap this part up. We see, again, that Adonai does not hate His own commandments. Rather, He hates what they did with His commandments. They took His commandments (which, if a man does them, he shall live [Ezekiel 20; Leviticus 18]) and turned them into a systematized religion. It’s why He says, “this people draw near with their mouth and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men.”

They didn’t fear Him out of desire for a relationship with Him, but rather they did so because they taught it as a matter of religion. This is exactly what Yeshua admonished the Pharisees for in Mark 7 and Matthew 15. Not for keeping the commandments, but for turning them into something they weren’t supposed to be.

[Getting back on track now with the message from Yom Kippur]

So in Isaiah 58 we see a connection between “the fast” and “afflicting your soul.” Another common thing taking place today in Synagogues and fellowships around the globe, is reading the book of Jonah. This may seem kind of odd at first. But the picture begins to get clearer once you get into the text. In short, Jonah depicts repentance, and that on the national level. And what did the people of Nineveh do when they repented?

5Then the people of Nineveh believed God and called for a fast and wore sackcloth—from the greatest of them to the least of them. (Jonah 3:5 TLV)

Fasting is markedly linked to repentance, and that of course is related to Yom Kippur. But beyond just fasting, again, the Torah states that we must “humble” ourselves. Now I do believe fasting is part of Yom Kippur, but I don’t think it is the biggest piece. Rather, humility is. That’s the bigger lesson. We are supposed to humble ourselves. And we find the example of what this looks like directly in the Torah itself, and followed on into the Gospels, and the Epistles.

3“In this way shall Aaron come into the Sanctuary: with a young bull for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering.
4He is to put on the holy linen garment, have the linen undergarments on his body, put on the linen sash, and wear the linen turban—they are the holy garments. He shall bathe his body in water, and put them on. (Leviticus 16:3–4 TLV)

The normal garments of the High Priest were made to resemble royalty. Blue, gold, gemstones, a crown of sorts, the High Priest would no doubt have looked like a king to the average person, on any given day. Yet not on Yom Kippur. On Yom Kippur he wore plain, simple linen. No bright blues, no gleaming gold. This one day a year, the one time that the High Priest would go before the presence of Adonai, he wore plain, simple, modest, humble garments.

High Priest in royal priestly garments

High priest in plain white linen

If we continued to read Leviticus 16 we would find the entire process of the day. A sin offering for the priest’s own sin and his household, a sin offering for the people, the confession of all the sins of the nation onto the head of the scapegoat, and so on. But what I want to point out here is that all of this work was performed by the High Priest. None of it was performed by the congregation of the people of Israel. See, Passover was a personal sort of event. You take a lamb for yourself and your household. But on Yom Kippur, the High Priest does all the work. In fact, you are forbidden from working in any way, and you’re required to “afflict” yourself (likely by fasting) such that performing any work would be more difficult than normal. So all the work is done by the High Priest (do you see where this is going yet?).

11But when Messiah appeared as Kohen Gadol (High Priest) of the good things that have now come, passing through the greater and more perfect Tent not made with hands (that is to say not of this creation), 12He entered into the Holies once for all—not by the blood of goats and calves but by His own blood, having obtained eternal redemption.
13For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, 14how much more will the blood of Messiah—who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God—cleanse our conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (Hebrews 9:11–14 TLV)

For many people, Hebrews raises more questions than it answers. But I use this passage simply as evidence that Yeshua is our High Priest. And when it comes to making atonement for us, He did all the work. And that, is humbling in itself. Humility is recognizing you don’t know it all, can’t do it all. We are commanded time and again to humble ourselves, and Yeshua is our example of that.

10Humble yourselves in the sight of ADONAI, and He shall lift you up. (James 4:10 TLV)

Yeshua said, multiple times, that “the last shall be first, and the first last.” And that those who humbled themselves would be exalted; that the meek (humble) would inherit the earth. When we are humble, we are teachable.

9He guides the humble in what is right, and teaches the humble His way. (Psalm 25:9 TLV)

Israel spent 40 years wandering in the wilderness, and what was the lesson God was teaching them?

2You are to remember all the way that ADONAI your God has led you these 40 years in the wilderness—in order to humble you, to test you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His mitzvot or not.
3He afflicted you and let you hunger, then He fed you manna—which neither you nor your fathers had known—in order to make you understand that man does not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of ADONAI. (Deuteronomy 8:2–3 TLV) [Emphasis mine]

[Another little side note there about fasting (hunger) connected with affliction and humbling]

Repentance is humbling. Admitting you were wrong is humbling. In many congregations, you recite the Al Chet on Yom Kippur. If you’re not familiar, I won’t share the whole thing here (though I do advise you to look it up). The Al Chet is a part of the Synagogue liturgy that is recited by everyone, and it is a prayer of repentance, asking for God’s forgiveness for all manner of sins. Those committed knowingly, those committed unknowingly, those committed under duress, those committed by slander, by usury, by theft, by lying, and so on. It’s long, though I suppose not totally exhaustive. One of the things you notice as you recite it, is your sins and shortcomings are brought to mind. You begin to think of things – times where you gossiped or slandered or were unfair in business dealings – that you had not thought to repent for before. And that is humbling.

Now, culturally-speaking, humility in the Ancient world, during the Second Temple era, was not viewed the way we see it today. The following is a quote from the Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible, under the entry for Humility:

In the Greco-Roman world many regarded humility as a sign of weakness or even a character flaw; its meanings of “lowly” or “servile” were often used disparagingly. That Christians should view humility as a virtue was therefore quite striking. Paul writes that humility is at the heart of Christ’s character (Phil. 2:3–8; Gk. tapeinós, “lowly,” “downcast”). It is an attitude of Paul himself (2 Cor. 10:1), an attitude of Christian community (Eph. 4:2; Col. 3:12), a fruit of the spirit (Gal. 5:23), which finds its source in agápē (1 Cor. 4:21; cf. 13:4–5). Humility is the appropriate attitude toward God (Jas. 4:10) and toward each other (1 Pet. 3:8; 5:5).

It was counter-cultural in the Greco-Roman world, to consider humility a virtue. Now take note of the following:

3Do nothing out of selfishness or conceit, but with humility consider others as more important than yourselves, 4looking out not only for your own interests but also for the interests of others.

5Have this attitude in yourselves, which also was in Messiah Yeshua, 6Who, though existing in the form of God, did not consider being equal to God a thing to be grasped. 7But He emptied Himself— taking on the form of a slave, becoming the likeness of men and being found in appearance as a man. 8He humbled Himself— becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9For this reason God highly exalted Him and gave Him the name that is above every name. (Philippians 2:3–9 TLV) [Emphasis mine]

Yeshua, our High Priest, emptied Himself of His former glory, to suffer and die. There isn’t anything I can fathom that is much more humiliating than that. And there is no better example of humility than this.

On a quick personal note, before closing, I’ll say this. Early in 2020, I started praying for humility. I know myself, and I know I have a tendency to be arrogant; prideful. I know this is not the character of Yeshua, and it’s not a trait I desire to exhibit. So I started praying for Abba to make me humble. But in the process, I started to ask: how does that work? I even had a conversation with my wife. “How do you become humble? Do you learn it? Do you, essentially, have to fake it until you make it? Do you just pretend to be humble, and do things in a way that would seem humble, until it eventually becomes part of who you are?” Her response was that humility was learned and not imparted (my words not hers, but that’s her point). And that learning is not something of the head, but of the heart.

Within a month of this, I lost my job (beginning of April, 2020). As of this writing (end of September 2020), I am still unemployed. I hold an Associate’s Degree in Electrical Engineering Technology, and a Bachelor’s Degree in Data Management & Analytics. I have a combined 7 years of experience in software development, project management, and data analysis. So why the heck am I unable to find work? I am intelligent, skilled, and experienced. But this brings me to my point.

This comes back to my prayer. I asked the Father to make me humble, and He has been doing so. Showing me that I am not God, that I can’t do it all, that I still need Him, and ultimately must rely on Him. He shifted my focus off myself and onto Him, because I’ve had to be reliant on Him. And that’s what He did with Israel time and time again: He took away their protection and let their enemies haul them away, oppress them, steal from them. And when they repented and cried out, He answered and rescued them.

Humility is a recalibration of our focus. It removes the emphasis we place on ourselves, and redirects it where it belongs: on the Most High.

I pray this has blessed you today.

Shalom.

The Difficulty of Seeing Messiah in the OT

Sat, 20 Jun 2020 16:17:26 GMT

When you first come to this faith walk, this “Torah Keeping worldview,” you undoubtedly gain a new appreciation for the Tanakh (“Old Testament”). For most Christians, the OT is there to conveniently be used from time to time to prove Jesus is the Messiah, and beyond that, it gets shelved. But when a believer has their eyes opened to the continuing validity of Torah, the OT seems to get a whole new light shed on it.

One of the difficulties, however, for any student of Scripture, can be finding Yeshua Messiah specifically in the OT. Now don’t get me wrong, I agree He’s everywhere in the OT; but it’s subtle. References aren’t overt most of the time. And this can be difficult, especially when dealing with anti-missionaries. If you quote Isaiah 53 to them, they often say, “Nowhere in Isaiah 53 does it say that’s about the Messiah. It’s about Israel.” While I won’t be addressing that here, I will say that it’s a faulty interpretation for several reasons. (Not the least of which is that it fails to answer the question of how "Israel" can be punished for "our" [Israel's, from Isaiah's point of view] sin).

Many such Scriptures that we commonly take for granted as proof of Yeshua’s pre-existence and Messiahship are actually kind of…cryptic. So how wo do we deal with such issues, when the OT never explicitly says the Divine Messiah, Who would be called Yeshua, would die via crucifixion, for the sins of the world?

Personally, I believe this is intentional. That is, when the Ruach Ha’Qodesh (Holy Spirit) inspired the prophets to write Scripture, it was intentionally vague. There is an implied level of interpretive work required to make sense of some passages, and to connect Yeshua with OT prophecy. So I’m writing this, not to explain all the mysterious, hidden, obscure, vague passages of the Tanakh. That would take a lot more than a brief blog post. Rather, I am writing this to encourage you to believe the Apostles when they quote the Tanakh. Believe the Apostles when they say Isaiah 53 is actually about Yeshua. Let Scripture (of the NT) interpret Scripture (of the OT).

Why? Because of this Scripture:

1When I came to you, brothers and sisters, I did not come with excellence of speech or wisdom, proclaiming to you the mystery of God. 2For I decided not to know about anything among you except Yeshua the Messiah—and Him crucified. 3I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. 4My speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power— 5so that your faith would not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

6We do speak wisdom, however, among those who are mature—but not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7Rather, we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery—a wisdom that has been hidden, which God destined for our glory before the ages. 8None of the rulers of this age understood it—for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9But as it is written, “Things no eye has seen and no ear has heard, that have not entered the heart of mankind— these things God has prepared for those who love Him.” 10But God revealed these things to us through the Ruach. For the Ruach searches all things—even the depths of God.

1 Corinthians 2:1-10 (TLV)

Did you catch that?

8None of the rulers of this age understood it—for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

If the Tanakh just plainly said, “The Divine Messiah will be born as a human child to Joseph and Mary of Bethlehem; He will grow up and begin His ministry around the age of 30; He will appoint 12 disciples; He will perform miracles, will be crucified by the Roman government at the request of His own people, and will be raised from the dead…” then would the people still have given Him up to be crucified? Would the Romans have done the deed? According to Paul the “rulers of this age” would not have killed Him.

The prophecies about Him had to be hidden in a way. Paul even quotes Isaiah 64:3 here as his reference to this. Which is fascinating, because Isaiah 64 covers:

God doing things no one expected
Our righteousness being as filthy rags (we’ve all heard this quote) and as such, us in need of Him
A recognition of the need for repentance
Asking God to save His people

All of these things are contained in the Gospel message. We cannot save ourselves; we must repent of our sins; we confess with our mouths and believe; we recognize the work that the Almighty has accomplished. This is the frame of reference Paul wanted his readers to have in mind when he quoted Isaiah 64. But especially the verse he quoted, saying that God would do things no one expected, that no eye had seen, no ear had heard.

And this is not something exclusive to the Tanakh, mind you. Yeshua also used this same “hidden meaning” methodology when He taught in parables.

10Then the disciples came to Him and said, “Why do You speak to them in parables?”

11And He replied to them, “To you has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12For whoever has, to him more will be given and he will have plenty. But whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 13For this reason I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear nor do they understand.

Matthew 13:10-13 (TLV)

For those to whom understanding is given, whose eyes and ears have been opened, they will hear and see and understand. But without that, there is a partial blindness, or hardening, that remains (see Romans 11:25).
The NT itself interprets much of the OT for us. The Apostles were the ones, appointed by Yeshua, to teach and lead. They received the revelation of the Ruach, and were thereby empowered and had their eyes and ears opened to teach. So when we see one of the Apostles, in his writings, quote the Tanakh in what seems an odd way (“hey, that passage is about Israel not the Messiah”, for example) it’s a safe bet that its because they were granted the proper understanding of the verse. Just as Isaiah prophesied would happen, just as Yeshua intended.

So again, I encourage you, to let the Apostles be your first teachers when it comes to understanding the ways Messiah fulfilled prophecies in the Tanakh; and don’t be swayed by the anti-missionaries who tell you it’s out of context. After all, it was the Apostles that Yeshua spent years with, teaching; and it was to the Apostles that He explained how the Torah spoke of Him, and the prophets (Luke 24:44-49).

I hope this makes sense, and pray it blesses you.

Do We Not Need Teachers?

Sat, 09 May 2020 14:21:57 GMT

As for you, the anointing you received from Him remains in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you. But as His anointing teaches you about all things—and it is true and not a lie—and just as it has taught you, abide in Him. – 1 John 2:27 (TLV)

I have seen many well-meaning believers today in our Messianic / Hebraic / Torah Pursuant faith, that quote this verse as a proof-text of sorts. To prove what, exactly? Namely, that believers that possess the Holy Spirit and are empowered thereby, do not need teachers. Instead, they need only read the Scriptures for themselves, and ask God for the meaning.

Many times on social media, I have seen someone ask a question, and instead of answering it or directing the inquirer to a source that provides an answer, invariably someone will say, “Just ask YHWH, and the Ruach will explain it all. You don’t need a teacher.”

While I certainly agree in part – that is, that you should always seek the guidance of the Ruach when studying the Word – the overall premise that one does not “need” teachers is entirely flawed. Paul taught the following:

“God has put into His community first emissaries, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then healings, helps, leadership, various kinds of tongues.” – 1 Cor. 12:28 (TLV)

And also:

He Himself gave some to be emissaries, some as prophets, some as proclaimers of the Good News, and some as shepherds and teachers— to equip the kedoshim for the work of service, for building up the body of Messiah. – Eph. 4:11-12 (TLV)

And from Ya’aqov (James), we find the following:

Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers and sisters, since you know that we will receive a stricter judgment. – James 3:1 (TLV)

So first, as I always try to do, let’s ask the logical question: if not many are to be teachers, does that not imply that some then are to be teachers? It seems fairly clear to me that both of the latter two Apostles agree: God has called some to be teachers. So how then can we square what John wrote with these two? Were they in disagreement? And is it not self-contradictory if John, who was himself a teacher, is teaching that teachers are unnecessary? But that’s not his point. If we examine the surrounding verses for context, we begin to see a clearer picture.

See, much of what John addresses in this letter is in direct response to false teaching that had begun to be published around the communities of believers. That’s also a lot of what he deals with in his Gospel (particularly, he seems interested in dispelling Gnostic heresies). He also speaks, not only those that teach falsehood, but also of those that have left on account of being led astray by such falsehood (vs. 19). So let’s look at the whole section here in 1 John 2:18-28, to get more information.

1 John 2:18–28 (TLV)
18Children, it is the last hour. Just as you heard that the anti-messiah is coming, even now many anti-messiahs have come—by this we know that it is the last hour.
19They left us, but they didn’t really belong to us. If they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. But they left us so it became clear that none of them belongs to us.
20But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know.
21I have not written you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth.
22Who is the liar, if not the one who denies that Yeshua is the Messiah? This one is the anti-messiah—the one who denies the Father and the Son.
23No one who denies the Son has the Father; the one who acknowledges the Son also has the Father.
24As for you, let what you heard from the beginning remain in you. If what you heard from the beginning remains in you, you also will continue to live in the Son and in the Father.
25Now this is the promise that He Himself has promised us—eternal life.
26I have written you these things about those who are trying to mislead you.
27As for you, the anointing you received from Him remains in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you. But as His anointing teaches you about all things—and it is true and not a lie—and just as it has taught you, abide in Him.
28And now, children, abide in Him, so that when He appears we will have confidence and not be ashamed in His presence at His coming.

Now it begins to come into focus. John is addressing those that have come in and are teaching contrary to the very basic and foundational doctrine of all: Yeshua is the Messiah, the Son of God. See, John is not saying that they don’t need teachers. He is saying they don’t need anyone to come in and re-teach them these very basic principles. Rather, they should accept and affirm what they have already been shown, and has been affirmed by the anointing (ie. The Spirit).

Here are a couple entries from some good commentaries on the matter:

From the IVP New Testament Commentary:
The author reminds his readers that what he is now telling them is in fact what the church has heard from the beginning. He warns them against those who are trying to lead them astray from that well-founded teaching which remains in you. Their steadfastness depends on remembering the Spirit-inspired teaching about Jesus that they have heard and accepted all along. For it is the Spirit who remains with the faithful and who reminds them of what they have heard from the beginning. But clearly John expects that the Spirit works and speaks through individuals who proclaim and teach. This is exactly why the false teachers are such a threat, why he will later warn his readers to “test the Spirits” (4:1–6), and why he continually points to the role of the eyewitnesses and their successors in passing on the truth they have received. While ultimately the Spirit “will teach you all things” (Jn 14:26), the Spirit does so through human beings. Thus, when the Elder writes you do not need anyone to teach you, he does not mean that they have never needed any teachers—for he himself was and continues to be their teacher! But they do not now suddenly need new teaching about Jesus, such as the secessionists are offering.

From the Holman New Testament Commentary:
They do not need anyone to teach is not suggesting that they had no teachers, or that they knew everything and didn’t need to be taught. Rather, it means that, as a congregation, they did not need anyone to teach them again the essentials of the faith that the false teachers were denying. They already had the truth (the anointing) and did not need anyone else (Gnostics, who claimed special inner knowledge) to tell them what was true.

So to summarize again: believers still need teachers, as we should never be so prideful as to think we have already learned every single thing we will ever need to know. Maturity is a process. However, we do not need teachers that come to teach us “new” doctrines, or to teach contrary to the most foundational thing of all, namely, that Yeshua is the Divine Messiah, and faith in Him is the basis of our salvation.

I would note too, that we actually do encounter this very thing today. Many self-appointed teachers, out of a desire to distance themselves from all things “Christian” have done exactly this. They have sought to define themselves by what they aren't, than by what they are, and have begun teaching a “different Gospel” than that which was preached by the Apostles. They have sought to destroy these very foundational principles through radical doctrinal reform. Teachings such as the denial of the Deity of the Messiah, that He was merely a man and nothing more. Or teaching people that the authority of the Apostolic Scriptures is weak, incomplete, or non-existent (seen most recently with an increase in Paul-deniers).

I warn anyone, heavily, to steer clear of any such teacher who does not maintain the foundation of truth.

Shalom.

References:

Thompson, M. M. (1992). 1–3 John (1 Jn 2:24). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Walls, D., & Anders, M. (1999). I & II Peter, I, II & III John, Jude (Vol. 11, p. 179). Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

The Issue of Scriptural Divorce

Wed, 03 Apr 2019 14:51:53 GMT

We’ve all heard the oft-quoted figure: 50%.

50% of marriages end in divorce, they say.
Some studies show it’s actually over 70% [a].

That number is a bit fuzzy, to be sure, but nevertheless, we all know how high it is. In some countries it’s even higher (looking at you, Belgium) [a].

But for believers, should we not find this number at virtually zero? If marriage is a religious institution, should not the number of broken marriages be less among religious people? I’ll digress from that point.

In this article, we’ll examine divorce from an historically Biblical point of view, as well as from a cultural point of view. I will unequivocally and unapologetically state, right now, that the best resource for this topic (if you want an exhaustive study) is the book “Divorce and Remarriage in the Church” by Dr. David Instone-Brewer (the link here to the book, should you want it). His work lays the foundation for much of what I’ll be showing in this article, and indeed, this may serve simply as a summary of much of his findings.

To begin, a couple statements. Firstly, I apologize for the title. I’d like to say we can all safely assume divorce is “Biblical” simply because The Creator Himself divorced Israel (see Jer. 3). But all things on the matter being what they are, I’ll try to avoid taking such understandings for granted. But I do consider Jeremiah 3 to be the starting place. For those new to the topic, here is the relevant portion:
6Then YHWH said to me in the days of Josiah the king, “Have you seen what faithless Israel did? She went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and she was a harlot there. 7“I thought, ‘After she has done all these things she will return to Me’; but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it. 8“And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce, yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear; but she went and was a harlot also. 9“Because of the lightness of her harlotry, she polluted the land and committed adultery with stones and trees. 10“Yet in spite of all this her treacherous sister Judah did not return to Me with all her heart, but rather in deception,” declares YHWH. (Jer. 3:6-10)

See, Israel played the harlot, meaning the nation continually committed adultery against Elohim (God). This is a spiritual matter, referring to Israel’s constant pursuit of false gods and idolatry. But the point of the matter is, Elohim gave Israel a spiritual certificate (writ) of divorce for Israel’s spiritual adultery. So to put it in simple and perhaps modern times: God Himself got a divorce. Now there are all other sorts of questions here about this particular instance, but we’ll address those another time.

But the lingering question in the mind of most believers today is not simply about divorce, but more about remarriage. There is a common belief that floats around about remarriage for a believer whose ex-spouse still lives. The claim is that marrying someone else, while your ex-spouse is still alive, is adultery. Only if the former spouse has died, they say, is one free to remarry. This is largely based on an interpretation of Yeshua’s words in Matthew 5 and 19, as well as Paul’s in 1 Cor. 7. But we’ll get to those.

Secondly, in the spirit of full disclosure, I will inform the reader now that I (J. A. Brown) am, myself, divorced. If you consider this too personal or too biased to continue to read the article, I wouldn’t fault you. However, I do hope and pray that you would take the time to consider what I’ve written here. Further and more importantly, that you take the time to understand the Scriptural and cultural context surrounding the issue of Scriptural divorce and remarriage. I present not merely my opinion – which is largely irrelevant to the reader – but rather facts and historical evidence and above all else, the Scriptures themselves. As I always say, don’t take my word for it; look it up for yourself. This is, again, why I highly recommend Dr. Instone-Brewer’s book. Not because he himself is a prophet or anything, but because his book is well-cited and contains references to many of the things we’ll be looking at here.

As another side note of housekeeping, I will refrain from quoting from the LEV for this article. I stress to people all the time that I seek to remain neutral and unbiased in how I have chosen to translate things, especially with the work we did in the LEV. That said, it would be easy to accuse me of using a doctored Bible version to push a doctored doctrine (see what I did there?). I refuse to be written off as biased and uneducated for such a silly reason. For that reason and that reason alone, I will be quoting from the New American Standard Bible (NASB) unless otherwise noted.

Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, let’s begin to break down the structure here. The points below are how I intend to address this topic.

The Gospel Gotcha
- Addressing the Gospels, especially Matthew’s Gospel, in regards to the words of Messiah Himself on the topic of divorce and remarriage.
Adultery Aside
- Are there Biblical grounds for divorce aside from adultery? If so, where do we find them enumerated in the text of Scripture itself?
Remitting Remarriage
- Is remarriage allowed if your former spouse is still alive? Or was it forbidden in any and all cases that did not involve the death of the former spouse?
The Pauline Pretext
- Do we rightly and accurately understand the words that the Apostle Paul wrote about divorce and remarriage? Are you aware of the cultural context surrounding his letter to the Corinthians, and what the society looked like at the time?
In Summary – What Are We Left With?
- Putting it all together, what sort of picture can we paint of what divorce looks like in Scripture, and what are the particulars? Is it as cut and dry as many believe?

The Gospel Gotcha
By far, the most common divorce discussion that the Church (and even the Torah Keeper) has ever had about divorce, stems from the Gospels, especially Matthew 5. Here are the verses from the NASB (Messiah’s name substituted for those that would otherwise be too uncomfortable):

31“It was said, ‘WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE’; 32but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. (Matt. 5:31-32)

3Some Pharisees came to Yeshua, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? 6“So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” 7They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?” 8He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” (Matt. 19:3-9)

***Quick note: Matthew 19 here actually gives WAY more information and context than people realize. But we’ll circle back around to that. ***

2Some Pharisees came up to Yeshua, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife. 3And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?” 4They said, “Moses permitted a man TO WRITE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY.” 5But Yeshua said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6“But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. 7“FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, 8AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9“What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

10In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again. 11And He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; 12and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.” (Mark 10:2-12)

So with all of this, given the most common interpretation, the evidence seems rather stacked against remarriage, doesn’t it? Clearly with words like “who divorces his wife causes her to commit adultery” and “whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery with her.” Further, we get the “except for the reason of unchastity” clause.

But is that really what this all means? To get at the answer, we must first set the historical stage, and see who all the actors are. The most complete and pressing information here obviously comes from Matthew 19. Both Matthew 19 and Mark 10 (both recording the same event in slightly different words) are describing “some of the Pharisees” coming to Yeshua to challenge Him (as they always do). While Mark describes the general interaction as, ”They came to Him to question (lit. interrogate) Him about whether it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife,” Matthew provides the additional crucial details. In Matthew’s account, not only are they questioning Yeshua about divorce, BUT, they ask Him about a VERY specific TYPE of divorce. Namely, the “any cause” divorce.

Don’t see that? I’ll demonstrate.

Matthew 19:3 - 3Some Pharisees came to Yeshua, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?”

See, that bolded phrase is vitally important to understand in its original cultural context. So let’s take a stroll through history for a moment.

Around the time of Yeshua’s birth the two leading Rabbis were Hillel and Shammai. These two operated houses or “schools” of thought, teaching, and interpretation. The Mishnah and Gemara (aka the Talmud) inform us of MANY different disagreements between the two men, usually because Hillel was seen as gracious and liberal, and Shammai was seen as strict and harsh. Hillel was the one who would often “loose” commands in his teachings (that is, he would lighten the burden), while Shammai would “bind” them (or make things more strict, or difficult).

One of the many disagreements these two men had was over the proper interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1. We’ll get to it more in-depth later when we stop to take a logical look, at the “divorce” text of it, but for starters, we’ll see it here:

1“When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house… (Deut. 24:1)

See, that phrase “…has found some indecency in her…” is what the Hillel-Shammai debate centered on. In order to understand what that meant to the people to whom Yeshua was speaking, we need to consider how they already understood that verse. So here’s the text from the Mishnah (from Gittin 9.10), which holds the actual words that Hillel and Shammai used:

Beit Shammai say, "No man shall divorce his wife, unless he found in her unchaste behavior, as it is stated [in Deuteronomy 24:1], 'Because he found in her 'ervat davar' [unchaste behavior].'" Beit Hillel say, "Even if she spoiled his food, because it is said, ervat davar". Rabbi Akivah says, "Even if he found another [woman] prettier than her, as it is stated [ibid.] 'If it happen that she does not find favor in his eyes.'"

Let me explain that really quickly. Ervat davar is the Hebrew phrase translated as “some indecency” in the NASB. Ervat is a word implying nakedness, hence “indecent.” Note that Shammai took that to mean “unchaste behavior.” That is, a matter of sexual immorality. Hillel took it to mean “anything he consider indecent / unbecoming”, and uses the example of “even if she spoiled his food.” Later, Rabbi Akivah noted (as he sided with Hillel), that a man could divorce his wife even if he found another woman prettier, as his current wife being no longer as pretty in his eyes meant he was displeased with her.

In short, their disagreement hinges on whether divorce is granted (per Deut. 24:1) on the grounds of “a thing” or on the grounds of “an indecency.” More on that below.

So that’s the cultural context of the time. That’s what was in the mind of every Jew hearing Yeshua speak on the matter, and especially of the Pharisees who came to question Him.

The Midrashic book, Sifrei Devarim also records the conversation, and adds additional info. To paraphrase, it boils down the argument to just what I mentioned above: Shammai said the only reason for divorce granted (in Deut. 24) was an indecency. This could mean she had committed adultery, but what is more likely is that he meant if she had lied to her husband about her virginity. That is, if she were not a virgin when marrying her husband even though he was under the impression that she was. He could divorce her for this. Meanwhile, Hillel took the word to mean not simply indecency or a matter of sexual immorality, but any thing with which he was displeased. Again, their argument centering on the proper interpretation of two Hebrew words in the text. (Kind of reminds of arguments even still today among the Torah Keeping community).

From Dr. Instone-Brewer:
Hillel therefore thought that two types of divorce were taught in Deuteronomy 24:1: one for “sexual immorality” (adultery) and one they named “any cause.” The Hillelite rabbis came to two main conclusions about the new “Any Cause” form of divorce. First, they concluded that an “Any Cause” divorce could be carried out only by men, because the example case in Deuteronomy 24:1 involves man who divorces his wife. Second, they said that it could be used for any cause – such as the wife burning a meal – so although the “Any Cause” divorce was theoretically based on some kind of fault, this fault could be such a small thing that it was, in effect, a groundless divorce.
The “Any Cause” type of divorce soon became very popular – especially because you didn’t need any proof and didn’t have to present your case in court. There was no need to try to prove in court that your wife had neglected you – a very embarrassing process, because all your neighbors would find out the details you had been hiding from them for years! All you needed to do to carry out an “Any Cause” divorce was write out a divorce certificate and give it to your wife.
The times when the “Any Cause” divorce was not more beneficial for the man were those few occasions when he could prove that his wife had been unfaithful – and especially when this unfaithfulness became public knowledge. He could get his revenge on his wife by taking her to court to obtain a divorce on the Old Testament ground of unfaithfulness. There was also a financial advantage for the man in this situation, because if he could prove that his wife had been unfaithful, he did not have to give her the marriage inheritance (ketubah) that he had promised to her when they married.
[…]
Very soon the “Any Cause” divorce had almost completely replaced the traditional Old Testament types of divorce. We can see how respectable it had become by the time of Jesus’ birth because Joseph considered using this means to break off his betrothal to Mary: “Her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly” (Mt. 1:19). Joseph did not want to put Mary though the disgrace of a public trial, so he decided to use the quiet “Any Cause” divorce that did not require any proof of wrongdoing. Matthew considered that this would be the action of a “just man,” because Joseph could have ensured that he didn’t have to pay Mary’s marriage inheritance if he had decided to prove her guilty of adultery in court. (Instone-Brewer 55)

We will go further into the other “grounds” for divorce in a bit. For now, we’ll wrap up this section. Again, note that Yeshua in the Gospels is not addressing the topic of divorce and remarriage wholesale. Rather, He is addressing the SPECIFIC type of divorce that the Pharisees were questioning Him about, namely, Hillel’s “Any Cause” divorce. That is why they came to Him and asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?” (in the NASB quoted above, it is translated as “any reason at all”). That is, their question was more like: is the “Any Cause” divorce actually legal?

In this particular debate, Yeshua sided with Beit Shammai, in saying that Deuteronomy 24:1 does not support the “any cause” divorce. He notes this agreement by responding with the same sort of language used by Shammai (only for unchastity). Remember that if the question was simply “is it lawful to divorce” we can assume these Pharisees (very intelligent and learned men) were absolute morons. Divorce was outlined in the Torah (especially in Deut. 24). And further, Jewish law already allowed divorce for a number of reasons. Clearly, at least for some reason or another, divorce WAS lawful, because the Law said so! So then, the question must have been more than just about divorce in general. And again, once we include the cultural and historical context, we find that it was.

So to be clear: Yeshua was addressing their question, and the context of the time tells us that it was centered on Deuteronomy 24. He was not addressing divorce as a whole. We see this further still by the Pharisees’ further question, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and send her away?” Again, the point being this: the discussion here was not about the legality of divorce (which was never in question), but about the legality of the “Any Cause” divorce. This would be akin to asking “Is it lawful to divorce a wife for irreconcilable differences?” This doesn’t ask if divorce is lawful, or if the other grounds for divorce are lawful. What about abuse, neglect, infidelity, etc.? Those are not covered by the question about irreconcilable differences.

Yeshua’s comments about a divorced woman remarrying being considered adultery meant only that if a woman was put away without just cause, then her divorce was not valid, and therefore was still legally married. In terms of the “Any Cause” divorce, Yeshua did not let it stand; He told them it wasn’t valid. This is not a broad statement about a woman remarrying after a divorce (which Deut. 24 even indicates she can), but rather, a specific case that she cannot remarry if she was improperly divorced. Put another way, if she was sent out and legally “separated” but not legally “divorced” then her remarrying was adultery.

Adultery Aside
So we looked at the Gospels’ context regarding divorce, and we find that it doesn’t address the matter in its entirety. I would personally say this is for the same reason that we don’t see Yeshua addressing homosexuality: everyone already knew the legal status of it. We also don’t see Yeshua addressing eating unclean meats. Why? Because you don’t have to question the things everyone already understands. Divorce was always a part of life in Judea; it was common. Again, so common that even Yeshua’s earthly parents nearly divorced.

But what grounds WERE accepted for divorce? If we already said that a divorce couldn’t be “groundless” or for “any cause” then what WERE the valid reasons?

The reasons for divorce were because of a breaking of marital vows. Breach of contract, if you will. We find those noted in Exodus 21.

7“If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. 8“If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her. 9“If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. 10“If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. 11“If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money. (Ex. 21:7-11)

Here we find the other 3 rules. Namely: food, clothing, and conjugal rights. See, these are rights that belong to a wife that would be stipulated in the ketubah (ie. the marriage contract). A woman would be promised food (sustenance), clothing (material provision), and conjugal rights (her husband could not indefinitely deny to have sex with her). The latter likely because a woman was entitled to children, and as we see over and over again, it was a very big deal. Sarah and Abraham; Rachel and Leah’s competition; even Judah’s sons with Tamar: all of it very clearly indicative of the WIFE’s rights and desires for children. But I digress.

Now I will admit the context here in Exodus 21 is not talking about wives in general, but a specific case. Namely, a woman that was married and then her husband takes another wife. (We could get even further specific and say it’s about a woman who was taken as a slave first). The common interpretation of this is found in many marriage and divorce documents from the Near East and among the Dead Sea Scrolls and Masada texts, dating back to even before Yeshua’s time. What is commonly misunderstood, is that these are the grounds for which a wife also may divorce her husband. If he refused to take care of her (that is, neglect or abuse), she could sue him on the grounds that he did not provide for her according to the ketubah (marriage contract).

On the note of refraining from sexual relations, we have the following also found in Mishnah Eduyot 4:10:

If one vows [to abstain from] his wife in sexual intercourse, Beit Shammai says: [After] two weeks [of abstinence his wife may sue him for divorce]. And Beit Hillel says: [After just] one week.

See, it was commonly accepted that a woman could sue for divorce, not just a man. Another quote from Dr. Instone-Brewer highlights the process of application of Ex. 21 as it was used in ancient Israel.

Exodus 21:10-11 is case law, so we have to ignore the details about slavery and polygamy and look for the principles that apply to all marriages that involve neglect. The rabbis found the following principles in this text, and I think they were right. They reasoned that if a slave wife had the right to divorce a husband who neglected to supply food, clothing and conjugal love, then a free wife would certainly also have this right. And they argued that if one of two wives had this right, so did an only wife. Furthermore, if a wife had these rights, then a husband was also entitled to divorce a wife who neglected him. The biblical principle that is established, therefore, is the right of someone to divorce their partner if they neglect their vow to provide food, clothing or conjugal love. (Instone-Brewer 36)

Here I will, once again, recommend Dr. Instone-Brewer’s book, as he cites specific examples of marriage contracts (ketuvot), divorce decrees, and other documents that we have archaeologically unearthed.

So to summarize: divorce is allowable when the marriage vow (contract) is broken. It can be initiated by the husband or the wife. This includes neglect, abuse, and adultery. Now these are not the only discussions that took place in rabbinic literature. And I’m sure many of my readers will not put much stock in rabbinic literature. But whether you consider it authoritative or not is not the question. Only to establish what the culture and context of the matter can tell us. Remember that Scripture did not unfold and was not written in a vacuum. Yeshua’s ministry took place in Judea in the time that Pharisaic Judaism was at the height of its power and influence. We would do well to understand the background of issues and arguments that were taking place.

Remitting Remarriage
On the points previously discussed, we note that Yeshua did not forbid remarriage. And of course He didn’t, because the Torah itself doesn’t. We need go no further than Deut. 24 to examine the topic, which states that after a woman receives her get (bill of divorce), “and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife…” (Deut. 24:2). That is, the Torah outlines a living husband divorcing his wife; she is legally allowed to go and become the wife of another man. We know from Ex. 21 (as well as cultural expectations) that a marriage requires consummation. That is, following the wedding, the couple would engage in sexual relations. So that is already assumed when a woman “goes and becomes another man’s wife.” Not only assumed, but in many Ancient Near Eastern cultures, required. In many cases, the marriage was not considered fully legitimized until after consummation. So here we know that a divorced woman marrying someone else, she would be having relations with her new husband. Even while her former (now ex) husband lived.

Further, we know it was common practice for a woman to remarry after divorce, because of the following verses:

15The woman said to Him, “Sir, give me this water, so I will not be thirsty nor come all the way here to draw.” 16He said to her, “Go, call your husband and come here.” 17The woman answered and said, “I have no husband.” Yeshua said to her, “You have correctly said, ‘I have no husband’; 18for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly.” (Jn.4:15-18)

If divorce did not permit remarriage, why was only the most recent man “not” her husband? Yeshua could have pointed out that of the 6 men she had been with, only the first was her husband; all subsequent being illegitimate. But He didn’t say that. He only mentioned the most recent relationship being not even her husband, likely an indication that they were cohabiting but not married.

This brings me to a point I would like to address. Let’s derail divorce and remarriage for a moment, and talk about marriage more broadly. It has been said before, and indeed I have even heard it recently, that sex before marriage is what makes someone married “in God’s eyes.” The claim is, that a couple having sex is married with or without a formal contract (ketubah, or in modern terms, a marriage certificate). See, I take issue with this. I do not believe the Secular State Government has any say-so or power or authority to dictate…well…anything, in terms of what Elohim defines as marriage. If a couple is married in the eyes of God, they are married whether the Secular Government recognizes that or not. But the inverse of that is also the case: just because the State recognizes someone as “married” does not mean that our Heavenly Father does. (Considering gay marriage here.)

However, I also believe Scripture is clear that marriage is NOT solely based on having sex. The above referenced verses in John demonstrate this. The implication being that the woman was living with (and we’re all adults here; we know what that entails) a man that was not her husband. That is, simply having sex did not make them married.

Further, we see Deut. 22, specifically verses 28-29:

28“If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, 29then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.

Now I already address what this means in context in the article Picking & Choosing. Check it out if you want my explanation of it. To put it simply, no, there is no legal requirement for a woman to marry her rapist. A rapist is put to death. But in these two verses, we find that a couple having consensual relations, who are not married, MUST get married. Well then clearly, it means that the act itself doesn’t MAKE them married, if the very consequence is that they must then GET married. Logically, getting a traffic ticket for not having a license, does not automatically grant me a driver’s license, yes?

So that’s my derailment for a moment. Again, if you want a little more on Deut. 22:28-29 (along with a few other tricky issues), check out Picking & Choosing.

Now, back to remarriage. As Dr. Instone-Brewer points out, it was expected of divorcees to remarry. In fact, Roman Emperor Augustus even enacted a law in 18 B.C.E. that allowed a divorcee or widow(er) to be prosecuted under the law for not remarrying within a year and a half after the end of the prior relationship. Augustus’ motives were due to the low birth rate of Roman citizens (they didn’t want to be outnumbered by foreigners), as well as concern that young Roman men would divorce wives and then never remarry so as to live licentiously. Furthermore, the Jews believed that one had not fulfilled the command to “be fruitful and multiple” unless they had at least 2 children. So if someone was divorced and without children, they needed to remarry to fulfill this mitzvah.

We’ll move on from here to Paul’s teaching on the matter, as I know many of my readers will, by this point, already be wondering about his words, especially from 1 Cor. 7.

The Pauline Pretext
To begin, I’d like to highlight something that Dr. Instone-Brewer notes from 1 Cor. 7:39. That is, that Paul actually quotes the language of a divorce certificate, when he says, “She is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Master.” See, when a Jewish get (divorce certificate) was written, it often included the phrase, “You may marry any Jew you wish.” This served as a reminder to marry within the Faith and community.

Before making more points about Paul’s words on the matter, let’s go ahead and read the relevant passages from 1 Cor. 7. I’ll do this by breaking it down into bite-sized pieces.

1Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. (1 Cor. 7:1-2)

Note that Paul advises people to get married. Each man to have his own wife, each woman her own husband. There is no exclusion here for divorcees, which would be an opportune time for Paul to mention it, if he were going to. “Every woman should have her own husband…unless she’s divorced.” But we don’t see that here. Further, one of the primary reasons for this which he notes, is “because of immoralities.” Well I think we can all agree that a divorcee is just as susceptible to those immoralities as an unmarried man or woman. Perhaps even more so, since having been married, you’ve already partaken in marital activities.

3The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6But this I say by way of concession, not of command. (vss. 3-6)

Husbands and wives have equal responsibilities to one another. This is not a dominance hierarchy, this is a mutual relationship. See how he mentions in verse 5 that they should not “deprive one another” except by agreement for a time. As we saw earlier from Ex. 21, and the rabbinic commentary on it: a person may not deprive their spouse of sexual relations indefinitely. The reason is because both husband AND wife are entitled to marital relations (conjugal love). If a man withheld this from his wife, she could divorce him. So Paul reminds them not to withdraw from each other except for a given length of time, agreed upon, to devote themselves more directly to prayer.

7Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that. 8But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. 9But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. (vss. 7-9)

I do not believe that Paul is advising all widows to not remarry here, or even all single people. Recall from his letter to Timothy in 1 Tim. 5 that he actually ENCOURAGES young widows to remarry. If we take this on the surface level, it would seem that he’s waffling on the issue. But see, what people oftentimes miss here, is again the cultural setting and context. As pointed out in the book I’ve been so heavily referencing, there was a famine in Corinth. It was hard enough for someone to provide for themselves, but taking on a wife and children meant providing for THEM as well. Paul’s advice is most likely (given his Jewish upbringing) not to abstain from remarrying, but to abstain for a time, until you could provide for your spouse. Marriage brings children, and all of that brings more responsibility.

Bearing in mind again, if you will, that a man marrying a woman is bound by law to provide her with food and clothing. In a famine, both are harder to come by.

10But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Master, that the wife should not leave her husband 11(but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife. (vss. 10-11)

Here everyone likes to say that if you’re married and your spouse leaves you, you can’t remarry unless they die. Paul also says you shouldn’t divorce your wife. Both of these things are true. Again, given the Corinthian context at the time, women were leaving their husbands and going back home to their parents to seek better provision, among other things. And men were doing the same; sending away their wives so as to get out from under the legal requirement to provide for them. This is, again, not touching the entire issue of divorce, but rather, divorce as a means of escaping responsibility.

12But to the rest I say, not the Master, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. (vs. 12)

First of all, Paul is clear here that he’s giving his own advice, not the Word of Elohim. He advises people to live with the unbelieving spouse, as long as they consent to live with you (the believer). But this next one is a trip:

13And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away.

How’s that? I thought only men could initiate a divorce? No indeed. As we examined earlier, it was just as common for women to divorce men who failed in their obligations, as it was for men to divorce women. Paul again here advises women not to send away their husband just because they’re an unbeliever. This couples with the prior verse, implying again, as long as they AGREE to live together with you, then you shouldn’t divorce.

14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. 15Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. 16For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife? (vss. 14-16)

Here, I won’t be addressing the strange and somewhat confusing statement Paul makes in verse 14. But the key here is verse 15: if your unbelieving spouse leaves you, let them go.

As Dr. Instone-Brewer notes, “separation was equivalent to divorce in Roman law, so that when someone was abandoned by their partner or was asked to leave their partner’s house, they were being divorced. Paul was totally against this Roman groundless divorce-by-separation, just as Jesus was against the Jewish groundless divorce, and Paul told Christians who had separated from their partners that they should try to undo this divorce by attempting a reconciliation and remaining unmarried while they were doing so.” (vs. 11). (Instone-Brewer 112)`

Further, in the case of those whose spouse left them (as in, they didn’t get a say-so in the matter), Dr. Instone-Brewer states, “Some people interpret “not enslaved” [or, “not under bondage”] (verse 15) as meaning “no longer tied to your partner” (that is, you can live apart but cannot divorce), while others interpret it as “no longer tied to your marriage” (that is, you can divorce but not remarry). Both these interpretations would have sounded like nonsense to a first-century reader because Paul was speaking to people who were already divorced, so they had no choice in the matter. […] A first-century reader of Paul’s letter would have had no doubt about what “not enslaved” meant, because it would remind them about the words on their divorce certificate: “You are now free to remarry.”” (Instone-Brewer 113)

Lastly, verses 39 and 40. Paul is here contrasting (throughout the latter half of chapter 7, actually) a “virgin marriage” with a remarriage. See, a first marriage is implied by the woman noted as being a virgin. If not, it is implied she has previously been married. He also refers to widows, apart from divorcees. We’ve already seen him addressing divorcees in the earlier portions of chapter 7, now he turns his attention to widows. Verse 39 makes this distinction by referring to a woman who is still bound to her husband while he lives. This is clearly not the case for a woman that is divorced, as, again, even her divorce decree itself would note that she is “free to remarry.” I know this oftentimes seems like he’s explicitly stating no married woman can ever be free from her husband until he dies. But again, that cannot be the case given his earlier statement about the divorcee being “freed” from the spouse that left them. It also doesn’t jive with Deut. 24, knowing that Deut. 24 permits a woman who was divorced to marry someone else. And as we know, marriage implies consummation.

In short, Paul advised people who were the “left behind” or injured party, to accept this “freedom” (to remarry) as their unbelieving spouse left them. He did not, however, permit believers to utilize this Roman method of separation as a means of obtaining a divorce.

However, let’s take a step back and look at the logical side of things. Let’s say that both Yeshua and Paul had advised people not to remarry after divorce at all, for any reason, and if they did, they could not consummate the marriage (which means clearly, no children). This would put them in danger of 1) facing prosecution under Roman law, and 2) breaking the mitzvah to “be fruitful and multiply.”

In Summary – What Are We Left With?
To summarize all of this, we have the following:

A believer should not divorce their believing spouse
- Exceptions being if their spouse refuses to fulfill their obligations to them.
A believer should not seek to divorce their unbelieving spouse
- Same exception as above.
- Additional exception being if the unbelieving spouse does not consent to stay.
When divorcing a spouse, you cannot “divorce by separation” or simply abandon them
When divorcing a spouse, even for breach of marriage contract, a certificate of divorce must be given
A personally legally (by Torah Law) divorced is free to remarry
- Exception being, a woman cannot remarry her previous husband, if she had since been married to someone else intermediately.

Divorce is never the plan. No couple starts their marriage by planning on divorcing one another. But because of the hardness of people’s hearts (such as, they choose to neglect their spouse), it happens and is allowed. God Himself divorced Israel. And yes, He still hates divorce.

But what we gather, from the Scriptural textual evidence; from archaeological evidence; and from cultural evidence, is that it did happen, and The Almighty permitted it.

Restoration and reconciliation is always the first step. But sometimes it doesn’t happen and isn’t possible. Especially when your spouse is not on the same Faith plane as you. Sometimes you’re the one left, you’re the one who is the injured party. As Paul said, you are not under bondage in such cases.

I implore everyone to consider the evidence presented here. To seek the answer from the Scriptures themselves, in context. Divorce is never to be taken lightly.

I pray this study has blessed you.

Be Berean. Shalom.

Uploaded 4/3/2019

[a] https://www.worldblaze.in/countries-with-highest-divorce-rate-in-the-world/
[b] Instone-Brewer, David. Divorce and Remarriage in the Church. Madison: InterVarsity Press, 2009. Book.

What is Food?

Wed, 27 Jan 2016 21:03:22 GMT

What is food? A simple question, really, yet it has sparked debates time and time again within religious (usually Messianic) groups. Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines food as:
“1 A: material consisting essentially of protein, carbohydrate, and fat used in the body of an organism to sustain growth, repair, and vital processes and to furnish energy; also: such food together with supplementary substances (as minerals, vitamins, and condiments)
B: inorganic substances absorbed by plants in gaseous form or in water solution
2: nutriment in solid form
3: something that nourishes, sustains, or supplies ”

But the question that a Believer should be asking is: how does the Bible define food?

Nutrients. The giving of nourishment. Sustenance. Simply stated, it is defined as something taken into the body that is good for the body to help it function properly. In our modern world, we see as "food" whatever product that is marketed as fit for human consumption. But what should matter to us most - as believers - is how the Word defines "food."

First, examine Genesis 1:29. The word used for "food" is oklaw, a noun defined in the Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament as "food," or "nourishment." [1] It is the same word used in Genesis 6:21, both in the context of some meant for food. The word oklaw is the feminine form of okel, having the same meaning, and both are derived from akal, a verb meaning "to eat." Together they account for over 60 occurrences translated as food, eat, consume or devour. The words always carry the implication of, as in Genesis 1 & 6, something meant to be eaten. It is also interesting that in Ezekiel (15, 21 and other chapters) the word is used in the phrase “food (fuel) for the fire.” Again, meaning that by being fed, it is sustained. If a fire runs out of food (fuel) it burns out.

There are other words in Hebrew that are sometimes translated as food. Ma’akal is also derived from akal and implies something seen as food. Biryah is used only in 2 Samuel 13 in a specific incident, translated as food or meat. Zeydaw is used 11 times, twice it is translated as food. The rest of the time it is usually translated as "provision." So the implication for the other two uses (Judges 20:10 & Psalm 78:25) of provision is inferred by the context. (Judges mentions having a supply of food for people while Psalms is talking about the manna, which is obviously speaking of provision)

There are a few other words used, but oklaw and okel are the primary words used in Hebrew when speaking of food and, again, refer in general to something that is intended to be eaten.

Part of the argument that comes into play over what is food and what is not is the term “unclean food.” This is seen in a number of places in Scripture. It leads people to the conclusion that there is clean food, and then there is unclean food. So when they read Mark 7:19 “because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.)” they automatically assume that unclean food is now clean. In fact, most commentators reach this very conclusion, with the IVP, Cornerstone, Holman, Wiersbe, and others all saying the same thing. But there are a number of flaws with this line of thinking.

The holes in the “thus He declared all foods clean” theory become clear when we realize there is technically no such thing as unclean food. You have food, which is by default clean (as in, intended for human consumption), and then you have unclean things. Food may become unclean, but if it does it is no longer able to be eaten, and thus is not food. Here's a couple examples.

Hosea 9:3 “They will not remain in The Lord’s land, But Ephraim will return to Egypt, And in Assyria they will eat unclean food.”

Ezekiel 4:13 “The Lord said, “In this way the people of Israel will eat defiled (unclean) food among the nations where I will drive them.”

Both of these verses are typically rendered using the words “unclean food” and yet they should not be. For instance, in Hebrew Hosea 9:3 does not contain the word “food” at all. It says they will “eat unclean.” That is, they will eat things that are unclean, yet these unclean things are NOT called food. Next in Ezekiel 4:13 in English it reads “eat unclean food” but yet again the word food does not appear at all in the Hebrew, which is why it is italicized. What it actually says, as the context clearly shows, is that they will eat bread that has become defiled (unclean). We see from Leviticus 7 and Leviticus 11 that food can become defiled (unclean) when it comes into contact with something that is unclean. However, it is no longer edible once that happens and as such is no longer considered food. Once it is defiled, it must be thrown away. Likewise, unclean animals (swine, shrimp, etc) are not considered food because they are already unclean, and therefore are not to be eaten. As the dictionary definition listed above indicates, food is something that is good for the body, nourishing. Unclean animals are not. No Jew in the first century considered these things food. Pigs existed in Israel, as did dogs and other animals, but they were not viewed as something fit for consumption by them.

The next piece of misunderstanding comes into play regarding Messiah Yeshua’s statement in Mark 7. The English is usually rendered as: “because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.)” but what does it REALLY say? First, the context.

Mark 7:14-23 (NASB):

“14After He called the crowd to Him again, He [began] saying to them, “Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: 15there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. 16["If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.]” 17When he had left the crowd [and] entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18And He said to them, “Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” ([Thus He declared] all foods clean.) 20And He was saying, “That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. 21″For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22deeds of coveting [and] wickedness, [as well] [as] deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride [and] foolishness. 23″All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.”

But before this makes sense, consider first verses 1-3:

“1The Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered around Him when they had come from Jerusalem, 2and had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with impure hands, that is, unwashed. 3(For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, [thus] observing the traditions of the elders;”

So the whole thing was started by eating with unwashed hands, not by eating an unclean animal. Therefore given the context, it would be foolish to assume the “uncleanness” being spoken of is unclean meat. Yeshua’s statement here is that eating with washed hands (after the tradition of the elders) or eating with unwashed hands is not what defiles a man. Now the biggest thing here is verse 19. It seems pretty clear that here Messiah “declared all foods clean.” Again, we know from earlier Scriptures that food that is unclean is no longer food. So did Yeshua really declare them clean? (Remember Isaiah 5:20 “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!")

Let’s examine the Greek text here. The literal, word-for-word translation is rendered as “because not it enters of him into the heart but into the belly and into the gut goes out cleansing all the food.” So in the Greek there is NO declaration. That’s why the NASB (as quoted above) puts the “thus He declared” in brackets. Other translations use italics, but it means the same thing: the words were added. So what is it actually saying? It says simply that the body naturally cleanses itself. Remember, the context is eating with unwashed hands. If you eat without washing your hands, you risk getting bacteria and such, but your body processes food the same way as if you ate with washed hands. And if anything, your stomach will “cleanse the food” in your gut whether you wash your hands or not. If you have dirty hands, the stomach will cleanse the food nonetheless. This does NOT mean that the stomach is capable of turning something that is not meant for food (unclean) into food (clean). When reading the parallel account in Matthew 15 we see this a little more clearly.

Matthew 15:16 “And Yeshua said, “Are you also still without understanding? 17“Do you not understand that whatever enters into the mouth goes into the stomach, and is cast out in the sewer? 18“But what comes out of the mouth comes from the heart, and these defile the man. 19“For out of the heart come forth wicked reasonings, murders, adulteries, whorings, thefts, false witnessings, slanders. 20“These defile the man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man.””

Matthew’s account offers a little bit of extra detail. Here Yeshua plainly states what is being discussed: eating with washed hands, based on the tradition of the elders. This was not based on Scripture. In both gospel accounts Yeshua quotes the prophet Isaiah (Mark 7:3-13 & Matthew 15:3-9) stating that the people have forsaken YHWH, instead choosing to teach man’s commands over YHWH's. That is what is taking place in this altercation. Yeshua was pushing back against man’s tradition (which they taught as law) while upholding The Torah.

Next, consider a little logic-based analysis. The Father declared certain things to be unclean. Swine, flies, shrimp, catfish, owls, etc. These things He Himself said were unclean, not to be eaten (Leviticus 11). He also said He does not change (Malachi 3:6). Yeshua said in MANY places in the gospel of John that The Father sent Him. He said in John 5:30 “I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.” John 7:16 “So Yeshua answered them and said, “My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me. “”

Yeshua did not teach anything contrary to the teaching of The Father. The Father’s teaching (Torah, Law) is perfect (Psalm 19:7 & James 1:25). If He gave a commandment through one prophet (Moses) and declared the commandment “good” and “perfect” through others (Romans 7:12, Psalm 19:7 and James 1:25), and He never changes (Malachi 3:6) then we can safely believe that the commandments are STILL good. Yeshua our Messiah taught only what The Father gave Him to teach. The Father’s teachings never change, so Yeshua only taught what The Father had already expressed. As such, we then know that Yeshua never could have called something unclean, clean.

The last things to mention are the writings of the Apostles. I will briefly address 1 Corinthians 8 & 10 and then spend more time on 1 Timothy 4. Lastly I will address Peter’s vision in Acts 10 (since that is often brought up). In 1 Corinthians 8, Paul is answering some questions that the Corinthian congregation had regarding food sacrificed to idols. Notice 1 Cor. 8:1 “And regarding food sacrificed to idols…” So the context is pretty clear. This is not speaking of UNCLEAN meat, it is speaking of meat offered to an idol. Fast forward to chapter 10 vs. 27. 1 Cor. 10:27 “ And if any of the unbelievers invite you, and you wish to go, you eat whatever is set before you, asking no question on account of the conscience.” People read this verse and then they stop. They say, “hey, right there Paul says eat that pork chop when the unbeliever puts it in front of you. It’s better than offending them!” Again, unclean animals are not the subject here. Read the next verse. 1 Cor. 10:28 “And if anyone says to you, “This was offered to idols,” do not eat it because of the one pointing it out to you, and on account of the conscience, for “The earth belongs to Yahweh, and all that fills it.” Here the context shows that the issue with the food in front of you is not whether it is clean or unclean, but rather whether or not it has been offered to idols.

Next is 1 Timothy 4:4. Here is 1 Timothy 4:1-5:
“But the Spirit distinctly says that in latter times some shall fall away from the belief, paying attention to misleading spirits, and teachings of demons, 2speaking lies in hypocrisy, having been branded on their own conscience, 3forbidding to marry, saying to abstain from foods which Elohim created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4Because every creature of Elohim is good, and none is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5for it is set apart by the Word of Elohim and prayer.”

Verses 4 & 5 is where trouble normally starts brewing. People will say, “I can eat it as long as I pray over it and receive it with thanksgiving.”

A few things to point out. First, see how Paul says there are some that have said to abstain from FOOD which Elohim created? Remember, unclean animals are not considered food. True, he says that Elohim created every creature to be good. That does NOT make every creature food, and Paul does not even insinuate such. The Father created poison dart frogs, does that make them food? If I pray and receive it with thanksgiving, does it render the poisonous, unclean frog clean? Of course not! Now verse 5 is the real key here. It is set-apart by the Word of Elohim and prayer. The Word (Scripture) defines what food is, and what food is not (Leviticus 11). In 1 Tim. 4:5 Paul says that nothing is to be reject that is set-apart by prayer AND the Word. It takes two to tango. So if you pray over a ham sandwich, but the Word does not say it is okay to eat it, then it is not okay to eat it. Only Scripture can determine whether or not it is actually food.

So what, then, is Paul getting at? I believe he is discussing the same thing he is saying in Romans 14.

Romans 14:2-3: “One indeed believes to eat all food, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. 3He that eats, let him not despise him who does not eat, and he that does not eat, let him not judge him who eats, for Elohim received him.”

Here Paul is contrasting the eating of only vegetables to the eating of other things (most likely including vegetables, but also meats). This is not about eating things that are unclean. The same thing he is teaching in 1 Tim. 4: there is nothing wrong with creatures which God created, that are set-apart by prayer and THE WORD. Unclean animals are not set-apart by the Word for the purpose of eating. The “abstain from foods” phrase that he uses in verse 3 is not in reference to the unclean but rather in eating what has already been declared as FOOD. Only Scripture can define what food is, and it is not anything that is unclean. Whatever we seek to eat must be in accordance with The Torah. If it’s not clean it’s not food.

This passage is likely a reference to groups, possibly the ascetic types throughout the Greco-Roman world or even some sects within Judaism, who taught that eating meat was wrong. These people also, in some instances, taught celibacy. It is noted that the Qumran sect (Essenes, according to most scholars) taught celibacy. Josephus says "they neglect wedlock." [2]

We must remember that Paul also believed everything in the Torah and the Prophets, as he himself says in Acts 24:14. Paul was raised as a Pharisee, and we know from his letters that he had extensive knowledge and, likely, memorization of the Old Testament. He knew very well what was clean and what was not. What was food and what was not food. Paul also defends himself in Acts 21:20-24 from accusations that he taught against the Torah. The elders say in verse 21 that they have been informed Paul teaches against circumcision and against the Torah. In verse 24 they tell Paul to go be cleansed with men at the Temple so that “all shall know that what they have been informed about you is not so, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Torah.” So he was accused of teaching against the Torah. And he went to the Temple to be cleansed to prove to the Jews that he did not teach against Torah. So we know, then, that Paul believed, walked according to, and taught the Torah (Acts 21 & 24).

Matthew 5:18 “For truly, I say to you, till the heaven and the earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall by no means pass from the Torah till all be done.” Heaven and earth have not passed away, all is not done, so not one jot or one tittle has passed from the Torah.

The final point to address is Peter’s vision in Acts 10. I find this one simple as Peter himself gives the meaning of it, but I will expound on it nonetheless. Acts 10:9-16:

And on the next day, as they were on their way and approaching the city, Peter went up on the house-top to pray, about the sixth hour. 10And he became hungry and wished to eat. But while they were preparing, he fell into a trance, 11and he saw the heaven opened and a certain vessel like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth, 12in which were all kinds of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping creatures, and the birds of the heaven. 13And a voice came to him, “Rise up, Peter, slay and eat.” 14But Peter said, “Not at all, Master! Because I have never eaten whatever is common or unclean.” 15And a voice came to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you do not consider common.” 16And this took place three times, and the vessel was taken back to the heaven.

The first red flag going up should be on account of God never having declared unclean animals were clean. “What God has cleansed you do not consider common,” does not mean God cleansed unclean animals. We should be wary of falling prey to the same explanations that many commentators have given, namely reading our beliefs into the text, rather than digging out the meaning of the text. We need to let Scripture interpret Scripture, and we find in this instance that Peter does the job for us.

In vs. 1 we learn that Cornelius, a Roman captain, is a believer. We are told he had a dream telling him to find Peter. We learn that he sent messengers to find Peter. That leads us into vs. 9 as we read above, when they (those sent by Cornelius) were approaching the city. The men go to the house and ask for Peter. The Spirit tells Peter (vs. 19-20) to go with the men and he does. Verse 28 is very important.

Acts 10:28 “And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.”

First we need to determine what law Peter is talking about. There is not one single law mentioned in the Torah about not associating with a foreigner, nor is there a law about not visiting him. There are, however, various discussions found in the Talmud (Jewish teaching and tradition that formed a large corpus of extra-Biblical laws and statutes, and was written 300-500 years after the NT) that would bar Jews from entering the house of non-Jews. One such example of found in tractate Avodah Zarah (which refers to the worship of idols), and notes that eating with a gentile is forbidden from eating food cooked by a gentile. [3] This is why Peter says it is unlawful.

It is also worth noting that in the Greek NT, the word nomos is used for “law.” This is used in nearly every place where the English reads “law.” It is used in reference to Torah as well as the laws of man, the law of sin, the law of flesh (see Romans 7). The word for lawless is anomos which literally just means “without law” or “against law.” (commonly, "lawless") The word used here in Acts 10 for “unlawful,” however, is athemitos. This word is used only twice in Scripture. Once here, to mean "unlawful," and once in 1 Peter 4:3 to mean “abominable.” So it is not anomos or anomia (depending on usage in the Greek) used in Acts 10 as it normally is for “lawless,” but rather a different word altogether. This implies that Luke, when writing Acts, did not intend for the reader to assume he was referring to a law in the Torah.

So what does it all mean? Examine again verse 28. Peter says God has shown him not to call any man common or unclean. In Jewish culture at the time, non-Jews were considered lesser beings. There was a huge disdain for them and the Talmud contains many laws concerning the treatment of gentiles. That is why we see no reaction in Mark 7:25-30 when Yeshua compares the Greek (gentile) woman to a dog. He wasn’t truly calling her a dog, obviously. He was testing her faith. But there was no reaction to His statement because it was common to bear disdain for foreigners. Consider the story of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10. Why was it a big deal that a Samaritan stopped to help the man? Because Samaritans were looked down on by Jews. That is why he is contrasted in the story with a priest and a Levite, the elite caste in Jewish culture.

The whole point of Peter’s vision was to give him a picture of something he understood very well. In this case it was the sheet of unclean animals. He was told to “rise up, Peter; slay, and eat” because that would get his attention. Notice what the voice says in verse 15, “what God has cleansed, you do not consider common.” He was never told those animals were cleansed. Skipping down to verse 28 Peter says that God has shown him he should not call any man common or unclean. It was men God was talking about, not animals. It was men, humans, people, that had been declared cleansed, not animals. But God used the concept of clean and unclean that Peter understood best, as represented by the food laws.

I hope this study has blessed you.

Updated 10/16/2020

[1] Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994–2000), 47.

[2] Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987), 605.

[3] Babylonian Talmud. Tractate Avodah Zarah, 37b.