Neshamah


An excerpt from:  Romans 6-8: The “law of the Spirit” and Spiritual maturity (Part 2)


The Neshamah

In the Genesis account of the creation of Adam, the Nefesh of Adam although formed, was not yet made alive and active until God implanted the “Neshamah” within it:

“Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath [Neshamah] of life, and the man became a living being [a living Nefesh].” – Genesis 2:7

The Neshamah in scripture is incredibly tantalizing. While Genesis 2 verse 7 identifies the Neshama as the vital spiritual component required for the Nefesh to become living, a true exposition of its nature is lacking. Absolutely no explanatory background is provided, with the exception of a few vague hints found within the Hebrew language. While the text indeed stands silent regarding descriptions that would please the modern ear inclined to a Greek paradigm of the soul, scripture does however, use the analogy of the breath as it’s chosen motif for expressing the elusive and invisible qualities involved. “Neshamah” is a cognate of the word “Nesheema” which literally means “breath.” The Neshamah, like the breath, is invisible. Furthermore, the Neshamah is also similar to the breath, since the body cannot remain alive without either.

While the Neshamah is the spiritual agent providing the proverbial “breath” – representing the flow of life, the recipient in this exchange is the Nefesh. The word Nefesh comes from the root “Nafash” meaning to rest:

 “On the seventh day, [God] ceased work and rested (nafash).” (Exodus 31:17).

Therefore, the dynamic between the two as hinted in scripture and in the Hebrew language itself is one of giving and receiving. A picture is painted of spiritual life flowing from the Neshamah as it “blows” its breath of life into the Nefesh. When the breath is received, it comes to rest in the Nefesh as a container of that life force. The state of movement in between, as the breath leaves the Neshamah and before it enters to rest in the Nefesh, is represented by the Hebrew word “ruach” translated into English as “spirit”.

The most prominent Rabbi of the 15th century, known as “the Holy Arizal” offers the following illustration of a glassblower to best explain the relationship between the Neshamah, Ruach and Nefesh:

“The process begins with the breath (Neshama) of the glassblower, blowing into a tube to form a vessel. This breath then travels through the tube as a wind (Ruach), until it reaches the vessel, forming it according to the desire of the glassblower, and there it comes to rest (Nefesh).” – Etz Chaim, Shaar TaNTA 5

Up until the fall, Adam operated at all times with unobstructed access to God’s Spirit mediated through the Neshamah. His every thought and action were therefore bolstered with the full measure of God’s glory and in complete harmony with the will of God. According to Nachmanides, leading medieval Jewish scholar from 1194-1270, Adam naturally conducted his actions according to God’s providence, just as celestial bodies can be observed to move in predetermined paths as dictated by God:

“He [Adam] did whatever was proper for him to do naturally, just as the heavens and all their hosts do – “faithful workers whose work is truth, and who do not change from their prescribed course.” – “Adam’s sin: it’s meaning and essence, in Temple portals:studies in Aggadah and Midrash in the Zohar, trans. Liat Keren (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2016), 56.

Much of Jewish tradition presents the pre-fall Adam as embodying such an intense level of spiritual illumination, he was barely confined to his physicality. Rabbi Mordekhai Yosef, founder of the Hasidic school of Izbica-Radzyn writes:

“…As the Zohar says, “The first man had nothing at all of this world,” and in the writings of the Holy Ari, before the sin, “he was barely anchored in this world.” After the sin, he became firmly placed in this world.” – Ora Wiskind-Elper, Wisdom of the heart: the teachings of Rabbi Ya’akov of Izbica-Radzyn (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2010), 185.

When Adam sinned, a spiritual death occurred. His Nefesh no longer received the breath of life from the Neshama. This represented a complete severance from spiritual life. The Nefesh of Adam was cut off from the Neshama.

According to scripture, the Nefesh requires the Neshama to remain living. If this is so, how was Adam able to remain alive after the fall?

This is reconciled with the tradition that man possesses two souls, i.e. two Neshamas. The tradition is derived from Isaiah 57:16

“For I will not contend forever, neither will I be always wroth: for the spirit should fail before me, and the souls which I have made.”

Rabbi Chaim Miller offers the following explanation:

“The first half of this verse refers to ‘the spirit’ in the singular, suggesting that we are speaking here of a single individual. The verse then concludes that God placed in that one person ‘souls (plural) which I have made.’” –

It’s further taught that these two souls represent separate, and independent forces at work within the individual:

“These are two complete, independent souls in their own right, and not merely levels within a single soul.” – The Tanya, Rabbi Shneur Zalman

As described in Genesis 2:7, the Neshama, the “breath of life” is breathed into Adam from God directly:

“Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath [Neshamah] of life, and the man became a living being [a living Nefesh].” – Genesis 2:7

According to Nachmanides (Ramban), the Neshama as emerging from God’s breath, his own lungs so to speak, is nothing less than a piece of God himself:

“This verse hints for us the virtue of the soul…It states that ‘[God] breathed into his nostrils the soul of life,’ to inform you that (the soul) is not derived from the elements…rather, it is the spirit of God.”- Ramban, commentary to Genesis 2:7

The Neshama that came directly from God, as a piece of the divine to reside within man is known in Jewish tradition as the “Divine soul”. The Divine Soul is the spiritual origin of the Yetzer Tov. God through the medium and influence of the Divine Soul works to curb the appetites of the Nefesh in order to bring it and each individual into subjection to his will.

The second Neshama which is believed to sustain the life of man in his rebellion against God, is known as the “animal soul”. The Animal Soul in opposition to the Divine Soul, fights to liberate the Nefesh from restraint in order to perpetuate man’s rebellion against God.

The two wage war within man at all times, seeking to dominate the other and ascertain control of the physical body:

Just as two kings wage war over a town, which each wishes to capture and rule, that is to say, to dominate its inhabitants according to his will, so that they obey him in all that he decrees for them, so do the two souls— the Divine and the vitalising animal soul…wage war against each other over the body and all its limbs. – (Tanya Chapter 9)

Yetzer HaTov, Yetzer HaRa


An excerpt from: Romans 6-8: The “law of the Spirit” and Spiritual maturity (Part 2)


The “Two inclinations”

The Hebrew text of Genesis 2:7 contains an apparent misspelling. This is both intriguing and catastrophic since a true error in Holy scripture can only represent a monumental threat to the doctrine of its infallibility. Therefore, when textual variances appear, the approach employed by the sages has been to assume that all apparent inconsistencies are instead deliberate, allowed by God’s providence in order to communicate important insights. Record of discussion regarding Genesis 2:7 is preserved in the Jewish compilation of tradition, known as the Talmud:

Nahman b. R. Hisda expounded: What is meant by the text, Then the Lord God formed [va-yetzer] man? [The word va-yetzer] (Gen. 2:7) is written with two yods, to show that God created two inclinations, one good (tov) and the other evil (ra). – Talmud, Ber. 61a

The Hebrew word for “formed” (Yetzer) is usually spelled with one Yod. However, in this specific passage, the word is equipped with one extra Yod. According to the tradition as received by Rabbi Nahman, the two Yods signified the formation of two inclinations within man, one good (In Hebrew, “Yetzer Tov”) and the other evil (in Hebrew, “Yetzer Ra”).

This obscure term “Yetzer” meaning “formation” appears again in Genesis 6:5. The way it is applied in the verse only substantiates its association with the spiritual predisposition of man:

“The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination [Yetzer] of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.” – Genesis 6:5

The word is used the same way in Genesis 8, to express the dismal condition of the human heart:

“The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination [Yetzer] of the human heart is evil from his youth. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.” – Genesis 8:21

According to tradition, man’s condition is actually more severe than what the scripture indicates on the surface level of the text:

“He replied: “for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Gen 8:21) R. Yadan adds that the words “from his youth” mean: from the day of his birth.” – Jerusalem Talmud, Barakhot 3:5

Yet still, over time, the tradition evolved. As found in one of the “minor tractates” written after the compilation of the Talmud, the Yetzer Ra is said to begin to emerge within a baby while still in the mother’s womb:

“The yetzer hara is 13 years older than the yetzer hatov. While still in the mother’s womb, the yetzer hara begins to develop in a person. If he begins to violate the Sabbath, nothing stops him. If he commits murder, nothing stops him. If he goes off to another sin, nothing stops him.” – Avot d’Rabbi Natan 16:12

The somber declaration made by King David now makes sense in light of the Old Testament and ancient Jewish belief:

“Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” – Psalm 51:5

The narrative of the “Apocryphal” book of 2 Esdras (found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Catholic canon) claims authorship by Ezra. However, Scholarly consensus places its origin to around 70 to 218 AD. The text elucidates that the evil inclination (Yetzer Ra) originated at the moment of Adam’s transgression. The sin is said to have resulted in a permanent spiritual defect, a “wicked heart” that we all inherit when we are born:

And yet tookest thou not away from them a wicked heart, that thy law might bring forth fruit in them. For the first Adam bearing a wicked heart transgressed, and was overcome; and so be all they that are born of him. Thus infirmity was made permanent; and the law (also) in the heart of the people with the malignity of the root; so that the good departed away, and the evil abode still. So the times passed away, and the years were brought to an end: then didst thou raise thee up a servant, called David: Whom thou commandedst to build a city unto thy name, and to offer incense and oblations unto thee therein. When this was done many years, then they that inhabited the city forsook thee, And in all things did even as Adam and all his generations had done: for they also had a wicked heart. – (2Esdras 3:20-26)

Similar to the passage in 2 Esdras, the Talmud also intimates that a spiritual “pollution” was introduced after the fall. However, rather than assigning blame to Adam, the pollution is said to have been introduced to humanity through Eve:

“When… [the serpent deceived] Eve, he imposed pollution in her.” – Talmud, Shabbat 146a.

If you’re noticing that the steady presentation of Jewish sources seems to inch closer and closer to the Christian territory of “original sin”, you are correct. For this reason, the topic has historically served as a theological battleground for fierce debates between religious Jews and Christian missionaries. Despite the mounting evidence for a Jewish origin of the doctrine of original sin, Jewish opponents in “polemic” works were relentless against it. According to Daniel Lasker, in his book “Jewish Philosophical Polemics Against Christianity in the Middle Ages” the arguments found in the medieval polemic works against original sin should not be considered trustworthy, but instead, represent less than honest accounts of official Jewish doctrine:

“Polemical compositions were intended as polemics, a genre for which objective truth is one of the first casualties…if one wants to know a particular author’s view on a subject, a polemical treatise is the last place one would look to determine it. When this literature is analyzed without due recognition of “polemic license,” the research runs the risk of reading too much into the texts…”

In light of this, ordained Rabbi, director of education for NCSY and instructor at Yeshiva University David Bashevkin writes:

“Given this warning, it is not surprising that the vehemence with which the doctrine of original sin was opposed within polemic literature may not actually reflect its patent rejection within Jewish sources. In fact, as pointed out by Lasker, the doctrine of original sin “was not entirely foreign to Judaism” as some polemics would otherwise suggest.” – Sin and failure in Jewish thought, page 23.

Interestingly, the more mystically inclined students of Lurianic Kabbalah demonstrated a more favorable disposition to the subject, and even expanded on themes that closely aligned with the Christian position:

“Certain Kabbalists taught a doctrine of original sin, in that Adam’s transgression gave evil an active existence in the world. The entire creation became flawed by this first sin.” – Lasker, Jewish Philosophical Polemics, 226n19.

A Jewish parable (known as a Midrash) presents Israel as petitioning God, tired and broken from repeated failure and defeat before the Yetzer Ra. God provides a brief answer to quell their turmoil. One day they will indeed enjoy a time of liberation:

Israel complained: “If a potter leaves a pebble in the clay, and the jar leaks, is the potter not responsible? You have left the Evil Inclination in us. Remove it, and we will do Your will!” God replied,”This I will do in the time to come. [in the Messianic era]” – [Exodus Rabbah 46.4]

12th-century rabbi, Moses Ben Nachman, also known as “Ramban” writes:

“This following subject is very apparent from Scripture: Since the time of Creation, man has had the power to do as he pleased, to be righteous or wicked…But in the days of the Messiah, the choice of their [genuine] good will be natural; the heart will not desire the improper and it will have no craving whatever for it…Man will return at that time to what he was before the sin of Adam, when by his nature he did what should properly be done, and there were no conflicting desires in his will…” – Ramban, Deut 29.

Zechariah 12 is considered one of the most significant Messianic prophecies, paramount for building a biblical case for proving Christ. The prophecy of Zechariah 12 builds until it reaches its zenith, “And they shall look on me because they have thrust him through, and they shall mourn for him as one mourns for his only son.” Surprisingly, religious Jews also share the same interpretation of this event. The prophecy is an account of the Jewish people beholding the visage of the Messiah, risen back to life from death due to the lethal event of being “thrust” through:

“What was the reason for the mourning [to which reference is made in Zechariah’s statement]?…One said, “It is on account of the Messiah, the son of Joseph, who was killed.” – Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah 52a.

This account continues:

“And the other said, ‘It is on account of the evil inclination, which was killed.’”

If this is so, Why should this event bring the Jewish people to weep?

“In the time to come, the Holy one, blessed be he, will bring the evil inclination and slay it before the righteous and before the wicked. To the righteous the evil inclination will look like a high hill, and to the wicked it will appear like a hair-thin thread. These will weep [the righteous] and those will weep [the wicked]. The righteous will weep, saying ‘How could we ever have overcome a hill so high as this one!’ The wicked will weep, saying, ‘How could we not have overcome a hair-thin thread like this one!’ And so too the Holy One, blessed be he, will share their amazement, as it is said, ‘Thus says the Lord of Hosts. If it be marvelous in the eyes of the remnant of this people in those days, it shall also be marvelous in my eyes.’ (Zechariah 8:6).” – ibid

Which is it? Is the prophecy an account of the people weeping because of the appearance of the resurrected Messiah, or are they weeping because of the death of the evil inclination slain before them? The two should not be considered separate or opposing. In fact, they are two ways of viewing the same event. The arrival of the Messiah also brings about the end of the evil inclination.

Found within the book of Isaiah, is an intriguing prophecy similar in its description to the account of the Messiah seizing the Yetzer Ra from within man, and presenting it before the nations, brutally beaten and weakened before them:

But you will be brought down to Sheol, to the lowest depths of the Pit. Those who see you will stare; they will ponder your fate: “Is this the man who shook the earth and made the kingdoms tremble, who turned the world into a desert and destroyed its cities, who refused to let the captives return to their homes?” – Isaiah 14:15-17

This lines up perfectly with New Testament prophecy in the book of Revelation. At the advent of the millennial reign of Christ, the devil (the spiritual origin of the evil inclination) will be seized and bound for a thousand years:

“And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended.” – Revelation 20:1-3

This study is nowhere near a comprehensive and complete presentation of the Jewish concepts of the Yetzer Ra, and the Yetzer Tov. I do believe, that enough material has been shown to justify, at the very least, directing some consideration to the association I’m wanting to make between Paul’s writings and Jewish tradition, and pursuing it further.

Nefesh


An excerpt from: Romans 6-8: The “law of the Spirit” and Spiritual maturity (Part 2)


The “Nefesh”

All sensation felt and experienced through the body is regarded as occurring within the realm of the “Nefesh.” Although it can be considered generally correct to consider the Nefesh as a reference to the physical body, the use of the word in the Hebrew language and in Judaism hints of the need to look deeper. Found within Jewish legal discourses, is a principle known as “Pikuach Nefesh”, derived from this passage in the Torah:

“You shall therefore keep my statutes and my ordinances, which if a man does, he shall live in them: I am HaShem.” – Leviticus 18:5

Since the prime concern behind the Torah is life, the sages made the concession that when facing circumstances of mortal danger, it’s permissible to violate the Torah if absolutely required for survival. In addition, one may break the Torah for the sake of preserving the life of another. Through the inclusion of the word Nephesh in the phrase, “Pikuach Nefesh” meaning “to save a life” the term is elevated to encompass not just the body, but the vital life behind it. This is done out of deference to the established use of Nefesh in scripture.

According to the Torah, the life of the body is contained in the blood:

“For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.”  – Leviticus 17:11

When referencing the original source text in Hebrew, the word translated into English as “life,” is Nefesh.

“For the life [Nefesh] of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement…” – Leviticus 17:11

The English word “life” is quite general, but “Nefesh” in contrast, is complex and nuanced. For this reason, English translations have always struggled to capture the context and meaning behind the varying uses of the word, in order to yield a proper translation in English. The result has lead to another association with “Nefesh” that scripture never intended:

“For the life [Nefesh] of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls[Nefesh]: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.”

According to the Hebrew, the blood of a sacrificial animal is shed in order to atone for the Nefesh. However, in the English as it is translated, sacrifice was prescribed as a method of atoning for the soul. The modern use of the word “soul” carries with it a sense of the spiritual aspect of man; the metaphysical body that contains our consciousness after the expiration of the physical body. When we read the English, we are led to inherit a concept that scripture never intended: sacrifice was implemented as a method of spiritual regeneration. The book of Hebrews contests against this in no uncertain terms:

“It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” – Hebrews 10:4

The author makes a strategic contrast between the limited benefit of sacrifice and the greater cleansing offered by Jesus as the High Priest of the spiritual priesthood of Melchizedek:

“For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that their bodies are clean, 14how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself unblemished to God, purify our consciences from works of death, so that we may serve the living God!” – Hebrews 10:13-14

In accordance with scripture, the author explains that the Temple procedures only restored purity to the physical body. To reiterate Leviticus 17:11, sacrifice atones for the Nefesh (the life of the body) and not the soul. Yet when Jesus offered himself, he became the way through which man is internally cleansed. While animal sacrifice atoned for the body, atonement for the soul can only occur through faith and repentance. This was firmly understood within Judaism:

“Neither the sin offering, nor the guilt offering, nor the Day of Atonement can bring expiation without repentance” (t. Yoma 5:9)

When the Levitical priest collected the blood of an animal and spilled it on the altar, this procedure was followed under the understanding that the substance involved was not just the blood, but the Nefesh. By spilling the blood on the altar, the priest was ultimately presenting the Nefesh of the animal before God.

Before an animal is presented to the priests for slaughter, the Torah provides the following instruction:

“He shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him.” – Leviticus 1:4

This act symbolized a transfer of identity from the guilty individual, to the animal. The animal on the level of the Nefesh, now represented the Nefesh of the sinner. When the priest slaughtered the animal and presented its blood, in God’s eyes the priest was presenting the Nefesh of the man guilty of sin. As the flesh of the animal burned on the altar, the smoke would rise to appear as if it were ascending to God. This was an illustration of the Nefesh of the sinner, receiving its “atonement” and ascending to God.

The Hebrew word for sacrifice is “Korban”. The root of that word is “korav” which means “to come near”. The etymology of the word suggests that sacrifice is a method of “coming near/drawing near” to God. However, if the sacrificial system only treated the physical and not the spiritual, to what of God specifically did the Israelite draw near to? The Israelite did not seek closeness with God internally, the way that we do as Christians with the indwelling Holy Spirit. The Israelites instead would come near to God’s presence externally, dwelling within the Temple:

“To ‘draw near’ to God is to enter into communion with him; it implies entering his very presence. Inasmuch as his presence resided in the Tabernacle and Temple on earth, the worshipper was able to draw near and enter that presence through the offering of a korban – something brought near. Though the worshipper was able to draw near to God within the Temple on earth through means of sacrificial blood of animals, such blood never availed to bring him near to God in the eternal sense of life and death and the world to come…it did not avail him the same privilege in the True temple in heaven. The master brings us near to God in the heavenly Temple…” – “What about the Sacrifices?”, D. Thomas Lancaster, page 20.

On the Old Testament feast day, known as “The day of atonement” the Torah commands the Israelites to go through a period of self-imposed “affliction”:

“It is a sabbath of solemn rest for you, and you shall afflict your souls. It is a statute forever.” – Leviticus 16:31 [KJV]

Again, the English translations fumble as they attempt, but fail, to translate the word Nefesh. Since all versions uniformly translate Nefesh as “soul” this yields the sense that the “affliction” is spiritual, like a period of depression or regret for sin. This has led some translations to take creative license by translating it as “humble yourselves” or “deny yourselves”. If the right understanding is applied, the meaning behind the statement is clear. Short of physical violence against one’s Nefesh (body), the best way to afflict the Nefesh is to fast. The phrase “INul Nefesh” translated as “afflicting the soul” appears a number of times in scripture, making it clear that the intended meaning is to fast for a period of time:

“I afflicted my soul with fasting; and my prayer returned into mine own bosom.” – Psalms 35:13

“…I wept, and afflicted my soul with fasting, that was to my reproach.” – Psalms 69:11

“Wherefore have we fasted, say they, and you see not? Wherefore have we afflicted our soul, and you take not notice?…” – Isaiah 58:3

In obedience to the commandment, the Jews would fast on this day. This is why the author of the book of Acts calls the Day of Atonement, the “day of the Jewish fast”:

“And we were there a long time, until even the day of the Jewish fast was past. And it was dangerous for a man to travel by sea, and Paul counseled them…” – Acts 27:9.

Similar to the way that Paul uses the term “flesh” in his epistles to imply carnality and base passions, the scriptures use the word Nefesh to communicate desire and appetite:

“And put a knife to your throat, if you be a man given to appetite [Nefesh].” – Proverbs 23:2-3

“For he satisfies the longing soul [Nefesh] and fills the hungry soul [Nefesh] with goodness.” – Psalms 107:9

“The full soul [Nefesh] loathes a honeycomb; but to the hungry soul [Nefesh] every bitter thing is sweet.” – Proverbs 27:7

“Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never satisfy their souls [Nefesh].” – Isaiah 56:11

There is nothing wrong with the body, and with satiating hunger, and seeking pleasure as long as these pursuits conform to God’s will and design. Our bodies require food for sustenance. By responding to hunger, our bodies are granted the energy to meet the various demands throughout the day for survival, protecting and providing for the family or doing the Lord’s work. However if eating is done in excess and without restraint, this leads to the sin of gluttony. Sex and procreation are allowed with God’s blessing under the institution of marriage, however, if practiced outside of the confines of marriage, in excess and without restraint, this is sexual immorality.

It seems there is a force, driving the Nefesh to use the body as an expression for sin, and for working the body in ways God never intended. This spiritual force at work, pulling the strings and directing the Nefesh like a puppet, is known as the “Neshamah”.

Ger Toshav

  1. Ger Toshav
  2. The God-Fearer
  3. The Christian

Ger Toshav

The Torah reserves several distinct terms for the Foreigner. The designation most used is “Ger” derived from the verb “Gur” meaning “to dwell.” Ger therefore identifies an outsider, or a group, living with unfamiliar company. The first use of the term is found in Genesis 15. Abraham and his descendants would become “Ger” among the Egyptians: “Your descendants will be gerim in a land that is not their own.” When Abraham wanted to purchase land in order to bury Sarah, he said to the Hittites:

“I am a ger [Foreigner dwelling with you] and a Toshav among you; sell me a burial site among you…”

Toshav means “Resident.” In this exchange, Abraham acknowledges two points: he’s not a Hittite [Ger – Foreigner], and yet he is a temporary resident among them [Toshav]. While the two seem similar enough to be interchangeable, scripture often insists on maintaining a distinction. In Exodus chapter 12, Ger takes on a connotation entirely apart from its simple etymological meaning (to dwell). Regarding the Passover lamb, no foreigner is to eat of it:

“And the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, “This is the ordinance of the Passover: No foreigner [nekar] is to eat of it.” (NIV)

The Hebrew word used here is “Nekar” – which specifies another certain class of Foreigner. According to the text, the Nekar is forbidden to eat the Passover lamb. In Exodus 12:45 the prohibition is extended to the Toshav:

“A temporary resident [Toshav] or hired hand shall not eat the Passover.”

Two types of foreigners have now been named: the Nekar, and the Toshav. Both are forbidden to eat the Passover lamb. However in verse 48, suddenly an exception is made for a third category of foreigner:

“If a foreigner [Ger] resides with you and wants to celebrate the LORD’s Passover, all the males in the household must be circumcised; then he may come near to celebrate it, and he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised man may eat of it.” (NIV)

If a Ger wishes to partake of the Passover lamb, the Ger is instructed to receive circumcision to become “like a native of the land.” In other words, the Ger will become a proselyte to Judaism. It is regarding this type of Ger, a convert, that the Torah states:

“The same law [Torah] applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner [Ger] residing among you.”

It is for this reason, that the Greek Septuagint (translated by 70 Rabbis during the 3rd Century BC) consistently translates the term Ger, for “Prosilyto” or “proselyte”:

“In those passages of the Torah that emphasize the social inequality of the resident alien, the Septuagint usually translates ger with paroikos, Greek for “resident alien;” in those passages in the Torah that emphasize the legal equality of the resident alien, the Septuagint usually translates ger with proselutos [proselyte]…” – “The Beginnings of Jewishness” (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1998), 121

“In the late Second Temple times, the term ger had become virtually synonymous with “proselyte”… – David L. Lieber, “Strangers and Gentiles,” Encyclopaedia Judaica (2nd Edition) 19:241-242

If the association of “Ger” with a convert/proselyte is true, it makes perfect sense why the text would maintain a distinction between the Ger and Toshav. While the Ger is a convert, in contrast, the Toshav would represent a foreigner wishing to remain gentile, even while living with Israel in their land. Consequently, since the Toshav did not possess the land as an inheritance, the Toshav had no way to secure any substantial relationship or connection to it. Since the Torah defined the requirements for the inheritance of the land, the Toshav were not beholden to a great majority of the laws of the Torah. While the Toshav had freedom to participate of their own volition, they were not required to maintain ceremonial purity, nor did they follow dietary restrictions. However, the Toshav certainly weren’t free to follow absolutely every whim. For the sake of adjudicating legal cases involving the Toshav, it makes logical sense that Israel eventually did define a standard: a set of religious and social expectations that the Toshav would have to agree to, before they were permitted into the community.

Israeli leadership had no intention of inviting foreigners to lead communities astray with idol worship, and/or sexual imorality. For this reason, the contractual agreement made between Israel and a foreigner wishing to enter the land as a Toshav would have at the very least, included the following requirements:

  • Renouncing pagan idolatry and false gods
  • Directing all worship to YHVH
  • No sexual immorality
  • No violence
  • No robbery

According to Jewish tradition, ancient Israel held knowledge of a set of seven laws allegedly originating with Noah and his sons. It is assumed that the Ger Toshav were required to submit to these laws in particular:

“Who is a…Toshav? Any [Gentile] who takes upon himself in the presence of three haverim not to worship idols. Such is the statement of R. Meir; but the Sages declare: Any [Gentile] who takes upon himself the seven precepts which the sons of Noah undertook…” – Avodah Zerah 64b:7-9

The seven laws, known as the “Noahide Commandments” are:

  1. concerning adjudication (dinim)
  2. concerning idolatry (avodah zarah)
  3. concerning blasphemy (qilelat ha-Shem)
  4. concerning sexual immorality (gilui arayot)
  5. concerning blood-shed (shefikhut damim)
  6. concerning robbery (gezel)
  7. concerning a limb torn from a living animal (ever min ha-hay)

Jewish tradition has preserved several tentative methods as support that all seven can be derived from scripture, and that these laws were known to Noah and his sons. The truth is, absent of the methods provided, scripture is vexingly silent on transgressions that are common sense. For example, Before Cain commits the first act of murder in history, God warns Cain that “sin is crouching at your door.” There is no explicit account of God stating that murder is a sin. Instead, it is implied as if Cain should just know that murder is wrong.

The narrative of Genesis chronicles a host of behaviors the reader knows to be wrong, yet does not explicitly state as wrong:

  • Violence (Genesis 6:5, 11-12)
  • Adultery (Genesis 12:17-20)
  • Lying (Genesis 12:11-13, 20:2)
  • Homosexuality/Rape (Genesis 19:4-7)
  • Drunkenness (Genesis 19:30-38)
  • Incest (Genesis 19:30-38)
  • Theft (Genesis 27)
  • Rape (Genesis 34)
  • Kidnapping (Genesis 37:12-29)
  • Adultery (Genesis 39:7-9)

Sin isn’t defined legislatively until the Torah is delivered on Mount Sinai. The “Mishpatim” or Civil laws, not only specify Theft, Rape, Kidnapping, etc. as sin, but the Mishpatim outline the appropriate judgement to be carried out as consequence for the sin. In every case of “Mishpat” or Civil law, the action meritting a consequence is unquestionably wrong. This is in contrast to “Chukkim” or religious ceremonial law, which on the surface appear to lack rational sense:

“The mishpatim are mitzvot…whose reason and utility are obvious to us, and which we would arguably have instituted on our own if G-d had not commanded them. The Chukkim are those mitzvot…which we accept as divine decrees, despite their incomprehensibility and…their irrationality.” – chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/2797/The-Logic-of-the-Mitzvot.htm

“Mishpatim are the commandments with a clear explanation and value evident in the world (i.e., prohibiting theft, honouring parents).” – Hilkhot Me’ila 8:8

Jewish tradition pairs the term “Sichliyot” with the Mishpatim. “Sichliyot” in Hebrew, means rational. The Mishpatim are rational, and therefore can be discerned logically. We just simply know that theft or adultery is wrong. A resounding command from the Almighty is unnecessary.

In Romans 2:14, Paul remarks that even without the Torah, when the Nations obey the moral standard contained in the Torah, they are following a “law to themselves.” They show the work of the law “Written on their hearts” so that their “thoughts accuse or defend them.” In other words, when the gentile does something he knows is wrong [the law written on the heart] his own conscience [his thoughts] is sufficient to condemn him on the day of judgement.

The book of Genesis is a witness to the reality that man has always known sin (we know through the agency of logic and rationality). Genesis also hints of our inner brokenness, an internal nature of sin that inclines humankind to act against their convictions. This has sparked an area of study within Jewish tradition known as “Middos.”

The “God-Fearer”

According to the prophet Isaiah, when God moves to restore Israel during the Messianic era, four kinds of individuals will seek to identify with the Lord:

Some will say, ‘I belong to the Lord’; others will call themselves by the name of Jacob; still others will write on their hand,‘I belong to the Lord,’ and will name Israel’s name with honour.” – Isaiah 44:5

According to Jewish tradition, the four mentioned, represented the righteous among Israel, the proselyte, the penitent, and the “God-Fearer”:

“Four types of pious ones stand before the Almighty; as it says [in Isaiah 44:5], “One will say, ‘I am the Lord’s.’ This nation will say, “I am the Lord’s.” He belongs completely to the Almighty, and has no sinful ways in him. “One will call on the name of Jacob.” This refers to the righteous proselyte [i.e., convert]. “Another shall write on his hand, ‘belonging to the Lord.’” This refers to the penitents. One “Will name Israel’s name with honor.” This refers to the God-Fearers. – Numbers Rabbah 8:2

The last phrase, “will name Israel’s name with honor” is best translated as “name himself by the name of Israel.” The sentiment made, is that of a foreigner wishing to honor Israel by identifying with them in a strong way. This gesture would not only constitute an affirmation of the people of Israel, but of the God they serve. Consequently, such a foreigner could be regarded as one who fears/reveres God – The God of Israel.

Mention of the “God-Fearer” (in Hebrew: ‘Yir-e’) as a designation for righteous gentiles is first found in the Psalms. Similar to Isaiah 44, The Psalms set the precedent for dividing the eschatalogical people of God into a number of categories. The Psalms specify at least three:

  • The community of Israel as a whole
  • The house of Aaron (The Aaronic Priesthood)
  • And “those who fear the Lord”

Let Israel now say, “His mercy endures forever.” Let the house of Aaron now say, “His mercy endures forever.” Let those who fear the Lord now say, “His mercy endures forever.” – Psalm 118:2-4

Oh Israel, trust in the Lord; He is their help and their shield. Oh house of Aaron, trust in the Lord; He is their help and their shield. You who fear the Lord, trust in the Lord; He is their help and their shield. – Psalm 115:9-11

The Lord remembers us and will bless us: He will bless his people Israel, he will bless the house of Aaron, he will bless those who fear the Lord — small and great alike. – Psalm 115:12-13

The concept of the “God-Fearer” in contrast to the Toshav, is rather undefined. It may refer to a gentile residing in the land but is not limited to it. The point is, allegiance to the God of Israel is done out of religious conviction and not as a compromise for the land. The God-Fearer is therefore a gentile living anywhere who has come to adopt the God of Israel as their God, and as a result, identifies with the people of Israel in a strong way. It is important to note that although the God-Fearer has joined Israel in worship of the Lord, a distinction remains. The God-Fearer still has not undergone conversion. Such a process would result in the formation of a “Proselyte”.

The book of Acts contains two Greek terms to identify the gentile God-Fearer: sebomenoi (meaning, “those fearing”) and phoboumenoi ton theon (“those reverencing God”). The first reference is found in Acts 10. Cornelius, the Roman centurion is described as a “devout man who feared God” (Acts 10:1-2):

“At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. He and all his family were devout and God-fearing [Phoboumenoi ton theon]; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly.”

In Acts 13:26, Paul addresses the crowd: “men of Israel and you who fear God.”

“Then Paul stood up, and beckoning with his hand said, Men of Israel, and ye that fear God [phoboumenoit ton theon], give audience.” – Acts 13:16

English translators have approached the Greek term “Sebomenoi” a variety of ways, assigning a number of English translations: “devout”, “religious”, “worshipping”, etc:

“And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout [sebomenoi] Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.” – Acts 17:4

“And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped [sebomenoi] God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.” – Acts 16:14

The God-Fearers were massive in number and very influential:

“In Diaspora there was an increasing number, perhaps millions by the first century, of sebomenoi [God-fearers], gentiles who had not gone the whole route towards conversion.” – Encyclopedia Judaica 10:55, s.v. “Jewish Identity”.

“[There was a] numerous class [of God-Fearers]…although most of them did not feel able to shoulder the whole burden of the Law, they sympathised with Judaism…They were to be found in the provinces as well as in Italy, even in Rome…As they often belonged to upper classes their mere presence added in the eyes of the authorities weight of Jewish influence…” – M. Avi-Yonah, the Jews of Palestine (Oxford, 1796) 37.

“[Because of the] Many God-fearers…Hellenistic Judaism had almost succeeded in making Judaism a world religion in the literal sense of the words.” – Dr. Flusser, “Paganism in Palestine,” in Compendia rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum I.2, edd. S. Safrai and M. Stern (Assen, 1976) 1097.

According to  A.T. Kraabal, author of “the disappearance of the God-Fearers” Christianity owes much of its early success to those within the ranks of the God-Fearers:

“In the traditional reconstruction of the historical situation, the characteristics of the God-fearer are as follows: 1) They are gentiles interested in Judaism, but not converts = proselytes; the men are not circumcised. 2) They are found in some numbers in teh synagogues of the Diaspora, from Asia Minor to Rome. 3) The God-Fearer as traditionally understood is particularly significant for students of the New Testament and early Christianity; it was from the ranks of the God-fearers that Christianity supposedly had recruited a great number of its first members.” – A. T. Kraabel, Numen, Vol. 28, Fasc. 2 (Dec., 1981), pp. 114

Israeli scholar, Shlomo Pines writes:

“The early Christian community was addressed chiefly, and perhaps solely, to these ‘God-Fearers’, and that it had its first successes among them.” – God Fearers, Tony Janicki, page 44, Pines 146-147

The Christian

After the death of the first Christian martyr, persecution forced many of the Jewish believers away from Jerusalem to the Jews residing in Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch. Acts 11 remarks that some who settled in Antioch broke convention by preaching to the Greeks. Reception among the Greeks in Antioch was so high that word of this success inspired Barnabas to leave Jerusalem to tend to the Greek believers. Soon Barnabas was joined by the Apostle Paul, and they continued to teach for a year. It was at this time that the God-Fearing believers in Antioch were given the title: “Christianos” – a Greek term that can be roughly translated as, “the Messiah-ists.”

The believers in Antioch embraced the title because it provided the definition and clarity that the God-Fearers at this time desperately needed. Faith in the Messiah entailed a transformation that previously did not exist, prior to the movement. Prior to Jesus, God-Fearing members of Rome, Italy, and around the Mediterranean were at an all time high. Presumably, many Toshav were living in the land as well. Although respected for their friendship and valued for their usefulness as allies to the Jewish cause, the Toshav and the God-fearers were never considered covenant members. In Paul’s words, before faith, the gentiles addressed were “foreigners to the Covenants of promise” (Ephesians 2:12).

The Greek equivalent of the “Toshav” (resident foreigner) is “Paroikos.” The connection is made substantive by the Septuagint, which ties the two words together. In Ephesians 2:19, Paul writes that the believers are no longer “strangers and aliens.” In Greek, Paul writes that the gentile believers are no longer “Paroikos”:

“So then you are no longer strangers and aliens [Paroikos], but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household.” – Ephesians 2:19

Through faith in the Messiah, the Toshav/God-Fearer is liberated from exclusion. They are invited as “fellow citizens” in God’s house.

According to Old Testament prophecy, a sign of entrance into the New Covenant is the reception of a “New Spirit” – a spirit from God, that catalyses a change within the heart leading to obedience:

“I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them” – Ezekiel 36:27

In context, the Holy Spirit leads Israel to obey the Torah. This is the paradigm, the understanding that the Apostles and the first converts to Christianity held when they considered the subject. However, In Acts 10, a paradigm shattering event occurred. While Peter was speaking to Cornelius, his household, and a gathering of friends, these God-Fearing gentiles received the Holy Spirit. They received the Holy Spirit while uncircumcised! In their original condition, as gentiles, God embraced them as members of the New Covenant.

The categories were blurred. Cornelius and those who gathered, were simultaneously gentile, yet members of the New Covenant. They were gentile/Jewish. This is what it means to be a Christianos/Christian. They left the realm of “Paroikos” (Toshav, God-Fearer).

Understandably, many Jews would eventually pressure the Christians to convert to becoming Jewish. Two understandings emerged:

  • The Christians should convert to becoming Jewish for salvation
  • The Christians should convert to becoming Jewish because it’s the right thing to do.

If you just give some thought to the latter, it isn’t unreasonable. What does being gentile/Jewish mean anyway? It’s illogical. You might as well resolve the contradiction by officially becoming Jewish. Also, ambiguity could be dangerous. What if by joining the Covenant, God expected the gentiles to eventually submit to the imperative to become Jewish. What happens to those who never take the plunge? Are they living in sin?

Paul and Barnabas would consult the Mother Church in Jerusalem. They were going to settle the dispute by wielding the power to “bind” and to “loose” that Christ gave to the Apostles in Matthew 18. In 1st Century Jewish language, this represented the power to establish binding religious decrees. The Jewish leadership of every generation (the Sanhedrin) would use this authority to enforce the Torah upon the Jewish nation. However as a result of corruption, Jesus took the power away and transferred it to the Apostles. In Acts 15, the Apostles gathered together to effectively form their own Christian Sanhedrin to wield that power. In doing so, they “loosed” the gentile Christian from having to become Jewish as a result of the faith. Although the gentile Christians were Covenant members, and Jewish in some spiritual capacity, they would functionally remain as Toshav and/or God-Fearers.


For a more in depth look into the concepts of “Binding”/”Loosing”, the Christian Sanhedrin, and the Acts 15 decree: The “Hebrew Roots” needs to learn “Halachah”


James as head of the Church in Jerusalem – the “Nasi” or president of the Christian Sanhedrin, announces this “Takkanot” or religious decree:

“It is my judgement, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.” – Acts 15:19-20

This brief list of four prohibitions, although significantly shorter, is reminiscent of the Noahide laws. As a result, scholarship is inclined to regard the two as essentially the same:

“The Noahide precepts were only seen as the minimal condition for Gentiles to be recognized as God-Fearers. They were so understood by the God-Fearers themselves, who were attracted by the Jewish way of life and accepted many Jewish commandments without becoming full proselytes. This was the attitude of many Christian God-fearers…many of which wished to observe as many Jewish precepts as they could. It is evident that, while the leadership of the Mother Church decided to lay no burden upon the Gentile believers beyond the Noahide precepts…it did not object to their voluntarily observing more.” – David Flusser, “Judaism and the Origins of Christianity”, page 630.

I would oppose this conflation. The Noahide laws, if they were genuinely enforced by ancient Israel, were used as a standard to adjudicate cases involving the gentile residing in the land. However, the Christian was regarded as a sojourner in another sense. We are citizens of a different Jerusalem – residing in heaven above. We have the inheritance of heavenly Jerusalem, and we have received its sign: the circumcision of the heart.  Christians are spiritual Jews (“Jews inwardly” – Romans 2:29).

The physical location of a Christian is irrelevant. Christians walk as citizens of the Kingdom at all times.

James and the Apostles had a different standard in mind. As already discussed, and addressed by Paul in Romans 2:14, the gentile world already has encoded within their hearts and minds a sense of right and wrong. Therefore, an official standard of conduct, outlining every act that would constitute a sin is not necessary. Anytime a man violates his own conscious, that is a sin:

“If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them.” – James 4:17

I contend the four prohibitions were established to resolve possible points of confusion. They were intended to address issues that new believers would possibly misunderstand, or as a result of their former lives of sin, would have been ill equipped to identify:

Meats sacrificed to Idols:

The first prohibition mentioned is not a rule against Idolatry in general. Instead, it specifies one form of Idolatry: eating meat sacrificed to Idols. Idolatry as a whole is not addressed, because it should be known that Idolatry is wrong. This is obvious. However in the case mentioned, eating meat associated with the act can be considered morally ambiguous. By including the issue in the decree, James is resolving the possible confusion.

Sexual immorality

At the time James made the decree, most forms of pagan worship included sexual immorality of some kind. It was so ubiquitous, that James saw the danger of Greek Christians eventually seeking to appropriate similar practises in their worship of God. Presumably, since they were so accustomed to a debased society, they wouldn’t have noticed anything wrong. Rather than imposing the list of respective commandments and Jewish concepts regarding sexual immorality, this simple injunction was considered sufficient. Again, they would lean on logic and common sense. Every man knows what constitutes sexual immorality and what doesn’t.

Blood and Meat strangled 

Meat from an animal “strangled”, is meat from an animal that hasn’t been properly drained of blood. In order to obey the commandment to “pour out the blood” (Leviticus 17:13) a traditional method of slaughter known as “Shechita” developed over time. This method would involve every measure to ensure that as much blood as possible would be purged from the meat. The term “Strangled” is found in Jewish literature referring to meat improperly slaughtered, and specifically, not slaughtered through “Shechita.” James was addressing the gentile practice of eating meat not properly drained of blood. The Biblical imperative to avoid blood consumption, and specifically, the blood held within meat is difficult to understand. In order to bolster the new believer in the faith by setting them up for success, James addressed this little understood issue. The point is simple: don’t consume blood, and avoid unintentional consumption of blood by properly draining meat of blood.

Middos

  1. The book of Genesis and Middos
  2. Sh’lemut (Wholeness) and Godly Middos
  3. Leviticus 7:18, Hypocrisy, and Ceremonial law
  4. Middos and the Fruit of the Spirit

The book of Genesis and Middos

A commonly held understanding is that the primary aim of the Torah is to preserve the commandments. If this is so, the sages would inquire: why not begin with the first commandment, “This month is to you…” (Exodus 12:2)? Why the inclusion of the account of creation?

Said Rabbi Isaac: It was not necessary to begin the Torah except from “This month is to you,” (Exod. 12:2) which is the first commandment that the Israelites were commanded, (for the main purpose of the Torah is its commandments, and although several commandments are found in Genesis, e.g., circumcision and the prohibition of eating the thigh sinew, they could have been included together with the other commandments). Now for what reason did He commence with “In the beginning?” – https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8165/showrashi/true/jewish/Chapter-1.htm

It has been proposed that Psalm 110:6 provides an answer:

“The strength of His works [The act of creation] He related to His people, to give them the inheritance of the nations”

Rashi, one of the most authoritative Jewish commentators elaborates:

“For if the nations of the world should say to Israel, “You are robbers, for you conquered by force the lands of the seven nations [of Canaan],” they will reply, “The entire earth belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He; He created it (this we learn from the story of the Creation) and gave it to whomever He deemed proper When He wished, He gave it to them, and when He wished, He took it away from them and gave it to us. (Ps. 111:6).”

To paraphrase Rashi, the account of creation provides legal ground to exonerate Israel should the nations attempt to accuse Israel of land theft. Since God created the earth, he alone possesses true ownership over all things. This means God holds the right to take the Holy land away from the Canaanites and to offer it as an inheritance to a people that he chooses (the Jewish people).

While this validates the inclusion of the act of creation, this does no good to justify all the remaining content found in the book of Genesis:

“Rashi’s answer explains why the creation story appears at the start of Genesis, but he does not touch on the rest of the book’s narrative, leaving unanswered why we need, for example, the story of Cain and Abel, of Noah and the flood, of the tower of Babel, and of the patriarchal families…”

Rabbi Berezovsky advances the idea that the narrative following creation contains object lessons to teach the importance of proper “Middos”- character traits:

“This is why, he maintains, Genesis includes the story of Cain and Abel, to illustrate how far one may fall into the grasp of sin if overcome by jealousy. The story of Noah and the flood, he believes, shows the injurious impact unchecked lust can have. And, for him, the detrimental outcomes that result from the pursuit of excessive honor and glory is the point of the story of the tower of Babel and the dispersion of its builders. And what of the stories of the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) and the matriarchs (Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, and Leah)? Their stories are essential in the view of Rabbi Berezovsky because they teach students of the Bible “the foundations of service of the Lord.” In particular, these stories demonstrate how one can and should “purify” his or her character traits…” – Kramer, Chaim (2011-10-25T23:58:59). Anatomy of the Soul . Breslov Research Institute. Kindle Edition. 

The Torah itself contains the designations: “Chukkim” (ceremonial laws) and Mishpatim (civil laws). Although the text does not specifically point out the moral laws, Jewish tradition has coined the term “Middos” (plural) or “Middah” (singular) referring to the Character traits a person must possess to exhibit the morally refined behavior required in the text.

Sh’lemut (Wholeness) and Godly Middos

Through examining the Mishpatim (Civil laws) one can gain a sense of the ethical/moral standard God is wanting humanity uphold, and the character traits required to embody that standard.

While the purpose of ceremonial ritual/religious practice is Holiness (Israel is set apart as a result of performing them), the end result of persistence in refining one’s middos is “Sh’lemut” which translates as ‘wholeness’ or ‘completeness’.

The sentiment is that in our human condition, we are incomplete, and our deficiencies manifest in bad middos – defective character traits.

Our Sin nature and faulty Middos

In Exodus chapter 24, Moses is granted exclusive passage to advance Mount Sinai in order to meet with the Lord in private. For forty days and forty nights Moses is steeped in regulation regarding the construction of the Tabernacle. Nearing its conclusion, God delivers two tablets of stone bearing the inscription of the 10 commandments. Fellowship is soon is interrupted as God informs Moses that the Israelite community have already violated the terms of the Covenant. Evidently, the anticipation made the people restless:

“Now when the people saw that Moses delayed [Hebrew: Bosh] to come down from the mountain…” 

The Hebrew word used is “Bosh.” The context of this passage certainly forces the sentiment of lateness. However the word itself carries a different meaning. The first use of the term is found in Genesis 2:25: “And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed [Bosh].” Bosh normally expresses a sense of shame. How can we make sense of this?

“Lateness connotes dissonance. You were supposed to arrive by now, but you are late. There is a disconnect between where you are and where you are supposed to be. Bushah [Bosh], both lateness and shame, describes a conflict between expectations and reality. Adam prior to the sin was not capable of such dissonance. When God is suffused in all of reality, then whatever is present must have been God’s intention. For man to experience such dissonance, he must first have his own expectations and a sense of self. It is man’s capacity to fashion personal expectations, ambitions, and aspirations to allow for experiential “lateness” when such hopes do not materialise. The product of Adam’s sin was the capacity to experience shame of personal delay. Following the sin, now with his own will, wants, and desires, Adam could encounter the pain of missing the mark of his personal objectives…Adam’s sin created the possibility for man to form his own expectations, and along with that ability came the possibility of failure.” – “Synagogue, sin and failure in Jewish thought”, David Bashevkin, Page 19.

The Hebrew word for unintentional sin is “het.” Judges 20:16 relates the term to a stone missing its mark:

“Among all these people there were seven hundred chosen men lefthanded; everyone could sling stones at a hair breadth, and not miss [hata – the verb form of het].”

Our “Bosh”, our  lateness, results in “het” – missing the mark. Before the fall, Adam and Eve shared perfect timing. Every action was in perfect conformity with the will of God and therefore, “on time”. Every stone thrown would flawlessly hit its target. 

The first act of disobedience severed our connection with the Almighty. We are now disjointed, and flawed. We can’t help but to miss the mark. Our poor Middos comes from the sin nature we have inherited as a result of the fall.

The Torah is our guide

The concept of Sh’lemut likens every human to an incomplete puzzle. Open voids appear where pieces are missing, and the absence of that piece leads to a diminished capacity to behave and react in healthy ways. The effect in many cases is that we are even blinded to the degree in which we are incomplete and fragmented.

Every puzzle, when complete, reveals a picture. The Torah reveals that picture. It therefore assists in our diagnosis of how incomplete we are, and in what ways we need to improve. 

Do not covet (Exodus 20:14) – Middah of Gratitude

For example, the commandment against covetousness (Exodus 20:14), if obeyed, naturally forces a recognition of the blessings that one does have in life. The intention of the commandment is therefore to coax the Israelite towards an awareness of human insatiability, and the need to temper desire with the Middah of gratitude. 

The Middah of Generosity

A great deal of Mishpatim/Civil law is devoted to combating the human instinct to protect and hord wealth. We are naturally averse to being generous with our resources, and especially in situations of scarcity. Deuteronomy 15:7 is a heat seeking missile targeted precisely against human antipathy, and the common reaction most have to those in need: “Do not withhold charity from the poor” (Deuteronomy 15:7). In order to bolster the sentiment, the positive injunction was also given: “You shall give charity” (Deuteronomy 15:8). To put it simply: do not withhold, you shall give. This leaves absolutely no room for stinginess. The Torah provides a succession of options to allow charitability, should you lack the means to simply give money away.

If you don’t have money to give, then offer your money as a loan: Obligation to lend money to those who need it (Exodus 22:24)

In order to secure a loan, collateral can be taken. But the collateral must not be an object the debtor absolutely needs: You shall not hold on to collateral needed by the debtor (Deuteronomy 24:12). You should return collateral when it is needed by the debtor (Deuteronomy 24:13).

Collateral cannot be taken from a widow: You shall not demand collateral from a widow (Deuteronomy 24:17) 

The Torah offers a reminder that the intention is to extend an act of kindness. If kindness is the motive, obviously repayment cannot be demanded if the debtor is unable: Prohibition against demanding payment when the creditor knows it is not possible (Exodus 22:24)

Likewise, collateral cannot be taken by force: You shall not take collateral by force (Deuteronomy 24:10) 

The conditions assigned are intended to remove the possibility of cruelty. However, they can also make the creditor vulnerable to losing money. In order for these provisions to work, trust and integrity is necessary on both sides. 

The middah of generosity/charitability is therefore encouraged through three measures:

  1. Offering charity
  2. Offering money in the form of a loan
  3. Securing the loan through collateral

In addition, it is the responsibility of the debtor to ensure the debt is paid in full, or that the creditor receives collateral or compensation equal in value to the money owed.

The Middah of Patience

The trait of Patience is another Middah greatly emphasized by the Torah. Leviticus 19:17, like the command against covetousness, is a command against a very human response: “You shall not hate your brother in your heart.” Even if hatred is not expressed, to indulge in hatred is a sin. If cherishing hatred is effectively stopped, this should neutralize any impulse to seek retribution: “Do not take revenge” (Leviticus 19:18). Revenge cannot be pursued through gossip: “you shall not go around as a slanderer [Rechilus] among the people” (Leviticus 19:16). The Hebrew word used is “Rechilus” and not only covers slander (false accusations) but any general discussion that would harm another socially.  Revenge cannot be pursued in the form of direct verbal abuse or oppression: “Do not oppress another” (Leviticus 25:17). Leviticus 19:18  rules out bearing a grudge: This means any external expression, physical or verbal, that would indicate that we are harboring ill feelings. This seems to virtually remove any human method of dealing with frustration doesn’t it? If ever we feel a person has wronged us, the Torah does provide one solution: “You shall rebuke your brother” (Leviticus 19:17). The Torah commands that we communicate our grievances. However, the verse is finished with “and you shall not bear a sin because of him.” The sages considered this a warning to rebuke others properly. Our rebuke should be done in love, and privately as to avoid public embarrassment. There is of course no guarantee our rebuke will be heard. Proverbs 9:8 states: “Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.” If the rebuke is not welcomed, internalize it as a lesson. Resolve to become like the wise by accepting rebuke when others have grievances with you. This exchange, just as we have identified in the Middah of Gratitude, requires graciousness on both sides to work the way God intended. 

According to Tradition

There is no uniformly agreed-upon list of Middos [good character traits]. Instead, a variety of suggested Middos have appeared over time.

A section in the Mishnah – “Pirkei Avot” (translated as “Ethics of the Fathers”) states that the Torah is “Acquired” through 48 Middos:

The Torah is greater than the priesthood and than royalty, seeing that royalty is acquired through 30 virtues, the priesthood twenty-four, while the Torah is acquired through 48 virtues [Middos]. – Pirkei Avot 6:6


Click here for a look into all 48 virtues: https://reformjudaism.org/learning/sacred-texts/learn-about-middot


The term “Acquired” is an idiom referring to the process of subsuming the qualities necessary to embody the standard of the Torah. To “Acquire” the Torah, is to internalize it – in contrast to merely obeying the commandments externally.

The book, “Everyday Holiness” by Alan Morinis presents a compilation of 18 commonly accepted Middos:

  • Humility
  • Patience
  • Gratitude
  • Compassion
  • Order
  • Equanimity
  • Honor
  • Simplicity
  • Enthusiasm
  • Silence
  • Generosity
  • Truth
  • Moderation
  • Loving-Kindness
  • Responsibility
  • Trust
  • Faith
  • Yirah (fear of God)

Other noteworthy works:

Leviticus 7:18, Hypocrisy, and Ceremonial law

“And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed [chasab] unto him that offered it: it shall be an abomination, and the soul that eat of it shall bear his iniquity.” – Leviticus 7:18

The Hebrew word “Chasab” has a range of meanings. A full account of every appearance of the term, shows that it connotes the concept of reckoning, thinking, intent, cunning, calculating, etc. To distil it down, it is a type of mental affirmation or assertion. In keeping with the context of the word, Jewish tradition has read and understood the passage this way:

“The one who offers it shall not intend [chasab] this: it shall be an abomination, and the soul that eats it shall bear his iniquity.” – Leviticus 7:18 

When considering the Hebrew nuance, the passage yields a completely different meaning:

“But if he had intent to perform one of those actions beyond its designated time, then it is rendered piggul [an abomination], and one is liable to receive karet for burning or partaking of it.” – Talmud Zevachim 27a

If the priest responsible for officiating the sacrifice does so while intending to eat the sacrifice after its permitted time frame (3 days), the meat is rendered an abomination. The message is clear. It’s an offence against God to secretly plot to disobey him while simultaneously performing an act of worship. This is hypocrisy. 

The external acts of the Ceremonial law are rendered meaningless if the heart is not involved, or in active defiance against God. This sentiment, found only in Leviticus 7:18, resides as a small seed in the soil of Torah. In the course of time and through the mouth and pen of the Prophets, it will come to germinate and grow into a towering tree.

  • To obey and listen is better than sacrifice:

“And Samuel said, ‘Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams.’” – Samuel 15:22

  • Mercy and knowledge of God is better than sacrifice:

“For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.” – Hosea 6:6

  • God hates and despises the Feast days.
  • God takes no delight in assemblies.
  • God will not accept sacrifice and offerings, if it leads Israel to neglect justice and righteousness:

“I hate, I despise your feasts, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them; and the peace offerings of your fattened animals, I will not look upon them. Take away from me the noise of your songs; to the melody of your harps I will not listen. But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.” – Amos 5:21-24

  • The Lord does not want sacrifices.
  • The Lord requires us to do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with him:

“With what shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? – Micah 6:6-8

  • God has no use for the multitude of sacrifices.
  • God is tired of burnt offerings.
  • God does not delight in the blood of animals.
  • The offerings are done in vain.
  • Temple incense is an abomination.
  • God hates the appointed Feasts.
  • God will not hear their prayers, for their hands are full of blood:

“What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the Lord; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of well-fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats. When you come to appear before me, who has required of you this trampling of my courts? Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and Sabbath and the calling of convocations— I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them. When you spread out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood.” – Isaiah 1:11-17

To secure the growth of a righteous nation, Israel was established with the Torah. It’s men and women would be trained and educated in the highest standard of morality, and wisdom. God intended for this training to facilitate a culture of Godliness, producing men and women with Godly Middos and hearts committed to serving him.

The ceremonial laws serve to make Israel Holy and distinct from the nations, however what good is it for Israel to emphasize their distinction when they have failed to uphold Justice and demonstrate righteous behavior? What good are the sacrifices, when their intentions render the meat impure? What good is it to wear lengthened tassels and broadened phylacteries (Matthew 23:5) when they only do so to honor themselves?

In that case, they negate their specialness and have become no different from the nations. This is why Middos [the heart condition] is primary. Godly Middos is the prerequisite for the true application of the Ceremonial laws of the Torah:

“… proper character traits are a necessary prerequisite to being a God-fearing, commandment-observing individual…Indeed, the refinement and strengthening of our moral characteristics is a precondition for the true observance of the commandments.” – Kramer, Chaim (2011-10-25T23:58:59). Anatomy of the Soul. Breslov Research Institute. Kindle Edition.

“Refinement of character precedes Torah wisdom.” – Midrash, Vayikra Rabba 9:3

It is abundantly clear that the Torah has two levels:

  1. The Mishpatim (the Civil laws and the Middos implied) – The focus is on Justice, and moral/righteous behavior. This flows from Godly Middos [when the principles of the Torah are internalized].
  2. The Chukkim (Ceremonial laws) – The focus is on set-apart behavior. Israel becomes distinct through religious ritual.

First is moral refinement, and second is sanctification. Before the external is of any import, the inside must conform to the Torah. This is the context behind Jesus’ stern rebukes:

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean.” – Matthew 23:27

Then the Lord said to him, “Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. – Luke 11:39

A Chassidic teacher known as the “Kotzker” is known to have said: “Fine…be holy. But remember, first one has to be a mensch [a decent human being].”

Middos and the Fruit of the Spirit

The Apostle Paul lists 9 Middos, 9-character traits that should manifest in the Christian as “fruit”, i.e. evidence that the Spirit is at work within them:

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love [1], joy [2], peace [3], forbearance [4], kindness [5], goodness [6], faithfulness [7], gentleness [8] and self-control [9].” – Galatians 5:22

The 9 Middos of Paul:

  • Love
  • Joy
  • Peace
  • Forbearance
  • Kindness
  • Goodness
  • Faithfulness
  • Gentleness
  • Self control

Recommended Christian resources:

 

Hashkafic Arguments

Written Torah Hashkafic Arguments

Hashkafah is best presented in the form of an argument. Each argument, in turn, consists of a number of premises that present the substance of the argument in a point-by-point manner. Each premise is justified by a reference to a Hashkafic principle. The structure of an argument follows this structure:

Hashkafic Argument

  • Premise 1 [this point is justified by a Hashkafic principle]
  • Premise 2 [this point is justified by a Hashkafic principle]
  • etc.

Each principle will be represented by a designation, for example: [H1-A]. This refers to Hashkafic principle one, and sub-principle A. Should the reader disagree with a premise, the idea is that the premise can be further investigated by following the designation and evaluating the scriptures provided to justify the Hashkafic principle.

I will be presenting a number of arguments:

Argument 1: The New Covenant causes Israel to obey the Torah for the purpose of a final regathering of all Israel to the land.

Hashkafic Argument #1

The New Covenant causes Israel to obey the Torah for the purpose of a final regathering to the land.

  • God owns the land of Israel, therefore God has the right to give the land of Israel to a people of his choosing [H1-A]
  • God chose to give the land as an inheritance to Abraham and his descendants [H1-B]
  • God imposed the requirement of the Torah to make Israel Holy [H1-C], so that they may reside on the Holy land [H1-H]
  • Disobedience to the Torah while on the land results in exile from the land [H1-G]
  • The New Covenant transforms Israel so that they would obey the Torah [H2][H3][H4][H5]
  • Since the requirement for residence on the land is obedience to the Torah [H1-D], once Israel is transformed (and as a result obeying the Torah) God will grant them the reward of the land by gathering them from exile [H6]
  • Two events are necessary for this regathering:
    • The arrival of the New Covenant [H2]
    • The arrival of the Messiah [H4-I]

 

[H1] The land of Israel

Five Books of Moses

    • [A] God is the ultimate proprietor of the land of Israel. (Leviticus 25:23)
    • [B] God chose Abraham and his descendants to inherit the land of Israel as their possession. (Genesis 12:7; Genesis 13:14-17; Genesis 15:7-16; Genesis 17:8)
    • [C] The Torah makes Israel Holy for the land. (Exodus 22:3; Leviticus 11:41-45; Leviticus 19:2,37; Leviticus 20:25,26; Leviticus 20:8; Numbers 15:40; Deuteronomy 14:2)
    • [D] The Torah is composed of “Mishpat” (Civil law) and “Chukkot” (Ceremonial law). Both are required for residence on the land.(Deut 4:1; Deut 4:5; Deut 4:14; Deut 5:31; Deut 6:1)   
    • [E] Israel receives blessings as a result of obedience to the Torah while residing on the land. (Leviticus 25:18-22; Deuteronomy 4:1-14; Deut 11:1-7; Deut 26:18-19; Deut 28:1-13 )
    • [F]Curses result from willful defiance against the Torah while residing on the land. (Leviticus 26; Deut 27:14-26; Deut 28:15-68; Deut 29:19-25;)
    • [G] The ultimate consequence of persistent sin is exile. (Lev 26:33; Deuteronomy 4:26-27; Deuteronomy 28:63-64; Deut 30:18)

The Prophets

  • [H] The land of Israel is Holy. (Zechariah 2:12)                                                                 

[H2] New Covenant

Five Books of Moses

  • God will circumcise the hearts of Israel, causing Israel to obey. (Deuteronomy 30:6)

The Prophets

  • God will establish a new Covenant. The law will be placed in their hearts and minds. (Jeremiah 31:31-34)
  • God will  give Israel a new heart and spirit. He will remove their heart of stone in exchange for a heart of flesh, so that they may walk in his statutes and rulings (Ezekiel 11:17-20)
  • God will give Israel a new heart and spirit. He will remove their heart of stone in exchange for a heart of flesh so that they would follow his decrees and laws.(Ezekiel 36:26-27)
  • A Covenant of peace that will be everlasting (Ezekiel 37:26)

[H3] Circumcision of the heart

Law on the heart

Heart of flesh/stone

Five Books of Moses

  • God wishes that Israel would have a heart that would fear him, and desire to keep the commandments (Deuteronomy 5:29)
  • God instructs Israel that all his commands should be in their hearts (Deuteronomy 6:6)
  • God wishes that Israel would keep the commandments. God makes the following sentiment: “Circumcise the foreskin of your heart and be no longer stubborn.” (Deuteronomy 10:16)
  • God reveals that he will do the work of circumcising the hearts of all Israel.The result is that Israel will obey the commandments. (Deuteronomy 30:6-10)
  • God will circumcise their hearts so that they may live (Deuteronomy 30:6) – See [H4]

The Prophets

  • Those who know righteousness (meaning that they do acts of righteousness) have the law in their heart. (Isaiah 51:7)
  • To have a heart of stone is to refuse to hear the law (Zechariah 7:12) – See [H5]

The Writings

  • To have the law within your heart is to delight to do God’s will (Psalms 40:8)
  • To have Gods “word” in the heart means that one is careful not to sin  (Psalm 119:11)
  • To write the commandments on the tablet of the heart means to guard them and obey them. (Proverbs 7:2-3)
  • Binding commandments to the heart means to keep them and to never forsake them ( Proverbs 6:20,21)

[H4] Life/death – in the context of obeying the Torah

The Five Books of Moses

  • God will circumcise their hearts so that they may live (Deuteronomy 30:6)
  • Israel is given two options: life/blessing or death/curses. Choosing life is tantamount to loving and obeying God. (Deuteronomy 30:19-20)
  • A man will live by keeping the statutes and judgements (Leviticus 18:5)

The Prophets

  • “He follows My statutes and faithfully keeps My ordinances; he is righteous; surely he will LIVE.’ declares the Lord GOD.” – Ezekiel 18:9
  • “They did not follow My statutes and they rejected My ordinances–though the man who does these things will LIVE by them–and they utterly profaned My Sabbaths.” – Ezekiel 20:13

[H5] What it means to “Hear”

The Five Books of Moses

  • To hear the commandments is to do them (Deuteronomy 6:3)
  • Loving the Lord with all of your heart, soul, and might should follow the act of “hearing”. (Deuteronomy 6:4)

[H6] Regathering of Israel

The Five Books of Moses

  • God will circumcise the hearts of Israel, causing Israel to obey. This will trigger a national regathering. (Deuteronomy 30:1-10)

The Prophets

  • The tribes will return from countries East and West relative to Israel (Zechariah 8:7-8)
  • The tribes will return to Israel by journeying from lands in all four cardinal directions, and from the “ends of the earth” (Isaiah 43:5-6)
  • The tribes will return from the “North country” and from “the remote parts of the earth” (Jeremiah 31:8)
  • The regathering will be so large scale, that the first exodus from Egypt will soon be forgotten. (Jeremiah 16:14-15; Jeremiah 23:7-8)
  • The New Covenant is connected to the regathering (Jeremiah 31; Ezekiel 11; Ezekiel 36; Ezekiel 37)

Hashkafah 2

 

Hashkafah type 1: Written Torah Hashkafah

List of Hashkafah

Hashkafaic Arguments

 

Hashkafah

  1. Hashkafah
  2. The Hashkafah of the Prophets
  3. Hashkafah informs Halachah
  4. Jesus, the Sabbath, and the Hashkafah of Hillel
  5. Hashkafah and doctrine
  6. Hashkafah as an interface

Hashkafah

Hashkafa has the connotation of an outlook from a high position:

“Look down [Hashkifa] from heaven, your holy dwelling place, and bless your people Israel and the land you have given us as you promised on oath to our ancestors, a land flowing with milk and honey.” – Deuteronomy 26:15

By the first century, the word was used to designate the high-altitude big picture view one can derive from the principles found in the Torah. Complex and challenging questions were therefore scrutinized not at the level they were generated, but the Sages would “look down” at it, as if from a precipice. They would stand at the edge of towering Torah principles, or the philosophical outlook that the Torah provides.

“Hashkafa” is constructed via Inductive reasoning, by collecting scripture that contain “Meta-principles” – these are principles that reveal the general intent of the Torah. The Sages found justification for this pursuit in Deuteronomy 6:18 and other commands like it, which obligate Israel to a general cause:

“Do what is right and good in the LORD’s sight”

What set of principles could we derive from the Torah to ensure we always do what is right and good in every situation? This is Hashkafah.

The Hashkafah of the Prophets

Hashkafic inquiry occupied the sages/rabbis of the second temple era. This was a common way of studying the Torah: by diving into the Torah in order to derive a common core principle. If such a core principle exists, what is it? If there are multiple principles, what are they and how many?

The Talmud lists 5 ways the Torah has been summarized in scripture (Tractate Makkot 24A).

David reduces the Torah to eleven principles in Psalm 15:

Lord, who shall sojourn in Your Tabernacle? Who shall dwell upon Your sacred mountain? He who walks wholeheartedly [1], and works righteousness [2] , and speaks truth in his heart [3]. Who has no slander upon his tongue [4] , nor does evil to his neighbor [5] , nor takes up reproach against his relative [6] . In whose eyes a vile person is despised [7] , and he honors those who fear the Lord [8] ; he takes an oath to his own detriment [9] , and changes not. He neither gives his money with interest [10] , nor takes a bribe against the innocent [11] . He who performs these shall never be moved”

Who shall “sojourn” in the Lord’s Tabernacle? In other words, who shall God welcome into his dwelling? One who:

  1. Walks wholeheartedly
  2. Works righteousness
  3. Speaks truth in his heart
  4. Has no slander
  5. Does no evil to his neighbor
  6. Does not take a reproach against his relative
  7. Despises vile people
  8. Honors those who fear the Lord
  9. Takes an oath to his own detriment
  10. Does not give money at interest
  11. Does not take a bribe against the innocent

The Prophet Isaiah reduces the Torah to six principles:

“He who walks righteously [1], and speaks uprightly [2]; he who despises the gain of oppressions [3], who shakes his hands from holding of bribes [4], who stops his ears from hearing blood [5], and shuts his eyes from looking upon evil. [6]” – Isaiah 33:15

A Godly man, according to Isaiah lives out the Torah by exemplifying 6 principles. A Godly man:

  1. Walks righteously
  2. Speaks uprightly
  3. Despises the gain of oppressions
  4. Shakes his hands from holding of bribes
  5. Stops his ears from hearing blood
  6. Shuts his eyes from looking upon evil

The Prophet Micah reduces the Torah to three principles:

“It has been told to you, O man, what is good, and what the Lord does require of you; only to do justly [1], and to love mercy [2], and to walk humbly with your God. [3]” – Micah 6:8

According to Micah, The Lord ultimately requires three things:

  1. To do justly
  2. To love mercy
  3. To walk humbly with God

Isaiah summarizes the Torah a second time by distilling the wisdom of the Torah into two main principles:

“Observe justice [1] and perform righteousness [2]” – Isaiah 56:1

Lastly, the prophet Habakkuk summarized the Torah with just one principle:

“But the righteous person shall live by his faith” – Habakkuk 2:4.

In the gospel of Matthew chapter 22, Jesus joins David and the prophets by making his Hashkafic contribution: “All of the Law and the prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matthew 22:40). The two greatest commandments:

  1. Love God
  2. Love neighbor

A first-century Jew would consider it good sport to inquire: How does one love to the sufficient degree the Torah requires?

Paul offers 16 Hashkafic “Meta-Principles” of love derived from the Torah to answer that very question:

Love is patient [1], love is kind [2]. It does not envy [3], it does not boast [4], it is not proud [5]. It does not dishonor others [6], it is not self-seeking [7], it is not easily angered [8], it keeps no record of wrongs [9]. Love does not delight in evil [10] but rejoices with the truth [11]. It always protects [12], always trusts [13], always hopes [14], always perseveres [15]. Love never fails [16]. – 1 Corinthians 13:4-8

If we violate or fail to uphold just one of these 16 principles in our relationship with others, or in our relationship with God, according to Paul we are failing in our mandate to Love.

Hashkafah informs Halachah

Rabbi Manning, a member of the RCA (Rabbinic Counsel of America) defines Hashkafa as:

“…an understanding of the overarching principles of Torah which informs and gives context to our mitzvah observance. Given the details of daily life and the halachic norms which apply to them, hashkafa is the methodology by which those details and norms are weighed against each other to produce a psak, which is not only halachically correct, but which also resonates with the spirit of the Torah.”

Hashkafa “informs” observance. Meaning that when a legal problem is confronted, Hashkafa is used to arrive at a ruling that is, in Rabbi manning’s words: “Halachically correct, but…also resonates with the spirit of the Torah.”

This is important to understand. Rulings can vary, depending on the Hashkafic principles used. For every commandment, there is a range of possible interpretations. There are 613 laws total, and the variety of unique situations to consider are endless. This gives ample opportunity for the total number of disagreements between Sages, or members of the court to snowball.

During the 1st Century, the Pharisees were divided into two “houses.” Each “house” had its corresponding Hashkafa, as established by the founder specific to each house. The “house of Shammai” enforced strict Halachic rulings based on a “letter of the law” approach, placing emphasis on Justice. The “house of Hillel” advocated for lenient Halachic rulings based on a “Spirit of the law” approach, placing emphasis on mercy. Tradition states that the following period of disagreement led to the Torah becoming like “two Torahs”:

“From the time that the disciples of Shammai and Hillel grew in number, and they were disciples who did not attend to their masters to the requisite degree, dispute proliferated among the Jewish people and the Torah became like two Torahs.” – Sanhedrin 88b

Jesus, the Sabbath, and the Hashkafah of Hillel

As president of the Sanhedrin, Hillel was superior in rank over Shammai who presided as second in command. Shammai often advocated for the harshest application of the law. His zeal would have undermined Hillel’s lenient approach if it were not for the fact that Hillel was president. As Hillel and Shammai gathered disciples, their disciples would in time, take on the nature of their founders. The disciples of Hillel were humble and open-minded, and the disciples of Shammai were aggressive and refused compromise.

Hillel and his interpretations would set the precedent for the lightest, most lenient approach to the Torah and its various obligations. However, during the time of Jesus, Shammai and his disciples took on the majority. They were the politically dominant party and leveraged their power aggressively.

The many times that Jesus was confronted by the Pharisees over the Sabbath, it’s clear that they were disciples of Shammai.

Had Jesus truly broken the Sabbath in a defiant manner, the disciples of Shammai would have most definitely seized Jesus for trial by the Sanhedrin. But Jesus did not unlawfully break the Sabbath.

What he did, was in accord with the Halakah of Hillel. Hillel permitted the Sabbath to be broken for the sake of life, and for the sake of Mercy. Hillel permitted the Sabbath to be broken for circumcision. It was recognized that the priests would break the Sabbath for the sake of service in the Temple and they did so “blamelessly.” In the same way, service to God could be performed in other ways without blame. Jesus was taking the lenient approach to the Sabbath, as set by Hillel.

The Shammaites were powerless to stop Jesus from doing so. They couldn’t because, in the end, Hillel outranked Shammai. This meant that Hillel’s Hashkafah/Halachah would forever remain viable and superior to Shammai’s rulings.

Jesus leveraged legal precedent to demonstrate the true intent behind the Sabbath. Since he did so according to the Hashkafah of Hillel, he was able to make his point with impunity.

Hidden in every argument regarding the Sabbath, is an implicit appeal to lenient Hashkafah originating with Hillel:

Hashkafic principle: “Pikuach Nefesh”

“Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests.” – Matthew 12:3-4, Mark 2:24-26

This principle is derived from Leviticus 18:5

“You shall keep my laws, and my rules, by the pursuit of which man may live.”

It was understood, that since the pursuit of the law should lead a man to “live” – It should be permissible to break the Sabbath, or any Torah law, for the sake of preserving life.

Jesus references the event of David deliberately disregarding the sanctity of bread reserved exclusively for the priests. While on the surface, the event would seem to preserve an act of defiance committed by David, it was understood that the rule was temporarily suspended by the circumstances. The need to restore “life” by satiating their hunger, allowed for a one-time concession. They, therefore, ate while knowing that such an act would have normally been unlawful.

Hashkafic principle: Acts of Mercy can override the Sabbath

Jesus makes an appeal to the Torah itself. While the Torah with great emphasis demands Israel to rest from labor on Sabbath, it seemingly contradicts its own rule by requiring the priests to present two burnt offerings (Numbers 28:9-10).

“…Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent?” – Matthew 12:5

As the reader may already know (assuming the sections of Halachah, and Semichah have been read) the Torah is not as simple as many Christians assume. The written commandments, preserved in the Torah do remain unchanged. Yet, the written only represents a general rule, and in many cases, it is far too vague to properly enforce without a license to “fill in the blanks”. The Torah, therefore, authorizes the Priests and the Judges to establish uniform “Halachah.” Halachah is determined by using principles/logic derived from the Torah itself (Hashkafah). In this case, the Torah is not presenting a “contradiction.” Rather, it is hinting of a Hashkafic rule providing an exception – or an order of priority.

The Sabbath demands rest from all forms of work, except the work of sacrifice. Sacrifice as the Torah indicates, holds greater priority, even over the need to rest on the Sabbath. After pointing out this Hashkafic principle, Jesus references the prophet Hosea:

“If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.” – Matthew 12:7

The Prophet Hosea presents a second Hashkafic principle: Mercy is greater than sacrifice. Since we lack the background, it is difficult for the average Christian to discern. Truthfully, a lot is happening here – and unfortunately, it passes by unnoticed to most. Jesus is brilliantly weaving a complex legal argument in a matter of seconds.

The argument: Sacrifice is greater than the Sabbath. Mercy is greater than sacrifice (Hosea 6:6), therefore Mercy is greater than Sabbath.

Since mercy is greater than the Sabbath, any act that demonstrates mercy can lawfully be done even if it breaks the Sabbath. Mercy overrides the Sabbath. According to Jesus, allowing the Apostles to pick heads of grain to eat so that they wouldn’t remain hungry was an act of Mercy.

Hashkafic principle: The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath:

It was a Hashkafic principle to allow a positive commandment to override a negative commandment if ever a situation resulted in a conflict between the two:

“…He relied on the principle that a positive mitzvah comes and overrides a negative mitzvah.” – Talmud, Shabbat 132 B.

As a result of the principle, the Sages agreed that Circumcision takes precedence over Shabbat:

“…however, with regard to circumcision itself, everyone agrees that it overrides Shabbat.” – Shabbat 132A.

Circumcision is required of a male child on the 8th day following its birth. According to this principle, if the 8th day fell on a Sabbath, the imperative to circumcise the boy would override the command to rest. The Sages would therefore permit the procedure, although circumcision involved a number of actions they would normally consider violations against the command to rest.

In turn, if Circumcision overrides Shabbat, how much more should the concern to save a life override Shabbat?

“Just as circumcision, which pertains to only one of a person’s limbs, overrides Shabbat, all the more so it is an a fortiori inference that saving a life, which is a mitzvah that pertains to the entire person, overrides Shabbat.” – Shabbat 132A.

It was therefore determined that the Sabbath was made for man, meaning that the imperative to preserve a human life holds greater priority than the command to rest on the Sabbath:

“Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says that it is stated: “But keep my Shabbatot” (Exodus 31:13). One might have thought that this applies to everyone in all circumstances; therefore, the verse states “but,” a term that restricts and qualifies. It implies that there are circumstances where one must keep Shabbat and circumstances where one must desecrate it, i.e., to save a life. Rabbi Yonatan ben Yosef says that it is stated: “For it is sacred to you” (Exodus 31:14). This implies that Shabbat is given into your hands [the Sabbath is made for man], and you are not given to it [not man for the Sabbath] to die on account of Shabbat.” – Talmud, Yoma 85b.

In Mark 2, verse 27, Jesus paraphrased the above principle:

“The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”

If the Sabbath was made for man, how much more so should it submit to the Authority of the “Son of Man” – the Messiah:

“Therefore, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” – Mark 2:28

Hashkafah and doctrine

In addition to the formation of meta-principles that summarize and encapsulate the intent of the legal content within the Torah, Hashkafic analysis of scripture should also yield conclusions of substantial theological importance. For example, what sort of themes could summarize the general intent, narrative, and purpose of all scripture? And what sort of rules could we employ (if such rules exist) to best understand the Bible and draw from it, the conclusions that we assume God intends for us to draw?

In matters of doctrine, Haskafah can be arranged in two different ways:

  1. Hashkafah type 1: As a set of core principles/themes that summarize the general narrative and message of scripture.
  2. Hashkafah type 2: Theological efforts to organize and understand scripture according to a particular system, or approach.

Medieval Torah Scholar Moses Ben Maimon (Also known as the Rambam) is known for establishing 13 foundations of Jewish belief, defining in each point, what he considered was of cardinal importance for every Jew to uniformly know and uphold. The substance of the 13 principles are first found in his legal text, the “Mishneh Torah”- which is still heralded as a monumental achievement and referenced daily by observant Jews. The ideas were then organized into a concise list in his commentary of the Mishnah (the introduction to chapter 10 of Mishnah Sanhedrin):

  1. Belief in the existence of the Creator, who is perfect in every manner of existence and is the Primary Cause of all that exists.
  2. The belief in G‑d’s absolute and singular unity.
  3. The belief in G‑d’s non-corporeality, nor that He will be affected by any physical occurrences, such as movement, or rest, or dwelling.
  4. The belief in G‑d’s eternity.
  5. The imperative to worship G‑d exclusively and no foreign false gods.
  6. The belief that G‑d communicates with man through prophecy.
  7. The belief in the primacy of the prophecy of Moses our teacher.
  8. The belief in the divine origin of the Torah.
  9. The belief in the immutability of the Torah.
  10. The belief in G‑d’s omniscience and providence.
  11. The belief in divine reward and retribution.
  12. The belief in the arrival of the Messiah and the messianic era.
  13. The belief in the resurrection of the dead.

When evaluating the majority of the principles listed, agreement without hesitation can be made. However, principles 2 and 3 seem articulated to specifically combat the Christian belief in the trinity, and the sentiment that a member of that trinity could take on corporeality. A Christian could easily modify these two principles while retaining their belief that such changes remain consistent and compatible with scripture:

  1. Belief in the existence of the Creator, who is perfect in every manner of existence and is the Primary Cause of all that exists.
  2. The belief in G‑d’s unity of three in one. Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
  3. The belief that G-d the Son temporarily took on corporeal form by becoming born through a virgin.

Notice how subjective this process is. When comparing the original list presented with the Christian modification, the two are absolute opposites. Yet, both the Jew and the Christian would insist that their version is true to scripture.

This is reminiscent of the conflict between French Reformer John Calvin (1509-1564) and his theological opponent Dutch Reformer James Arminius (1559-1609). One year after James’ death, his students would list five doctrines in the form of a “Remonstrance” (a protest) against the Churches of Holland. The Arminian party demanded that the Churches addressed would conform to the content outlined in their protest. The five doctrines contained in the Remonstrance contended against the formerly held positions relating to divine sovereignty, human ability, election/predestination, redemption, grace and the perseverance of the Saints:

  1. Man is never so completely corrupted by sin that he cannot savingly believe the gospel.
  2. God elects or reproves on the basis of foreseen faith or unbelief.
  3. Christ died for all men and for every man, although only believers are saved.
  4. his grace may be resisted.
  5. Whether all who are truly regenerate will certainly persevere in the faith is a point that needs further investigation.

The Churches of Holland would respond with 5 points of their own. Five points that would assert the exact opposite of the five points found in the Remonstrance:

  1. Total Depravity
  2. Unconditional election
  3. Limited Atonement
  4. Irresistible Grace
  5. Perseverance of the Saints

Their response would set the precedent for the acronym TULIP, a commonly used method of summarizing Calvinist doctrine.

Due to the subjective nature of Hashkafah and its potential for generating polemic standoffs, ancient Israel would develop a safeguard. This safeguard was heavily enforced.

The Targumim

The Targumim are Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Old Testament books. The Targumim are remarkable because they aren’t translated literally. Instead, they paraphrase the scripture according to the prevalent interpretations of the time period. The Talmud documents an account of a Rabbi reading a written Targum of the book of Job:

Said R. Jose: It once happened that my father Halafta visited R. Gamaliel Berabbi at Tiberias and found him sitting at the table of Johanan b. Nizuf with the Targum of the Book of Job in his hand which he was reading. Said he to him, I remember that R. Gamaliel, your grandfather, was sitting on the stairs of the Temple when the Book of Job in a Targumic version was brought before him, whereupon he said to the builder, “Bury it under the bricks.” – Talmud, Shabbat 115a.

When a written Targum was presented to Rabbi Gamaliel, his response was “Bury it under the bricks.” Why was he so hostile?

The Targumim are interpretations of scripture. Normally, they were taught and preserved in Aramaic through Oral tradition. The Targum of Job in written form was tantamount to the idea of solidifying the interpretation and making it as real and concrete as the written Torah.

The Oral Torah and the Written Torah

“The Sages taught: There was an incident involving one gentile who came before Shammai. The gentile said to Shammai: How many Torahs do you have? He said to him: Two, the Written Torah and the Oral Torah.” – Talmud, Shabbat 31a.

The term “Oral Torah” in Hebrew, literally means: “The Torah of the mouth” (Torah Sheb al Peh) this is in contrast to the term “Written Torah” which in Hebrew means: “The Torah which is in writing” (Torah Shebichtav). The two terms serve to differentiate teaching and Oral tradition derived from the text, from the literal text of the Torah.

This separation was maintained through a rule against putting down into writing anything derived from Oral tradition:

“You shall not transmit in writing that which is oral.” – Talmud, 60b.

Tradition, teaching, and Halakah were therefore memorized and transmitted Orally.

They did so, in order to prevent possible confusion between the text, and the interpretations of the text.

We are inclined to invest ourselves soo emotionally in our interpretations, that the temptation is to elevate them to the level of the written Torah itself.

If we are to learn this lesson, we must begin to emphasize the distinction between scripture, and the Hashkafic systems we have come to adopt. When referencing an idea we assume to be “Biblical” – we must ask ourselves if our convictions/beliefs fall under “Written Torah” or “Oral Torah.”

This elucidates the main distinction between the two types of Hashkafah presented earlier:

  • Hashkafah type 1: A set of core principles/themes that summarize the general narrative and message of scripture.

These core principles or themes would be derived from the literal text of the Torah, as it says, in its plain language and original context. In other words, Hashkafah type 1 must faithfully depict the text in a “written Torah” manner.

  • Hashkafah type 2: Theological efforts to organize and understand scripture according to a particular system, or approach.

When the text is understood through the lens of some type of Biblical training, background, or preconceived notion (a sense of what the text should say or mean) – all such content falls under the “Oral Torah” category.

The New Testament is Torah

In the gospel of John, Jesus equates a Psalm with the Torah itself:

“But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.’ – John 15:25

English translators have cross-referenced this statement with Psalm 35:19, Psalm 69:4, and Psalm 109:3.

Similarly, Paul equates a prophecy found in Isaiah with the Torah:

“In the Law it is written: “With other tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.” – 1 Corinthians 14:21

An important concept is being intimated. The Torah (the five books of Moses) is the foundation of God’s word. All the books of the canon, serve to either affirm or elaborate on what was already established in the Torah. In this way, the Writings and the Prophets can be regarded as an extension of the Torah. In turn, the New Testament likewise is an extension of the Torah.

Since the New Testament is our Torah, our “Sheb al Peh” (Written Torah) we as Christians, have the privilege of an update of revelation. The New Testament solidifies much of what was considered “Oral Torah” – making many concepts that the Israelites could have not known for sure, complete and definitive. When taking the New Testament into account, the following concepts are now “Written Torah”:

  • The Trinity
  • The Divinity of the Messiah
  • The Messiah as a suffering servant (Isaiah 53)
  • The Temple and the sacrifices are symbols that pointed to the work of the Messiah
  • There are two comings of the Messiah: the first as a suffering servant, the second as a divine warrior King.
  • Our salvation by grace through Faith

Here is a list of concepts that are not explicitly addressed, or affirmed literally and unquestionably in the written text of the New Testament, and are therefore still “Oral Torah”:

  • Concepts coming from Theological systems developed after the New Testament: Calvinism, Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology, Molinism, etc.
    • Prevenient Grace
    • Pre-Trib Rapture
    • The doctrine of Divine Simplicity

Hashkafa as an interface

While the written commandments of the Torah remain fixed and therefore most applicable to a specific geographic territory/time period, Hashkafah can act as an interface mediating the immutability of the Torah to the ever-changing circumstances of the modern world.

For example, Deuteronomy 22:8 commands the Israelites to build a “parapet” on the roof of every house. A “parapet” is a reference to a rail or barrier. The Torah enforces the practice of building a rail since, at the time, it was normal for people to spend time on the roof of their house. The parapet was a safety measure to ensure that a potentially fatal accident by falling off the edge could be avoided. While such a concern does not exist today (people no longer leisurely hang out on top of their roofs) the general imperative to keep conditions safe does, and will always exist.

Therefore, while this commandment as it is literally stated carries no practical value today, the Hashkafic principle behind it, the principle of the importance of safety is still valid and applicable in our day.

Exodus chapter 34, verse 27 in the English translation reads:

Then the LORD said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.”

In Hebrew, the words “In accord” literally say: “al pi” or “by the mouth.” When reflecting on the prohibitions regarding the “Oral Law” (It could not be preserved in writing) one can assume that in ancient Israel, the Oral Law took on a humble status relative to the written. However, the passage of Exodus 34:27 set the precedent for elevating the Oral law so that it became a subject of reverence in its own right.

“Rabbi Yochanan said, ‘God only created a covenant with the Jewish people for the sake of oral matters, as it says, ‘For in accord (… ‘by mouth’) with these things I formed a covenant with you and with Israel.’ – Talmud Gittin 60b

The interpretation: it is by the Oral law (“by the mouth”) that the covenant between God and Israel can remain lasting, and relevant, throughout time:

“Sinai was a one-time experience of God’s revelation to the Jewish people, and thus, the Written Torah, the product of that experience, is also ‘one-time’ in the sense that it must always remain precisely as it was when given…The Oral Torah, on the other hand, lives and breathes, and is renewed daily with new innovations…Halakhah allows for the continuation of the revelation at Sinai, creating a daily encounter with a God who is interested in every detail of man’s behavior…The framework of Halakhah allows for an ongoing encounter that accompanies on throughout life.” – The Narrow Halakhic Bridge, page 27

In other words, the Oral Torah contains the wisdom (theological innovations such as Halakhah and Hashkafah) for extracting the principles found in the written so that one can apply those principles as a guide for living in a Godly manner, in the here and now. Therefore, task of the modern-day religious Jew (and I would argue, for any God-fearing individual) is to always determine the best course of action for any situation, by reflecting on God’s standard and the principles contained therein:

“The encounter with God through the Halakhah occurs not only by fulfilling the Halakhah, but also by studying it; by the daily challenge of applying halakhic principles to reality and by the new halakhic rulings required by every different generation.” – The Narrow Halakhic Bridge, page 28

The practice is known as “Da’as Torah” (the knowledge of the Torah). In the Hebrew understanding, knowledge is more than the intellectual recognition of an idea. Knowledge is information applied. It is only when we practice what we preach, that we begin to engage with “knowledge.” Da’as Torah, is therefore the act of applying the Torah principles to everyday life circumstances. When a Jew is in doubt, they lean on the advice of a Torah expert, most often their local, or assigned Rabbi.

Da’as Torah

Throughout the day, whatever you are doing, ask yourself: “am I violating a Biblical principle?” Resolve to confine your actions within the behavior you know to be right, good, and Godly. However, do not rely on your own understanding. Instead, seek certainty by first confirming with scripture. Study the Torah to gain a sense of the “Spirit of the Torah” so that you may establish your own set of Hashkafic principles.

Think on the wisdom of the Torah daily.

When Joshua faced the task of leading Israel to the Promised land, God gave Joshua this word of advice:

“Be strong and very courageous. Be careful to obey all the law my servant Moses gave you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may be successful wherever you go. Keep this book of the Law always on your lips; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful.” – Joshua 1:7-8

The word translated as meditate is the Hebrew word Hagadah, meaning to rehearse in speech: “to speak, talk, utter or mutter.” God was instructing Joshua to keep the law always on his lips, meditating/speaking, saying it day and night in order to know it fully enough to prevent from breaking it. It was this practice, this unrelenting focus on the Torah that God tells Joshua would make him “prosperous and successful.”

Romans 6-8: The “law of the Spirit” and Spiritual maturity (Part 2)

The challenge with Paul’s Epistles, is that a comprehensive study requires tedious examination of specific concepts and terminology that can only be understood within the context of Paul’s writings as a whole. For this reason, when expounding on the epistles, I find that monumental effort is almost always spent to simply untangle the concepts from the rhetoric in order to offer a linear and coherent presentation. 

The Apostle Peter even writes that Paul is “hard to understand” and that as a result, his writings made him vulnerable to ridicule as many distorted the meaning of his words. In 2 Peter 3:16, Peter includes Paul’s epistles with mention of “scripture”, indicating that the Apostles had high regard for his letters. Jewish tradition had no contentions against believing that the scriptures could be read and interpreted more than one way, and that it was actually more fitting to believe that an infinitely complex God would inspire a Holy text with many layers of meaning. For this reason, the Scribes and Pharisees would reverently study the tiniest of details, down to even the significance of every letter in the Torah. Perhaps Paul deliberately intended for his writings to perplex the reader in order to force and inspire Christian believers to study with the same intensity. Speculation could be made, that Paul employed Rabinnic methods of layering, and encoding, in order to make his epistles worthy of inclusion into the sacred scriptures. 

If methods of encoding were indeed implemented, a “key” is therefore necessary in order to bypass the exhaustive trial and error process of reading over and over, comparing, referencing, etc. required in order to unlock the meaning that Paul intended. Even after much study, how are we to be certain that our conclusions are accurate? The truth is, little work and energy was spent in order to decipher Romans 6-8. It was relatively easy, and anyone with a rudimentary familiarity with Judaism would immediately recognize what Paul was trying to convey through his terms, “the law of the spirit” and the “law of sin”. Jewish tradition is replete with the study and mention of two forces that are believed to drive human behavior. The “Yetzer haTov” is the “righteous inclination”, the spiritual pull that leads us to strive to obey God. The “Yetzher haRa” is the opposing force, the “evil inclination” that leads us away from God and into sin. 

This connection was not lost on Dr. Roy Blizzard, author and president of Biblical Scholars Inc. an Austin-based corporation dedicated to Biblical research. Regarding Paul and this Jewish concept of the evil impulse/inclination, Blizzard writes:

“We see something of this idea of the evil impulse with Paul in one of his statements when he says, “The good that I would do, I do not do, and the bad things I do not want to do, I find myself doing”…Much of what we attribute to demons is simply the yetzer hara and, if we want victory…over those things that afflict and hinder…[we must bring them] into subjection to the yetzer hatov [the good inclination].” – Dr. Roy B. Blizzard, Mishnah and the Words of Jesus, pages 43-44.

Since Paul was writing to primarily Greek-speaking gentile communities, mention of the “Yetzer haRa” or “Yetzer haTov” would have only confused his audience. He therefore tailored his approach, and translated the concepts into Greek the best way he could. 

I submit that the “key”, the template to unlocking Paul’s epistles is Jewish tradition. When a comparison is made between Jewish tradition and the terms that appear to have been invented by Paul in the Greek, the results are astonishing. For every obscure term in Greek, a Hebrew match can be made:

  • The law of the spirit = Yetzer haTov
  • The law of sin = Yetzer haRa
  • The flesh = Nefesh
  • The Holy Spirit = Divine Neshamah

The “Two inclinations”

The Hebrew text of Genesis 2:7 contains an apparent misspelling. This is both intriguing and catastrophic since a true error in Holy scripture can only represent a monumental threat to the doctrine of its infallibility. Therefore, when textual variances appear, the approach employed by the sages has been to assume that all apparent inconsistencies are instead deliberate, allowed by God’s providence in order to communicate important insights. Record of discussion regarding Genesis 2:7 is preserved in the Jewish compilation of tradition, known as the Talmud:

Nahman b. R. Hisda expounded: What is meant by the text, Then the Lord God formed [va-yetzer] man? [The word va-yetzer] (Gen. 2:7) is written with two yods, to show that God created two inclinations, one good (tov) and the other evil (ra). – Talmud, Ber. 61a

The Hebrew word for “formed” (Yetzer) is usually spelled with one Yod. However, in this specific passage, the word is equipped with one extra Yod. According to the tradition as received by Rabbi Nahman, the two Yods signified the formation of two inclinations within man, one good (In Hebrew, “Yetzer Tov”) and the other evil (in Hebrew, “Yetzer Ra”). 

This obscure term “Yetzer” meaning “formation” appears again in Genesis 6:5. The way it is applied in the verse only substantiates its association with the spiritual predisposition of man:

“The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination [Yetzer] of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.” – Genesis 6:5

The word is used the same way in Genesis 8, to express the dismal condition of the human heart:

“The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination [Yetzer] of the human heart is evil from his youth. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.” – Genesis 8:21

According to tradition, man’s condition is actually more severe than what the scripture indicates on the surface level of the text: 

“He replied: “for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Gen 8:21) R. Yadan adds that the words “from his youth” mean: from the day of his birth.” – Jerusalem Talmud, Barakhot 3:5

Yet still, over time, the tradition evolved. As found in one of the “minor tractates” written after the compilation of the Talmud, the Yetzer Ra is said to begin to emerge within a baby while still in the mother’s womb:

“The yetzer hara is 13 years older than the yetzer hatov. While still in the mother’s womb, the yetzer hara begins to develop in a person. If he begins to violate the Sabbath, nothing stops him. If he commits murder, nothing stops him. If he goes off to another sin, nothing stops him.” – Avot d’Rabbi Natan 16:12

The somber declaration made by King David now makes sense in light of the Old Testament and ancient Jewish belief:

“Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” – Psalm 51:5

The narrative of the “Apocryphal” book of 2 Esdras (found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Catholic canon) claims authorship by Ezra. However, Scholarly consensus places its origin to around 70 to 218 AD. The text elucidates that the evil inclination (Yetzer Ra) originated at the moment of Adam’s transgression. The sin is said to have resulted in a permanent spiritual defect, a “wicked heart” that we all inherit when we are born:

And yet tookest thou not away from them a wicked heart, that thy law might bring forth fruit in them. For the first Adam bearing a wicked heart transgressed, and was overcome; and so be all they that are born of him. Thus infirmity was made permanent; and the law (also) in the heart of the people with the malignity of the root; so that the good departed away, and the evil abode still. So the times passed away, and the years were brought to an end: then didst thou raise thee up a servant, called David: Whom thou commandedst to build a city unto thy name, and to offer incense and oblations unto thee therein. When this was done many years, then they that inhabited the city forsook thee, And in all things did even as Adam and all his generations had done: for they also had a wicked heart. – (2Esdras 3:20-26)

Similar to the passage in 2 Esdras, the Talmud also intimates that a spiritual “pollution” was introduced after the fall. However, rather than assigning blame to Adam, the pollution is said to have been introduced to humanity through Eve:

“When… [the serpent deceived] Eve, he imposed pollution in her.” – Talmud, Shabbat 146a.

If you’re noticing that the steady presentation of Jewish sources seems to inch closer and closer to the Christian territory of “original sin”, you are correct. For this reason, the topic has historically served as a theological battleground for fierce debates between religious Jews and Christian missionaries. Despite the mounting evidence for a Jewish origin of the doctrine of original sin, Jewish opponents in “polemic” works were relentless against it. According to Daniel Lasker, in his book “Jewish Philosophical Polemics Against Christianity in the Middle Ages” the arguments found in the medieval polemic works against original sin should not be considered trustworthy, but instead, represent less than honest accounts of official Jewish doctrine:

“Polemical compositions were intended as polemics, a genre for which objective truth is one of the first casualties…if one wants to know a particular author’s view on a subject, a polemical treatise is the last place one would look to determine it. When this literature is analyzed without due recognition of “polemic license,” the research runs the risk of reading too much into the texts…” 

In light of this, ordained Rabbi, director of education for NCSY and instructor at Yeshiva University David Bashevkin writes:

“Given this warning, it is not surprising that the vehemence with which the doctrine of original sin was opposed within polemic literature may not actually reflect its patent rejection within Jewish sources. In fact, as pointed out by Lasker, the doctrine of original sin “was not entirely foreign to Judaism” as some polemics would otherwise suggest.” – Sin and failure in Jewish thought, page 23.

Interestingly, the more mystically inclined students of Lurianic Kabbalah demonstrated a more favorable disposition to the subject, and even expanded on themes that closely aligned with the Christian position:

“Certain Kabbalists taught a doctrine of original sin, in that Adam’s transgression gave evil an active existence in the world. The entire creation became flawed by this first sin.” – Lasker, Jewish Philosophical Polemics, 226n19.

A Jewish parable (known as a Midrash) presents Israel as petitioning God, tired and broken from repeated failure and defeat before the Yetzer Ra. God provides a brief answer to quell their turmoil. One day they will indeed enjoy a time of liberation:

Israel complained: “If a potter leaves a pebble in the clay, and the jar leaks, is the potter not responsible? You have left the Evil Inclination in us. Remove it, and we will do Your will!” God replied,”This I will do in the time to come. [in the Messianic era]” – [Exodus Rabbah 46.4] 

12th-century rabbi, Moses Ben Nachman, also known as “Ramban” writes:

“This following subject is very apparent from Scripture: Since the time of Creation, man has had the power to do as he pleased, to be righteous or wicked…But in the days of the Messiah, the choice of their [genuine] good will be natural; the heart will not desire the improper and it will have no craving whatever for it…Man will return at that time to what he was before the sin of Adam, when by his nature he did what should properly be done, and there were no conflicting desires in his will…” – Ramban, Deut 29.

Zechariah 12 is considered one of the most significant Messianic prophecies, paramount for building a biblical case for proving Christ. The prophecy of Zechariah 12 builds until it reaches its zenith, “And they shall look on me because they have thrust him through, and they shall mourn for him as one mourns for his only son.” Surprisingly, religious Jews also share the same interpretation of this event. The prophecy is an account of the Jewish people beholding the visage of the Messiah, risen back to life from death due to the lethal event of being “thrust” through:

“What was the reason for the mourning [to which reference is made in Zechariah’s statement]?…One said, “It is on account of the Messiah, the son of Joseph, who was killed.” – Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah 52a.

This account continues:

“And the other said, ‘It is on account of the evil inclination, which was killed.’”

If this is so, Why should this event bring the Jewish people to weep? 

“In the time to come, the Holy one, blessed be he, will bring the evil inclination and slay it before the righteous and before the wicked. To the righteous the evil inclination will look like a high hill, and to the wicked it will appear like a hair-thin thread. These will weep [the righteous] and those will weep [the wicked]. The righteous will weep, saying ‘How could we ever have overcome a hill so high as this one!’ The wicked will weep, saying, ‘How could we not have overcome a hair-thin thread like this one!’ And so too the Holy One, blessed be he, will share their amazement, as it is said, ‘Thus says the Lord of Hosts. If it be marvelous in the eyes of the remnant of this people in those days, it shall also be marvelous in my eyes.’ (Zechariah 8:6).” – ibid

Which is it? Is the prophecy an account of the people weeping because of the appearance of the resurrected Messiah, or are they weeping because of the death of the evil inclination slain before them? The two should not be considered separate or opposing. In fact, they are two ways of viewing the same event. The arrival of the Messiah also brings about the end of the evil inclination.

Found within the book of Isaiah, is an intriguing prophecy similar in its description to the account of the Messiah seizing the Yetzer Ra from within man, and presenting it before the nations, brutally beaten and weakened before them:

But you will be brought down to Sheol, to the lowest depths of the Pit. Those who see you will stare; they will ponder your fate: “Is this the man who shook the earth and made the kingdoms tremble, who turned the world into a desert and destroyed its cities, who refused to let the captives return to their homes?” – Isaiah 14:15-17

This lines up perfectly with New Testament prophecy in the book of Revelation. At the advent of the millennial reign of Christ, the devil (the spiritual origin of the evil inclination) will be seized and bound for a thousand years:

“And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3 He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended.” – Revelation 20:1-3

This study is nowhere near a comprehensive and complete presentation of the Jewish concepts of the Yetzer Ra, and the Yetzer Tov. I do believe, that enough material has been shown to justify, at the very least, directing some consideration to the association I’m wanting to make between Paul’s writings and Jewish tradition, and pursuing it further.

The “Nefesh”

All sensation felt and experienced through the body is regarded as occurring within the realm of the “Nefesh.” Although it can be considered generally correct to consider the Nefesh as a reference to the physical body, the use of the word in the Hebrew language and in Judaism hints of the need to look deeper. Found within Jewish legal discourses, is a principle known as “Pikuach Nefesh”, derived from this passage in the Torah:

“You shall therefore keep my statutes and my ordinances, which if a man does, he shall live in them: I am HaShem.” – Leviticus 18:5

Since the prime concern behind the Torah is life, the sages made the concession that when facing circumstances of mortal danger, it’s permissible to violate the Torah if absolutely required for survival. In addition, one may break the Torah for the sake of preserving the life of another. Through the inclusion of the word Nephesh in the phrase, “Pikuach Nefesh” meaning “to save a life” the term is elevated to encompass not just the body, but the vital life behind it. This is done out of deference to the established use of Nefesh in scripture.

According to the Torah, the life of the body is contained in the blood:

“For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.”  – Leviticus 17:11

When referencing the original source text in Hebrew, the word translated into English as “life,” is Nefesh. 

“For the life [Nefesh] of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement…” – Leviticus 17:11

The English word “life” is quite general, but “Nefesh” in contrast, is complex and nuanced. For this reason, English translations have always struggled to capture the context and meaning behind the varying uses of the word, in order to yield a proper translation in English. The result has lead to another association with “Nefesh” that scripture never intended:

“For the life [Nefesh] of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls[Nefesh]: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” 

According to the Hebrew, the blood of a sacrificial animal is shed in order to atone for the Nefesh. However, in the English as it is translated, sacrifice was prescribed as a method of atoning for the soul. The modern use of the word “soul” carries with it a sense of the spiritual aspect of man; the metaphysical body that contains our consciousness after the expiration of the physical body. When we read the English, we are led to inherit a concept that scripture never intended: sacrifice was implemented as a method of spiritual regeneration. The book of Hebrews contests against this in no uncertain terms:

“It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” – Hebrews 10:4

The author makes a strategic contrast between the limited benefit of sacrifice and the greater cleansing offered by Jesus as the High Priest of the spiritual priesthood of Melchizedek:

“For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that their bodies are clean, 14how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself unblemished to God, purify our consciences from works of death, so that we may serve the living God!” – Hebrews 10:13-14

In accordance with scripture, the author explains that the Temple procedures only restored purity to the physical body. To reiterate Leviticus 17:11, sacrifice atones for the Nefesh (the life of the body) and not the soul. Yet when Jesus offered himself, he became the way through which man is internally cleansed. While animal sacrifice atoned for the body, atonement for the soul can only occur through faith and repentance. This was firmly understood within Judaism:

“Neither the sin offering, nor the guilt offering, nor the Day of Atonement can bring expiation without repentance” (t. Yoma 5:9)

When the Levitical priest collected the blood of an animal and spilled it on the altar, this procedure was followed under the understanding that the substance involved was not just the blood, but the Nefesh. By spilling the blood on the altar, the priest was ultimately presenting the Nefesh of the animal before God. 

Before an animal is presented to the priests for slaughter, the Torah provides the following instruction:

“He shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him.” – Leviticus 1:4

This act symbolized a transfer of identity from the guilty individual, to the animal. The animal on the level of the Nefesh, now represented the Nefesh of the sinner. When the priest slaughtered the animal and presented its blood, in God’s eyes the priest was presenting the Nefesh of the man guilty of sin. As the flesh of the animal burned on the altar, the smoke would rise to appear as if it were ascending to God. This was an illustration of the Nefesh of the sinner, receiving its “atonement” and ascending to God. 

The Hebrew word for sacrifice is “Korban”. The root of that word is “korav” which means “to come near”. The etymology of the word suggests that sacrifice is a method of “coming near/drawing near” to God. However, if the sacrificial system only treated the physical and not the spiritual, to what of God specifically did the Israelite draw near to? The Israelite did not seek closeness with God internally, the way that we do as Christians with the indwelling Holy Spirit. The Israelites instead would come near to God’s presence externally, dwelling within the Temple:

“To ‘draw near’ to God is to enter into communion with him; it implies entering his very presence. Inasmuch as his presence resided in the Tabernacle and Temple on earth, the worshipper was able to draw near and enter that presence through the offering of a korban – something brought near. Though the worshipper was able to draw near to God within the Temple on earth through means of sacrificial blood of animals, such blood never availed to bring him near to God in the eternal sense of life and death and the world to come…it did not avail him the same privilege in the True temple in heaven. The master brings us near to God in the heavenly Temple…” – “What about the Sacrifices?”, D. Thomas Lancaster, page 20. 

On the Old Testament feast day, known as “The day of atonement” the Torah commands the Israelites to go through a period of self-imposed “affliction”:

“It is a sabbath of solemn rest for you, and you shall afflict your souls. It is a statute forever.” – Leviticus 16:31 [KJV]

Again, the English translations fumble as they attempt, but fail, to translate the word Nefesh. Since all versions uniformly translate Nefesh as “soul” this yields the sense that the “affliction” is spiritual, like a period of depression or regret for sin. This has led some translations to take creative license by translating it as “humble yourselves” or “deny yourselves”. If the right understanding is applied, the meaning behind the statement is clear. Short of physical violence against one’s Nefesh (body), the best way to afflict the Nefesh is to fast. The phrase “INul Nefesh” translated as “afflicting the soul” appears a number of times in scripture, making it clear that the intended meaning is to fast for a period of time:

“I afflicted my soul with fasting; and my prayer returned into mine own bosom.” – Psalms 35:13

“…I wept, and afflicted my soul with fasting, that was to my reproach.” – Psalms 69:11

“Wherefore have we fasted, say they, and you see not? Wherefore have we afflicted our soul, and you take not notice?…” – Isaiah 58:3

In obedience to the commandment, the Jews would fast on this day. This is why the author of the book of Acts calls the Day of Atonement, the “day of the Jewish fast”:

“And we were there a long time, until even the day of the Jewish fast was past. And it was dangerous for a man to travel by sea, and Paul counseled them…” – Acts 27:9.

Similar to the way that Paul uses the term “flesh” in his epistles to imply carnality and base passions, the scriptures use the word Nefesh to communicate desire and appetite:

“And put a knife to your throat, if you be a man given to appetite [Nefesh].” – Proverbs 23:2-3

“For he satisfies the longing soul [Nefesh] and fills the hungry soul [Nefesh] with goodness.” – Psalms 107:9

“The full soul [Nefesh] loathes a honeycomb; but to the hungry soul [Nefesh] every bitter thing is sweet.” – Proverbs 27:7

“Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never satisfy their souls [Nefesh].” – Isaiah 56:11

There is nothing wrong with the body, and with satiating hunger, and seeking pleasure as long as these pursuits conform to God’s will and design. Our bodies require food for sustenance. By responding to hunger, our bodies are granted the energy to meet the various demands throughout the day for survival, protecting and providing for the family or doing the Lord’s work. However if eating is done in excess and without restraint, this leads to the sin of gluttony. Sex and procreation are allowed with God’s blessing under the institution of marriage, however, if practiced outside of the confines of marriage, in excess and without restraint, this is sexual immorality. 

It seems there is a force, driving the Nefesh to use the body as an expression for sin, and for working the body in ways God never intended. This spiritual force at work, pulling the strings and directing the Nefesh like a puppet, is known as the “Neshamah”.

The Neshamah

In the Genesis account of the creation of Adam, the Nefesh of Adam although formed, was not yet made alive and active until God implanted the “Neshamah” within it:

“Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath [Neshamah] of life, and the man became a living being [a living Nefesh].” – Genesis 2:7

The Neshamah in scripture is incredibly tantalizing. While Genesis 2 verse 7 identifies the Neshama as the vital spiritual component required for the Nefesh to become living, a true exposition of its nature is lacking. Absolutely no explanatory background is provided, with the exception of a few vague hints found within the Hebrew language. While the text indeed stands silent regarding descriptions that would please the modern ear inclined to a Greek paradigm of the soul, scripture does however, use the analogy of the breath as it’s chosen motif for expressing the elusive and invisible qualities involved. “Neshamah” is a cognate of the word “Nesheema” which literally means “breath.” The Neshamah, like the breath, is invisible. Furthermore, the Neshamah is also similar to the breath, since the body cannot remain alive without either. 

While the Neshamah is the spiritual agent providing the proverbial “breath” – representing the flow of life, the recipient in this exchange is the Nefesh. The word Nefesh comes from the root “Nafash” meaning to rest:

 “On the seventh day, [God] ceased work and rested (nafash).” (Exodus 31:17).

Therefore, the dynamic between the two as hinted in scripture and in the Hebrew language itself is one of giving and receiving. A picture is painted of spiritual life flowing from the Neshamah as it “blows” its breath of life into the Nefesh. When the breath is received, it comes to rest in the Nefesh as a container of that life force. The state of movement in between, as the breath leaves the Neshamah and before it enters to rest in the Nefesh, is represented by the Hebrew word “ruach” translated into English as “spirit”. 

The most prominent Rabbi of the 15th century, known as “the Holy Arizal” offers the following illustration of a glassblower to best explain the relationship between the Neshamah, Ruach and Nefesh:

“The process begins with the breath (Neshama) of the glassblower, blowing into a tube to form a vessel. This breath then travels through the tube as a wind (Ruach), until it reaches the vessel, forming it according to the desire of the glassblower, and there it comes to rest (Nefesh).” – Etz Chaim, Shaar TaNTA 5

Up until the fall, Adam operated at all times with unobstructed access to God’s Spirit mediated through the Neshamah. His every thought and action were therefore bolstered with the full measure of God’s glory and in complete harmony with the will of God. According to Nachmanides, leading medieval Jewish scholar from 1194-1270, Adam naturally conducted his actions according to God’s providence, just as celestial bodies can be observed to move in predetermined paths as dictated by God:

“He [Adam] did whatever was proper for him to do naturally, just as the heavens and all their hosts do – “faithful workers whose work is truth, and who do not change from their prescribed course.” – “Adam’s sin: it’s meaning and essence, in Temple portals:studies in Aggadah and Midrash in the Zohar, trans. Liat Keren (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2016), 56.

Much of Jewish tradition presents the pre-fall Adam as embodying such an intense level of spiritual illumination, he was barely confined to his physicality. Rabbi Mordekhai Yosef, founder of the Hasidic school of Izbica-Radzyn writes:

“…As the Zohar says, “The first man had nothing at all of this world,” and in the writings of the Holy Ari, before the sin, “he was barely anchored in this world.” After the sin, he became firmly placed in this world.” – Ora Wiskind-Elper, Wisdom of the heart: the teachings of Rabbi Ya’akov of Izbica-Radzyn (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2010), 185.

When Adam sinned, a spiritual death occurred. His Nefesh no longer received the breath of life from the Neshama. This represented a complete severance from spiritual life. The Nefesh of Adam was cut off from the Neshama.

According to scripture, the Nefesh requires the Neshama to remain living. If this is so, how was Adam able to remain alive after the fall?  

This is reconciled with the tradition that man possesses two souls, i.e. two Neshamas. The tradition is derived from Isaiah 57:16

For I will not contend forever, neither will I be always wroth: for the spirit should fail before me, and the souls which I have made.” 

Rabbi Chaim Miller offers the following explanation:

“The first half of this verse refers to ‘the spirit’ in the singular, suggesting that we are speaking here of a single individual. The verse then concludes that God placed in that one person ‘souls (plural) which I have made.’” –  

It’s further taught that these two souls represent separate, and independent forces at work within the individual:

“These are two complete, independent souls in their own right, and not merely levels within a single soul.” – The Tanya, Rabbi Shneur Zalman

As described in Genesis 2:7, the Neshama, the “breath of life” is breathed into Adam from God directly:

“Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath [Neshamah] of life, and the man became a living being [a living Nefesh].” – Genesis 2:7

According to Nachmanides (Ramban), the Neshama as emerging from God’s breath, his own lungs so to speak, is nothing less than a piece of God himself:

“This verse hints for us the virtue of the soul…It states that ‘[God] breathed into his nostrils the soul of life,’ to inform you that (the soul) is not derived from the elements…rather, it is the spirit of God.”- Ramban, commentary to Genesis 2:7

The Neshama that came directly from God, as a piece of the divine to reside within man is known in Jewish tradition as the “Divine soul”. The Divine Soul is the spiritual origin of the Yetzer Tov. God through the medium and influence of the Divine Soul works to curb the appetites of the Nefesh in order to bring it and each individual into subjection to his will.

The second Neshama which is believed to sustain the life of man in his rebellion against God, is known as the “animal soul”. The Animal Soul in opposition to the Divine Soul, fights to liberate the Nefesh from restraint in order to perpetuate man’s rebellion against God. 

The two wage war within man at all times, seeking to dominate the other and ascertain control of the physical body:

Just as two kings wage war over a town, which each wishes to capture and rule, that is to say, to dominate its inhabitants according to his will, so that they obey him in all that he decrees for them, so do the two souls— the Divine and the vitalising animal soul…wage war against each other over the body and all its limbs. – (Tanya Chapter 9)

The Essenes

Rabbinic Judaism did not hold ill feelings towards the inner “adversary” (the Yetzer Ra) but rather, they regarded the evil inclination as a necessary stumbling block placed in our path for the sake of training in righteousness. In stark contrast, the Essenes reserved a much more grim view of the human condition. They maintained that the evil inclination was a spiritual contamination introduced by the “spirit of falsehood” – a spirit that would manipulate its unwitting hosts, by assuming control of their Animal Neshamah. All those captured by this spirit would fall captive to the Angel of Darkness:

“The authority of the Angel of Darkness embraces the governance of all wicked people, so they walk in the paths of darkness.” – The Dead Sea Scrolls, page 130

Righteousness was believed to originate in the “habitation of light” while evil deeds emerge from the “Fountain of Darkness”:

“He created humankind to rule over the world, appointing for them two spirits in which to walk until the time ordained for his visitation. These are the spirits of truth and falsehood. Upright character and fate originate with the Habitation of light; perverse, with the fountain of darkness.” – Dead Se Scrolls, Michael wise, Martin Abegg, Edward Cook, page 129

The “Prince of Light” holds authority over all righteous:

“The authority of the Prince of Light extends to the governance of all righteous people; therefore, they walk in the paths of light.” – page 130

The Essene language: light, darkness, truth, falsehood can be identified in John’s epistles.

“This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all[b] sin.” – 1 John 5-7

Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person…Yet I am writing you a new command; its truth is seen in him and in you, because the darkness is passing and the true light is already shining. Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness. Anyone who loves their brother and sister lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble. But anyone who hates a brother or sister is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness. They do not know where they are going, because the darkness has blinded them. – 1 John 2:4,8-11

It’s also clear that John was in agreement with the Essene position, that those who continue to sin are under the control of the “Angel of Darkness”- or the Devil:

The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. 10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister. – 1 John 3:8-10

The Essenes attributed the name of “Belial” to the angel of darkness:

“…The wicked acts of the children of Israel, all their guilty transgressions and sins committed during the dominion of Belial.” – page 127

This is why Paul writes:

“What harmony is there between Christ and Belial?” – 2 Corinthians 6:15

If the Apostles did adhere to the notion of an evil and righteous inclination, the writings of John serve to cement their sympathies with the Essene position. In the Essene fashion, John writes as if the stakes involved are a matter of life or peril. The war waging within was considered a reflection of a larger cosmic battle between the forces of light and darkness – God and the Devil, and how we behave determines our place and to which side we belong. The Apostle John was emphatic that we exercise vigilance in our behavior, to remain in the light.


More to come…

Torah

On the day of June 28, 2017, the news reported a man in Arkansas arrested for destroying a monument of the 10 commandments with his car. Incriminating evidence found online unwittingly posted by the perpetrator himself helped the authorities identify him. A video was posted of the driver revving his engine, screaming “freedom!” before ramming his car right through the 10 commandments. Ironically, a Christian song can be heard playing in the background before all the noise of the crash. This was not an act of defiance by an Atheist or member of an opposing religion. The individual responsible was a Christian!

It is my intent that by the end of this post, the reader would know that only a gross misunderstanding of Old Testament law could motivate a Christian to commit such an act of aggression against it.

The Purpose of the Torah

While the Torah does indeed function according to the ways as described by Paul in his epistles; I would like to stress that his teachings on the Torah represent the deeper revelations of the Torah not explicitly found in the text. This is why Paul goes to such length to describe it. In contrast, Paul entirely avoids making such fervent discourse on the teachings that the Jews would have considered foundational and obvious.

The text of Exodus chapter 19 contains a curious focus on the number three:

In the third month… it came to pass on the third day… that Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet with God… – Ex. 19:1, 16-17

Jewish commentary elaborates:

A Galilean scholar lectured before Rabbi Chisda: “Blessed be the Merciful One who gave a three-fold Torah [consisting of the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings] to a three-fold people [consisting of Priests, Levites and Israelites] through a third-born [Moses, born after Aaron and Miriam] on the third day in the third month.” – Talmud, Shabbat 88a

Triads can be identified in Jewish traditional prayer, Jewish “Aggadah” or wisdom sayings, and as shown, in the text of the Torah itself. Judaism has no shortage of triads. In keeping with Ecclesiastes, it has been used to represent completion, stability, and strength:

A cord of three strands is not easily broken. – Eccl. 4:12

Considering the above, it seems that an exposition of at least three purposes of the Torah is sufficient for a solid understanding of the Torah:

  • The Torah is a record of a treaty made between God and Israel
  • The Torah is the constitution of the theocratic nation of Israel
  • The Torah makes Israel Holy for the Holy land

All three points serve to stress another triad:

The Nation of Israel – Torah – The Holy land

The Nation of Israel is inseparable from its constitution: the Torah. The Nation and the Torah, are in turn inseparable from the land.

The Torah is a record of a treaty made between God and Israel

When Israel entered into the Mosaic Covenant, God became their King:

“Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel…” – Isaiah 44:6

The terms of the Covenant were written by Moses in the “Book of the Covenant” and the 10 commandments were carved on two tablets of stone. The distinction would not only specially hallow the 10 commandments, but they served a different purpose. One that scholars have not been privy to, until now. The tablets were used to represent what has been discovered and defined as a “Suzerain Treaty.” The Bible Knowledge Commentary of the Old Testament, page 260 defines the treaty as:

“When a king (a Suzerain) made a treaty with a vassal country”

William Shakespeare uses the term “Leige Lord” to refer to the supreme authority of a king above other lesser kings owing fealty and allegiance as vassals.

In the ancient near east, treaties between kings were common. The Hittite empire extended into modern-day Syria and had developed the practice of entering into treaties to establish smaller vassal states. However archeological evidence of this was not found until 1906 and publication of this evidence wasn’t available until the 1930. It wasn’t until the 1950’s that scholars noticed a connection:

“What captured the Biblicists, starting in the 1950’s, was the similarity of the forms of these treaties to the form of various presentations of God’s covenant with Israel, including, predominately, the narrative of Exodus 19-20 culminating in the proclamation of the Ten Commandments.” – How to read the Bible, James L. Kugal

The Mosaic covenant joined the nation of Israel as a vassal state in submission to the authority of a greater kingdom, the kingdom of Heaven! The nation of Israel along with its territory was annexed into the Kingdom. A loose modern-day example can be found in the “Crown” of Britain. The same way the commonwealth nations were made subservient to the monarch, the nation of Israel was placed under the dominion and rulership of heaven:

The Crown
Monarch of England Commonwealth Nations
The Kingdom of Heaven

King of Heaven (YHVH)

“Suzerain King”

The Nation/Land of Israel

Lesser king and “vassal state”

Dr. Meshulam Margaliot, author of the book “What was written on the two tablets?” explains that tradition asserts two possibilities for the ten commandments:

“In the Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael (Tractate de-ba-Hodesh 5) we read: “How were the Ten Commandments given? Five on one tablet and five on the other. ‘I am the Lord’ written across from ‘You shall not murder’…This is according to R. Hanina b. Gamaliel, but the Sages say ten on one tablet and ten on the other. (Horowitz-Rabin ed., p. 232, and parallel versions listed there). The second opinion, that of the Sages, essentially means that the Ten Commandments were given in double form.”

The author sided with the second explanation offered: that the Ten Commandments were in “Double form”, two copies of ten. The Double form theory would make sense in light of Suzerain treaties. In a Suzerain Treaty, both parties would hold a copy of the agreement. God, however, swearing by his name had no need for a copy in order to remember, therefore Israel kept both copies and stored them in the Ark of the Covenant.

The Torah is the constitution for the theocratic nation of Israel

The Torah does not offer a definitive value regarding the total number of commandments. Similarly, the task of differentiating one command from another has proven difficult. It all depends on the conditions one chooses to define a law. The Rambam in his work, the “Sefer HaMitzvos” lists 14 conditions he used to determine a distinct “law” from a general Biblical injunction.

Tradition maintains that the Torah consists of 613 laws total. This is derived from the Hebrew word itself. The numerical value of the word Torah (when the value of each letter is added) amounts to 611. The Rabbi’s regarded 611 as accounting for every law with the exception of 2.

Commandments one and two of the Ten Commandments are written in the first-person tense:

“[Commandment 1] I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. [Commandment 2] Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

It should be noted that contrary to the Christian rendering, Judaism regards the statement “I am the Lord thy God…” as the first commandment. The logic is, one must first submit to God as King before any other law could be followed:

“God…[as] king… tells his subjects that before he gives them his laws and ordinances, they must first accept him as their ruler and believe in him. Belief in one God is a prerequisite for all the other mitzvot.” – The Mitzvot, The commandments and their rationale, Abraham Chill, page30

God spoke the first two commandments. Since God himself is speaking, he introduces the first commandment with “I am” and finishes the second commandment with “me.” When these two commandments are added to 611, the total is 613.

“The numerical value assigned to the letters of the word Torah is 611 not counting ‘I Am’ and ‘you shall have no other God’s’ since these came from the mouth of the Almighty.” Talmud, Makkot 24A.

Verse 19 of Exodus 20 states that the people pleaded for Moses to speak on behalf of God, or in their words: “lest we die.” According to tradition, God was only able to speak two commandments. Had the people permitted, he would have uttered the full ten. Remarkably, when the ten commandments are translated properly (different English versions provide incorrect variations) God does indeed only use the first-person tense twice.

“And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the voice of the shofar, and the mountain smoking. And when the people saw, they trembled, and stood afar off.” – Exodus 20:18

The Hebrew word for “thunderings” is “qolot” which does mean loud sounds, but can also mean “voices”. This leads to the bizarre reading: “And all the people saw the voices…” A midrash explains:

“They saw what is ordinarily heard and they heard what is ordinarily seen.”- Midrash Lekach Tov, Rashi cited at Chabad.org. Yitro: Parsha in-depth, Chabad.org.

According to Exodus 12:38, a “mixed multitude” followed Israel out of Egypt. This means that in addition to Israelites, Egyptian converts and members of other nations would have been present at Mount Sinai. The belief is that everyone, even the non-Hebrew speaking members of the mixed multitude saw and understood the “voices”. A midrash states that God’s voice split into every language (the Midrash count is 70 languages) so that all the people could understand:

“R. Johanan said that G-d’s voice, as it was uttered, split up into seventy voices, in seventy languages, so that all the nations should understand.” – Exodus Rabbah 5:9

Another Midrash from the “Exodus Rabbah” summarizes the event, making it clear what was in fact was soo terrible that the multitude had to silence God before he could finish:

“When G-d gave the Torah on Sinai, He displayed untold marvels to Israel with His voice. What happened? G-d spoke and the Voice reverberated throughout the world. . . It says: And all the people perceived the thunderings (Ex. 20:15). Note that it does not say “the thunder” [qol], but “the thunderings.” [qolot]. Wherefore R. Johanan said that G-d’s voice, as it was uttered, split up into seventy voices, in seventy languages, so that all the nations should understand. When each nation heard the Voice in their own vernacular their souls departed, save Israel who heard but who were not hurt.” – Exodus Rabbah 5:9, Soncino Press Edition

The Ten Commandments and the Torah

Many Christians have posited that a distinction exists between the 10 commandments and the remaining 603 of the Torah. The truth is, they are one in the same.

The ten commandments can be regarded as an expansion of two principles: to love God, and to love our neighbor. The first 5 deal with how God wishes for Israel to express love to him:

  1. Worship God only
  2. No Idolatry
  3. Do not take the Lord’s name in vain
  4. Keep the Sabbath Holy
  5. You shall honor your Parents

The last 5 deal with how Israel/humanity should express love to one another:

  1. You shall not murder
  2. You shall not commit adultery
  3. You shall not steal
  4. You shall not bear false witness
  5. You shall not Covet

To indicate the even split dividing the first five commandments from the last five, a symmetrical relationship between the two categories (love God, love neighbor) can be found when commandment 1 is compared to commandment 6, commandment 2 with 7, and so on:

Worship God only You shall not murder
No Idolatry You shall not commit adultery
Do not take the Lord’s name in vain You shall not steal
Keep the Sabbath day Holy You shall not bear false witness
You shall honor your Parents You shall not covet

 

“…murder is an injury to God whose image man is, apostasy is equivalent to marital infidelity, stealing will lead to a false oath, the Sabbath violator attests falsely that God did not create the world in six days and rest on the seventh, and the person who covets his fellow person’s wife will end by fathering a child who rejects his true parent and honors another.” – https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-ten-commandments

Two principles: love God, love neighbor, lead to 10. In turn, the 603 remaining commandments ultimately represent a much greater expansion, delineating in greater detail how to love God and love our neighbor in specific ways.

The Constitution

We live in a government where Church and State are distinct. When religion is discussed, our society as a whole is entirely removed from the reality of the content being discussed. The consequences of a debate, if one is proven right or wrong, are not far-reaching. The significance is private to each individual.

The opposite was the case for the ancient Israelite. For the Israelite, religious law was no different from Civil law. The law of the land was the Torah. Religious discussion was tantamount to a court case. The religious experts were lawyers. The constitution was the Torah.

The ten commandments are similar to the 7 Articles of our constitution. The 603 are similar to the 27 amendments:

The American Constitution
7 Articles 27 Amendments
The Torah
10 Commandments 603 Mitzvot (laws)

America is inseparable from its Constitution. Remove the Constitution, and America loses all that it stands for. It loses its identity and the principles that justified its formation. The same is true of the nation of Israel. The Torah and the nation of Israel go hand in hand.

The Torah makes Israel Holy for the Holy land

The commandments (in Hebrew: Mitzvot) when codified, are referred to as the “Taryag” Mitzvot. “Taryag” itself, yields no real meaning. The word is simply used to designate that the system accounts for 613 commandments (the numerical value of the letters add up to 613).

The first known effort to establish a system of codification shows up no earlier than the “Gaonic period” (second half of the 8th Century). A period of uncertainty persisted until tradition had consolidated the Taryag Mitzvot into one main system:

  • the “Sefer HaMitzvos” a work completed by the “Rambam” (an acronym for Rabbi Moses ben Maimon) who lived between 1138 – 1204.

The Rambam utilized a set of 14 rules to arrive at his specific list of 613. In addition, he organized by way of two categories: positive commandments (“Thou shall…”) and negative commandments (“thou shalt not…”). Each commandment, once placed into a category, was sorted into one of ten groups.

Two more works were developed after Rambam, borrowing from the Mitzvot as outlined by the 14 rules:

  • The “Sefer HaChinuch” arranges each Mitzvot according to the order they appear the Torah.
  • The “Sefer HaMitzvos Hakatzar” organizes the Mitzvot into a shortened list excluding commandments that cannot be performed in exile, and without an active Temple.

The Taryag Mitzvot although inspired by tradition, is still a work founded by man. Without doubt, the 14 rules originate with the Rambam, and not with Moses. Discussion of any system imposed onto the text should be tempered by the way the Torah itself prefers to be organized.

The Torah makes mention of three main types of law:

  • Chukkim
  • Mishpatim
  • Edot

Chukkim: These are the laws relating to religious ritual/ceremony, such as sacrifice, Temple duties, and dietary restrictions. On the surface, they seem to lack clear sense, or purpose. They are known as “Shimiyot” or “irrational.” The Hebrew word “Chukkot/Chukkim” is connected to the notion of a divine decree. Implying that it should be done, if only for the sake of obeying God: “Do it because I say so.”

Mishpatim: Contrary to the Chukkim, Mishpat law is “Sichliyot” meaning rational. They relate to Civil law set in place to ensure order and harmony. The rules established, and the consequences meted, possess clear rationale and reflect principles that would benefit any secular society.

Edot: these laws represent a compromise between the two extremes of Chukkim (irrational) and Mishpatim (rational). Edot when performed, would appear to be Chukkim. However, they are made a category in their own right as a result of God assigning good reason for them. An example would be the wearing of blue “Tzitzit” tassels at the end of their garments. This would seem arbitrary without an explanation. The explanation provided is that the Tzitzit would remind Israel to obey the Torah.

The Chukkim

While scripture does on occasion intimate that God holds the nations responsible to maintain Justice (the purpose of the Mishpatim) there is no scriptural support to expect that God has, or ever will require the nations to observe the Chukkim.

The charge to obey the Chukkim is related to the great role and destiny that God has reserved exclusively for the nation of Israel. It seems God wished to make substantial in every way possible, for his plans to set Israel apart; to make Israel distinct, separate, and Holy.

While the nations have implemented the Mishpatim to varying degrees (some nations are more Just than others) only Israel performs the Chukkim.

Proof of this is evident in the Chukkim themselves:

  • Sacrifices can only be performed in the Temple, and the Temple resides in Jerusalem.
  • Only the Levitical Priests can officiate sacrifice and serve in the Temple.
  • The Feast Days require Sacrifice.
  • Many laws are connected to the agriculture of the land of Israel.

The Mosaic Covenant

Israel was elevated above all nations, and made “Holy” through the Mosaic Covenant:

You shall be holy to me, for I the LORD am holy and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine. – Leviticus 20:26

For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. – Deuteronomy 7:6

This is was for the purpose of initiating a process of sanctification for the Holy land:

But I said to you, “You will possess their land; I will give it to you as an inheritance, a land flowing with milk and honey.” I am the LORD your God, who has set you apart [sanctified you] from the nations. – Lev 20:24

While Israel is made Holy by the Mosaic Covenant, God places the responsibility of maintaining an ongoing process of sanctification/Holiness through obeying the Covenant terms required of them. Israel is therefore made Holy through the Covenant, and this sanctification is maintained through faithful obedience to its terms (the Chukkim and the Mishpatim).


For more information on the Chukkim/Mishpatim: The Ceremonial and Moral aspects of the Torah