The Oracles of God-The Jewish Advantage-A Messianic Discussion of Romans 3:1-2

by | Aug 21, 2021 | Blog, Podcasts

by Rod Thomas-The Messianic Torah Observer

The Oracles of God-The Jewish Advantage-A Discussion of Romans 3:1-2

 

Today’s discussion is entitled: “The Oracles of God—The Jewish Advantage–A Discussion of Romans 3:1-2. This will be a continuation of our long-running Paul and Hebrew Roots Series.

 

Looking Back Over This Series

 

And if you’ve been with us for any length of time, you may recall that we embarked on this general series about three years ago with the expressed purpose of unraveling some of the Apostle Paul’s more challenging and harder to understand passages. And we’ve certainly done that to some degree, having only just scratched the surface of the apostle’s body of writings. We still have a long way to go in our foray into the writings and teachings of Y’shua’s Apostle to the Gentiles.

 

Paul Touches Upon a Great Many Torah-Related Themes Throughout His Letters

 

And I would also mention that throughout the course of our study of Paul’s letters, we invariably touch upon a great many Torah-related subjects that enhance our understanding of Yah’s Words as it applies to the True Faith once delivered to the first century saints. Praise Yah!

 

Starting A Discussion of Romans Chapter 3

 

Now, in our last installment to this overall series, which was entitled “Paul on Physical Circumcision-A Question of One’s Jewishness Part 4,” we officially ended our examination of Romans chapter two. So, for this installment, we will begin a rather detailed examination of Romans chapter three (3). Our focus verses will be one (1) and (2).

 

Although most will not find this portion of our focus passage all that challenging or hard to understand, we will find that the overall implications, application, and significance of what Shaul was attempting to convey to his Roman Messianic readers to be eye opening.

 

The Questions to be Answered in this Discussion

 

So today we will attempt to answer the questions:

 

  1. How is being entrusted with the Oracles of God an advantage to the Jew and to physical circumcision? And,
  2. What does the Jew being entrusted with the Oracles of God have to do with us today?

 

Reread Romans Chapters One and Two

Now, what I need from you today is for you to carefully reread (with understanding) chapters one (1) and (2) of Shaul’s letter to the Roman Messianics. And I would ask that you, during your rereading of these two chapters, that you, with the guidance of the Ruach Kodesh (the Holy Spirit), outline in your minds the gist of what the apostle was attempting to convey to his Roman Messianic readers. And the reason I’m asking you to do this is because, as we move forward in our discussions of chapter three over this and the next several installments of this series, it is going to be crucial that we have a firm contextual understanding of the basic themes, concerns, and issues that Shaul was bringing to the attention of his readers.

 

What the Book of Romans Is and What it is Not

 

We must never forget that the cepher (or the letter) to the Roman Messianic assemblies is an ancient document, written by an ancient writer, in a dead language, specifically to an ancient assembly of Jewish and Gentile converts of the Way Movement (or the true Faith once delivered). And the author wrote this letter to the members of this ancient assembly for a reason: He was addressing issues, concerns and questions that were in some way brought to his attention. And those issues, concerns and questions he was addressing in this ancient document were in some way or another, impacting or affecting the wellbeing of the assemblies.

It must also be understood that contrary to the conventional wisdom of orthodox religiosity (or fundamental Christianity), the Book of Romans is NOT a church operation manual. It is everything that I just mentioned above, but it not meant to be an outline on how to structure and operate a church.

 

The Book of Romans Considered as Scripture

 

However, because Paul was led (or inspired) by the Ruach Kodesh to write this letter in response to the issues, concerns and questions that were germane to the Roman Messianic Assemblies as they were conveyed to him, Yehovah in His perfect and unfathomable wisdom, preserved this document for us, along with the rest of the apostolic writings, as a spiritual resource to aid us in our day-to-day walk in Mashiyach. Yes, we should treat this and the other apostolic writings as scripture. Thus, we should study them and glean from them the mysteries that are contained in Yah’s Torah and the teachings of our Master Yeshua HaMashiyach. But we must study and glean from these living, spiritual resources responsibly, prayerfully, and practically; and resist the urge to make these writings into things that they were never intended for. These sacred writings are not meant to supersede or replace Torah and the teachings of Y’shua our Master. They are meant instead to clarify and enhance our understanding of Torah and the teachings of Master Y’shua.

 

Paul’s Writing Style

 

So please reread chapters one (1) and two (2) and sort out in your minds the central themes, issues and concerns contained therein. And I’m asking you to do this because we are going to find that most of the elements contained in chapter three (3) emerge from or are directly linked to the issues, concerns, and questions the apostle outlined for his readers in the previous two chapters. For Shaul commonly goes back and forth in his letters to expound and or clarify statements he makes throughout his letters.

 

Our Focus Passage Reading

 

Now, our focus passage for today reads as follows:

 

(1) Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? (2) Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God (Rom. 3:1-2; ESV).

 

Let’s now break this passage down to get a better sense of what the apostle is saying here.

__________________________________________________

 

  1. Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?

 

Shaul, the brilliant Pharisee-trained Torah scholar that he was, anticipated the objections he was likely to receive from his Roman Messianic readers regarding anything having to do with the Jew and circumcision. For Shaul had just concluded (as Messianic Teacher and Commentator Tim Hegg describes) “leveling the [spiritual] playing field” that existed between the Jew and Gentile of his day. And that leveled [spiritual] playing field was that both the Jew’s and Gentile’s walk [or halachah] was to be founded upon an elect’s faith. So, if everything in a believer’s life was faith-dependent and faith-founded, then it would stand to reason that the Jew no longer held any advantage over the Gentile. For Shaul just finished showing everyone that the Jew and Gentile were on equal spiritual footing, such that “both were [now] covenant members by faith.”

 

The Religious Jew’s Reliance Was Upon His/her Jewishness

 

Now, recall from our four-part series within a series entitled: “A Question of One’s Jewishness” that the Jewish conventional wisdom of Shaul’s day was that Jews were saved by virtue of their Jewishness—their culture; their lineage; their religion or by their practicing Judaism; because of their Jewish biology; or their heritage. And the Judaizers who were making their way around the assemblies of Messiah at that time were promoting ritual circumcision for the newly converted Gentiles for purposes of making them into proselytes and admission into the Body of Messiah. To these, one’s faith in the elements of Judaism trumped one’s Faith in his or her covenant relationship with the Eternal. And this stood for both Gentile and Jew alike.

 

The Essentiality of a Faithful Obedient Covenant Relationship 

 

Torah reminds us that Yehovah established a covenant-based relationship with Yisra’el. And He chose her exclusively from among all the nation peoples of the earth (Gen. 18:19; Exo. 19:5-6; Deu. 4:32-37; 7:6; Amo. 3:2). Thus, Yehovah chose Yisra’el to be His special people. And as a sign of that chosen relationship, Yehovah gave Yisra’el the sign of physical circumcision. So for Shaul, the former esteemed and accomplished rabbi that he was, to take the position that Yisra’el no longer held a special place in the Eternal’s heart would essentially make him an anti-Torah, anti-Jewish advocate. Such a position would in a sense blaspheme the Name of Yehovah among Gentiles by insinuating that Yehovah was not a God who was faithful to His Word. And it is this concern that Shaul, at this juncture of his letter, was forced to address: The continued advantage of the Jew and Yehovah’s faithfulness despite the Jews’ unfaithfulness.

 

Paul Asks: What Then is the Jewish Advantage?

 

So Shaul proceeds to ask his Roman Messianic readers: What advantage (or “prerogative” or “superiority”) has the Jew, given all that I laid out earlier in this letter about the [religious] Jew?

 

What Does Paul Mean by Advantage?

 

“Advantage” or “value” is opheleia, which corresponds to the verb opheleo, which means to assign value or benefit to something (cf. 2:25). One way the ESV commentary suggests we look at this is: Is there any value for salvation [as it relates to the Jew and circumcision]? Contextually, I see this as a poor rendering or understanding, especially after the apostle’s previous diatribe of the religious Jew in chapter 2. But I guess it is one way of framing this question; at least from an orthodox, fundamental perspective.

 

Why Did God Choose Israel Over All Other Nation Peoples?

 

Deuteronomy 7:7 reveals that the Hebrews were “the fewest of all peoples,” yet Yehovah loved them, chose them and separated her (Yisra’el) out from all the other nation peoples of the world, to be a special possession unto Himself. In so doing, Yehovah entrusts His oracles (His Words) to her. No other nation peoples have Yehovah done this with (Psa. 147:19-20)

 

Understanding of Chapter 3 Requires a Review of Chapter 2

 

Understanding this whole 3rd chapter requires that we look back to chapter 2 where Shaul provides his readers a dissertation on the wrath of Yehovah that is to be poured out on sinful man (1-16—A Question of One’s Jewishness Part 1) –both Jew and Gentile alike. And with this backdrop in place, the apostle continues along in his diatribe by asking the rhetorical question: “What better are we Jews for all our advantages?” And he answers, “Much every way; chiefly, because (rather, first, that) unto them were committed the oracles of Yehovah.”

 

  1. Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the Oracles of Yehovah.

 

Shaul’s response to his own rhetorical question from verse one must be understood from a much larger spiritual context than what is written. His assertion that the Jew and circumcision has advantage in every respect cannot be understood from a raw perspective, especially after having spent the better part of the previous chapter laying out before his readers the case that the Jew is equal to every other human being on the planet. For as Shaul sees it (and by extension, we all should see it), all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of Yehovah (Rom. 3:23), which means that all (Jew and Gentile alike) are subject to Yehovah’s wrath and punishment (Romans 2).

 

The Elect’s Escape From the Coming Wrath

 

And we know that the only escape from that wrath and judgment is by way of establishing and walking in a faithful, obedient covenant relationship with Yehovah. Of this escape, Shaul writes:

 

“There is therefore no condemnation to them who in Y’shua the Mashiyach walk not after the flesh. For the Torah of the Spirit (that being the Ruach) of Life, which is in Y’shua the Mashiyach, has emancipated you from the instruction of sin and death” (Rom. 8:1-2; AENT). Praise Yah!

 

 

The Jewish Advantage Not Found in Her Jewishness But Something Else

 

So, getting back to the question of the Jew’s advantage: The Jew’s advantage is not founded upon privilege, preeminence or even priority over the Gentile. Instead, the advantage the Jew has is founded upon Yah’s love for her; and the purpose, mission and equipping of the Jew that came only about because of her chosen status. Yah loves Yisra’el. And Yah loves His human creation as well. Thus, Yah’s love for both segments of His human creation led to His blessing Yisra’el with the opportunity to bless all of humanity as was promised directly to Avraham. But Yah also hates sin (Ecc. 12:6). And because He is inherently holy and righteous in all His Ways, He is compelled to judge and rightly address the sin of every soul who has ever lived on this planet, whether they be a Jew or a Gentile. Again, for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of Elohim (Rom. 3:23).

 

Jewish Advantage Founded Upon the Oracles of God

 

One advantage the Jew has in comparison to the rest of humanity is founded in Yehovah entrusting His Words—His oracles–to his beloved Yisra’el. And it stands to safely reason that these oracles include Torah, the various covenant promises made to Yisra’el, the instructions in righteousness as recorded in the whole of the Tanach, and most importantly, the promises tied directly and indirectly to the coming and personal ministry of Mashiyach as foretold by Yah’s set-apart prophets of old. All these were entrusted to the safekeeping of the Hebrew nation and peoples. Consequently, when we look a little deeper into what that entrusting of Yah’s oracles really entailed, we not only better understand the sacred, spiritual mantle that Yah placed over His people within the framework of His great plan of salvation, restoration, and redemption, we also better understand what Yehovah expects of us today as His elect.

 

The Jews Successfully Preserved God’s Words

 

And despite their many failures, Yisra’el has been successful in preserving Yah’s oracles for the benefit and ultimate salvation of any who would be Yehovah’s child.

 

Hegg quotes from Cranfield’s Commentary on Romans:

 

“The Gentiles, when they attain to faith, can in a way only be their [that being the Jews’] guests. It must remain at this: ‘Salvation comes from the Jews’” (Joh. 4:22).

 

Yah’s Faithfulness Behind the Jewish Advantage

 

Much of the halachah (which includes some Jewish traditions and the overall keeping of Yah’s instructions in righteousness) of our Faith must be attributed fully in Yah’s faithfulness, and in part to Yisra’el’s being the trustee of Yah’s oracles for millennia. So it wasn’t just the entrusting of the Words of Elohim to the Hebrew nation that serves as a manifest advantage of the Jew, but also the example the Jew provided us in terms of their successes and failures in walking out—in their living out those lively, sacred oracles of our Heavenly Father. Praise Yah!

 

The Mantle of the Oracles of God Passed Down

 

And that entrusting of Yah’s oracles is still being written in us today! Are you with me my friend?

 

Stewardship of God’s Oracles or Something More?

 

As it relates to Shaul’s mentioning of the Jew being entrusted with Yehovah’s oracles as an advantage or privilege she had over other nation peoples, it must be clearly understood that Yehovah’s entrusting of His oracles to the Jew did not imply Jewish ownership of said oracles. The entrusting Shaul writes about here has to do with stewardship and the inherent responsibility to live and walk in those entrusted oracles for all the world to see so that Yehovah may receive the Glory and Honor He so richly deserves. Thus, within this entrusting of Yah’s oracles to Yisra’el, she would ideally become a light to the world. And this light-bearer mantle that Yisra’el was tasked with becoming would later be emphasized and passed on by Yahoshua to His disciples (Isa. 49:6; Mat. 5:14-16).

 

Walking in God’s Lively Oracles

 

Now, I trust that you recognize the importance behind this premise of Yisra’el (and by extension we of the Body of Mashiyach) being entrusted with the oracles of Yehovah having more to do with Yisra’el walking out Yehovah’s Ways and walking out the Messianic Promises that would ultimately lead to humankind’s salvation, than simply being the oracles’ trusted stewards. You see, there’s a major difference between being the steward of a certain thing such as the oracles of Yehovah and being fully invested and immersed–personally and nationally-in the very essence and significance of that thing. So, we’re in essence talking about true and proper Torah halachah here, and not just stewardship of Yah’s Word. Simple, basic stewardship is illustrative of the one who was given a single talent by his master, who instead of investing and promoting that single talent, buried it, awaiting the Master’s return. That single, buried talent produced absolutely no fruit (Mat. 25:24-30). Whereas the other servants took interest in the talents that their Master entrusted unto them, investing, and growing those talents to the delight and glory of their Master (Mat. 25:14-23). So, what we’re talking about here as it relates to Yah entrusting His oracles to His people is a complete, transformative state of being within Yah’s elect that causes the world around them (and we’re by extension including the Body of Mashiyach in this as well) to turn and take notice; to inquire of those oracles; to adopt those oracles; and ultimately become sons and daughters of the Most High!

 

Blessed by the Jewish Advantage

 

Regardless any antisemitic sentiments that many within and outside our Faith Communities may possess, Yisra’el has, through Yehovah’s divine providence, made an astoundingly positive difference in the world–they’ve blessed the world (Gen. 12:2-3; Deu. 4:5-8). Oh no, not on their own accord mind you. But they’ve blessed the world because Yehovah loved them, revealed Himself to them, and covenanted with them.

 

Closing Thoughts and Call to Action

 

So, what can we conclude from our study of this Pauline passage?

 

The advantage the Jew enjoys is that she was entrusted with Yehovah’s oracles. And we discussed that this entrusting of Yah’s oracles transcends simple custodianship of Yah’s Word. It must include the walking out of those oracles to the glory and honor of Yehovah for all the world to see. And there are other less tangible advantages the Jew enjoys that center around the nation’s unique experience and relationship with Yehovah; Yisra’el’s history, culture, and traditions. In sum, Yisra’el’s advantage is that of being a light to the world.

 

And as it relates to us today as Yah’s elect, we too have been entrusted with the Oracles of God. And like our wayward Jewish cousins, that entrusting transcends just a simple custodial relationship with Yah’s Word; that entrusting involves a walking out of those oracles as our Master modeled for us and taught us.

 

Thus, in our having been entrusted with the Oracles of God, we by default, become a light to the Word. We become a city on a hill that cannot be hid (Mat. 5:14). And so it is, in our keeping and walking out Yehovah’s lively oracles, the world sees our good works, all of which blesses our Father in heaven; and He thus receives the glory and honor He so richly deserves.

 

Praise Yah!

 

Messianics—Modern Day Levites—Separated for Service to God—Thoughts and Reflections on Torah Portion Behaalosecha

by | Jun 21, 2019 | ,

This week’s Torah Portion-Behaalosecha-foreshadows a great many spiritual elements necessary for our service to the Kingdom of God. In a sense we are modern day Levites. We have been separated from all the nations people of the world unto God for His service. Are we up for the challenge? This is a wake-up call to the Body of Messiah to take immediate action.

read more

Israel: To Love or Hate Her—That is the Question—Part 2–A Biblical and Personal Perspective on the Significance of Physical Israel

by | Jun 14, 2019 | ,

In this 2nd Part to our Israel: To Love or Hate Series, we continue our analysis of some the most common reasons people reject physical Israel today. As well as we consider some of the miracles said to have resulted in Israel’s deliverance from certain destruction. And lastly we consider the problems associated with the nation state of Israel. Shalom and welcome.

read more

Paul on Physical Circumcision-A Question of One’s Jewishness Part 4

by | Aug 13, 2021 | Blog, Podcasts

Paul on Physical Circumcision-Part 4 of the A Question of One's Jewishness Series

In today’s post we answer the questions: Is physical circumcision still a valid commandment for men of faith to keep and obey? What advantage is there to physical circumcision?

Synopsis of the Preceding Installments to the Series

 

Over the course of the last three installments of this series within a series, we dissected the second chapter of Shaul’s letter to the Roman Messianic Assembly. And we found that the overall content of this chapter was that of a diatribe. This diatribe metaphorically singled out those of the who were promoting a form of religiosity. More specifically, their Jewishness as the essential means by which any coming into Faith, especially Gentiles, are saved and are permitted to become members of the Body of Messiah.

 

These I identify in this and previous posts as Judaizers.

 

Shaul’s Challenge to the Judaizer’s Circumcision Mandate

 

And so, at the tail end of the chapter, the apostle challenges the central element of the Judaizers’ proselytizing operation: Physical Circumcision.

 

To the religious Jew of Shaul’s day, physical circumcision served a great many purposes. The least of those purposes being that it served as a physical guarantee of one’s place in the Malchut Elohim and membership in the Congregation of Yisra’el. Thus, these were insistent that every incoming, male Gentile convert undergo ritualistic or religious physical circumcision to be admitted into the Body of Messiah.

 

The Existential Threat of the Judaizers’ Circumcision

 

Shaul clearly recognized the horrendous error of the Judaizers’ proselytizing efforts. He realized the efforts of the Judaizers posed an existential threat to the spiritually ignorant Gentile converts.  The concern Shaul had was that the Gentiles who gave in to the Judaizers’ circumcision mandate would be placing their Trusting Faith in their circumcision instead of their covenant relationship with Yehovah through Y’shua HaMashiyach. For the converted Gentile to acquiesce to the Judaizers’ circumcision mandate would essentially nullify their original profession of Faith.

 

Shaul’s Fight Wasn’t Against the Judaizers’ Ritual Circumcision

 

So, contrary to the conventional wisdom of most people of Faith today, it wasn’t the mitzvah of physical circumcision that Shaul had a problem with. It was the meaning, purpose, and relevance the Judaizers erroneously placed on physical circumcision.

 

By Shaul’s day, physical circumcision had become an exclusive symbol of the Judaizers’ Jewishness and the foundation of their belief and faith. Yehovah never intended circumcision to fulfill such a purpose. For we saw demonstrated in Avraham’s story that physical circumcision came well after Avraham’s obedience of faith was established, tested, and recognized by Yehovah. And Avraham’s example is the perspective that Shaul seemed hard pressed to convey to his readers.

 

Shaul Put Physical Circumcision into its Proper Spiritual Perspective

 

So, what we find Shaul doing in the latter verses chapter two is to place physical circumcision into proper perspective for his readers. And he does this primarily by emphasizing the primacy of “circumcision of the heart” to that of the proselytizing practice of ritualistic physical circumcision. (Reference Part 3 of this series within a series: Paul on Physical Circumcision for God’s People.)

 

 

Critical Physical Circumcision Questions

 

We will endeavor to answer the following questions:

 

  1. Did circumcision of the heart nullify or abrogate physical circumcision?

 

  1. Is physical circumcision still a valid and required commandment for Yah’s men to keep?

 

  1. What are the advantages to being Jewish and being physically circumcised as mentioned by Shaul in Romans 3:1-2?

 

 

People Want the Covenant and Commandment of Physical Circumcision to Just Go Away

 

It should be clearly understood that physical circumcision was a physical sign of the Avrahamic Covenant. Thus, physical circumcision in its proper perspective, was NOT the covenant.

 

Physical circumcision has often been taken out of its proper context and purpose. Consequently, it has been left as an afterthought or as a discussion topic to be avoided altogether by Yah’s elect. In fact, the Body of Messiah, as well as denominationalists, have all but turned a blind eye to the issue/topic of physical circumcision. And so the general consensus among both groups is that “circumcision of the heart” replaced the Torah commandment and covenant of “physical circumcision.”

 

The Reality of Physical Circumcision in the Hebrew World

 

Physical circumcision was a requirement for ANY male to partake of Pasach, aka Passover (Exo. 12:44, 48).

 

Yisra’el, despite their consistent violations of Yah’s Torah and breaking His covenant, were consistent in their adherence to the mitzvah of physical circumcision.

 

Furthermore, physical circumcision was necessary for one to worship at the place YHVH chose to place His Name and dwell (Eze. 44:7-9).

 

Physical Circumcision Insufficient For True Covenant Relationship

 

However, even in Tanakh times, physical circumcision was recognized by Faith leaders as not being sufficient in terms of one’s true relationship with the Almighty. Circumcision of the heart was also a requirement for one to enter into and remain in covenant relationship with the Almighty (Jer. 4:4).

 

 

But it seems evident that physical circumcision in addition to a circumcised heart (as well as being always in a state ritual cleanness and or purity) was something of significant interest to YHVH. So much so that the Prophet Isaiah wrote that only the circumcised would be allowed to enter the Millennial Zion-Malchut Elohim (Isa. 52:1-10).

 

 

Early Confusion Among Converted Jews as to Gentile Inclusion in the Faith

 

The Ruach HaKodesh was poured out upon Y’shua’s disciples on the Temple Mount on Shavu’ot, aka Pentecost (Acts 2). These disciples were all Jewish or of Hebrew descent. The sign of the disciples speaking in tongues became, at that time, a clear sign that one had entered covenant relationship with YHVH through Y’shua Messiah. And since the only recipients of this gift were initially Jewish disciples of Yahoshua, it became erroneously presumed that only Jews or proselytes could enter the True Faith once delivered.

 

The Cornelius Factor

 

However, that initial belief that YHVH was accepting only Jewish disciples of Y’shua into covenant relationship with Him, was challenged when Cornelius (and family), described as a Roman centurion, a just man, and a God-fearer. And being a non-Jewish individual who believed in and worshiped the Elohim of Yisra’el, but who was not a proselyte (Act. 10:1-2), upon hearing the Gospel as delivered to them by Kefa (aka Peter) received the Ruach HaKodesh as evidenced in their speaking in tongues (Act. 10:44-46). Cornelius and his family were then baptized by Kefa and his team (10:47-48).

 

The point here is that Cornelius and the believing males of his house, were not physically circumcised upon their entering into Faith and covenant.

 

The Judaizer Factor

 

As more and more Cornelius-types (non-Jews) received the Gospel, received the gift of the Ruach HaKodesh, and entered Faith/Covenant, certain orthodox Messianic Jews began to push the erroneous rhetoric within various Messianic Assemblies, that these converted Gentiles, despite their receiving the Ruach and their stated profession of Faith in Mashiyach, could not possibly enter covenant with YHVH, nor be saved unless they were physically circumcised (Act. 15:1) and practiced Judaism (Act. 15:5). In other words, these converted non-Jews, according to the Judaizers, had to become “proselytes” to Judaism for them to be a member of the Body of Mashiyach and to receive eternal life.

 

Forced to Address the Physical Circumcision Issue

 

When word that non-Jews were entering into Covenant with YHVH and receiving the Ruach HaKodesh reached the Yerushalayim Council, they were forced to deal with the issue of ritualistic-religious physical circumcision. However, the evidence was overwhelming and clear.  Physical circumcision was not a requirement for one to enter covenant with YHVH and for one to receive eternal life.

 

The Torah Commandment for Physical Circumcision Was Not Rescinded

 

Contrary to first-century Christian conventional wisdom, neither Shaul nor the Yerushalayim Council rescinded the physical circumcision Torah commandment. Just because the non-Jews entering Faith were receiving the baptism of the Ruach HaKodesh did not, by any stretch of the imagination, nullify this mitzvah. The mitzvah for physical circumcision that was given to Avraham was a perpetual ordinance throughout all Hebrew generations.

 

Circumcision of the Heart Superseded But Did Not Abrogate Physical Circumcision

 

What we see in the Cornelius example, followed by the Yerushalayim Council’s implied ruling on physical circumcision, was sort of a reorientation of “spiritual priorities” for incoming Gentile converts.

 

The Jerusalem Council recognized that ceremonial/religious/ritual physical circumcision was not Father’s priority for the incoming Gentile converts.

 

In every sense of the word, the state of a convert’s heart (that being the circumcised state of a convert’s heart) and their Faith/Belief in Yehovah was the only requirement for entering into Faith. Thus, physical circumcision took a back seat to the circumcision of a convert’s heart.

 

Physical Circumcision Remains on the Books as a Commandment of Yehovah

 

Nevertheless, physical circumcision had not been done away with. It was still on the books so to speak. And it appears that Abba had left room for those men of circumcised hearts entering Faith, who were led to do so, who at some point in their walk with Mashiyach were drawn towards receiving physical circumcision, were certainly welcomed and encouraged to do so.

 

The sensible way of looking at this thing is to recognize that circumcision of the heart must always precede physical circumcision and that it is NOT a requirement for salvation or for one to enter Faith and covenant with Yehovah.

 

Shaul Wrote There Was Advantage to Physical Circumcision

 

The apostle contends that there is indeed an advantage to Judaism and circumcision (Rom. 3:1).

 

So, despite the position some within and outside of our Faith Community may hold as it relates to the seeming irrelevance or greatly diminished relevance physical circumcision carries in our Faith, even the Great Apostle to the Gentiles believed otherwise. For a valid case must be made for the physical circumcision of any man who is of a circumcised heart, who after entering Faith has successfully walked in obedient covenant relationship with the Eternal and who is thereafter led to receive this very personal mark asserting the eternal covenant that exists between Yehovah and His people.

 

And here are the supporting elements of my case for physical circumcision

 

The circumcision that Yehovah instructed Avraham to receive as a physical sign of the unilateral covenant that existed between Yehovah and Avraham, was to be perpetually passed down and practiced by Avraham’s descendants. We who enter Faith, under the auspices of the renewed covenant, may claim “grafted into the commonwealth of Yisra’el” status (Eph. 2:12). Thus, Avraham by spiritual extension, is our human father in the Hebrew Faith. Thus, it could be somewhat construed that we, by virtue of the renewed covenant, come under the covenant of physical circumcision as well.

 

Circumcision is Linked to Faithful Obedience

 

The Avrahamic Covenant was founded upon Avraham’s faithful obedience to YHVH. Our covenant with YHVH is also based upon faithful obedience to YHVH. As Avraham was faithful to do that which YHVH commanded him to do, including circumcising himself and his boys, I believe there’s a strong argument to be made that we too should be willing to obey YHVH’s instructions and follow Avraham’s faithful example.

 

Physical Circumcision is Linked to Promises, Covenant and Salvation

 

Physical circumcision has the unique advantage, as Shaul noted in Romans 3:1, of physically linking one to promises and covenants and the salvation that Master Yeshua declared, is of the Jew (Joh. 4:22).

 

Physical Circumcision is a Reminder of One’s Relationship with the Elohim of Avraham

 

Circumcision, like the wearing of tzitzits, serve as a visual personal reminder of the deep and abiding relationship we have with the Creator of the Universe. Inherent within that relationship is the expectation that we will obediently walk in the Creator’s ways. And because Yehovah is a jealous Elohim who is not willing to share His glory with another, we are, in fact, prohibited from walking in the ways of the world (Exo. 20:5; 34:14; Deu. 4:24; 5:9; 5:15; Isa. 42:8-11).

 

There is Spiritual Value to Physical Circumcision

 

Furthermore, as Shaul stated, physical circumcision has notable spiritual value to the one who walks in obedience to YHVH’s instructions or commandments in righteousness (Rom. 2:26).

 

 

Did the Jerusalem Council’s Edict Nullify Physical Circumcision?

 

Contrary to the teachings of some, James’ Jerusalem Council edict DID NOT nullify, nor did it do away with physical circumcision for non-Jewish converts to Faith. Many liberal-minded Christians understand Acts 15:19-20 to be anti-Torah and anti-physical circumcision. They contend that the edict certified that physical circumcision did not apply to non-Jewish converts of Faith.

 

But a careful read of the passage says absolutely nothing about circumcision:

 

“Wherefore my (my being James, the biological brother of Yeshua, and leader of the Jerusalem Council) sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood” (KJV).

 

To get the fullness of what James and the Council was saying here, one must continue reading on to verse 21:

 

“For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day” (KJV).

 

What the Jerusalem Council Edit Really Meant

 

What James and the Council were NOT giving the incoming Gentiles was a free pass on physical circumcision. What they were doing was presenting to the Messianic Assemblies an orderly, logical and reasonable method of receiving and acclimating the incoming Gentiles into the Messianic Community and into an obedience of Faith.

 

It was clear to all who were present at the council meeting that these incoming Gentiles were starting out with circumcised hearts and they appeared to have the desire to walk in covenant relationship with Yehovah. They just needed proper discipleship and guidance from the apostolic leadership on what Yehovah expected of them.

 

Why did James (Ya’achov) write what he did regarding Moses of old time being read in synagogues every sabbath day? Well, the incoming Gentiles were for the most part, ignorant of Yah’s Ways. They were, in fact, coming into Faith with the baggage of their former, pagan-rich lives that heavily influence and impeded their day-to-day walk in Mashiyach. So, in response to this reality the council counseled the assembly leaders to get these circumcised of heart, Spirit-filled Gentiles educated in Yah’s Torah—Yah’s instructions for righteous living—and acclimate them into the obedient covenant walking Body of Mashiyach. And the immediate solution to this stated problem was to divest the Gentiles of their pagan ways by instructing them to abstain from things defiled by idols; from sexual immorality (aka fornication); consuming improperly slaughtered meats; and consuming blood (Act. 15:20; 29).

 

What are these prohibitions really? Well, they are of course Torah prohibitions. And thus, if the incoming converted Gentiles were to obey these 4-prohibitions, they would meet the basic standards of righteous living that would afford them the opportunity to receive Torah instructions each Shabbat from their local synagogues.

 

The Council’s Edict Was Silent on the Issue of Physical Circumcision

 

It cannot be denied, however, that the Council’s Edict to the assemblies regarding the handling of Gentile converts was silent on the precipitative issue of physical circumcision.

 

That being the case, is the edict’s silence on something like physical circumcision indicative of that issue being abrogated? Of course not. Silence on any issue, especially in the apostolic writings, can only mean that the original Torah instruction remains in effect for Yah’s people, at least in some form or another.

 

Similarly, the Council’s edict was silent on the issue of Sabbath-keeping; on feast-keeping; on the keeping of any of the moral laws by the newly converted Gentiles. And I do not believe any of us who are of this Faith would think the Council would abrogate the keeping of these instructions by the Gentiles. So why would we presume the Council abrogated physical circumcision?

 

To say that the Jerusalem Council’s edict was a get-out-of-circumcision-jail-free-card is to erroneously presume then that the Gentiles were being instructed they only had to keep the edict’s four stated prohibitions of Torah to be welcomed into the Body of Mashiyach. In so doing the incoming Gentiles would be exempt from living an obedient Torah-based life, which would also mean that they wouldn’t have to keep the Sabbath; the Feast Days; or the other food laws; or the moral laws and such; all of which is simply crazy talk. For Torah is applicable to Gentile and Jew alike (Num. 15:16).

 

Yeshua Defended the Primacy of Torah

 

Yeshua proclaimed the primacy of Torah:

 

“Think not that I am come to destroy the Torah, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from Torah, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Mat. 5:17-19; KJV).

 

Paul Affirmed the Primacy of Torah

 

Throughout the entire 7th chapter of the Cepher of Romans, Shaul affirmed the primacy of Torah for every individual walking in covenant with Yehovah.

 

 

The Gentile and Physical Circumcision

 

We know from Jewish history that physical circumcision was one of the central issues that the Maccabees fought and died over (1 Mac. 1:48, 60, 61). Their Greek overlords were appalled at physical circumcision. Thus, they prohibited the Jews from circumcising their sons. Those mothers who were caught having their sons circumcised risked having their sons executed. They themselves were forced to carry the bodies of their 8-day old babies tied around their necks as a deterrence to Hebrew circumcision.

 

Interestingly, but also tragically, in Shaul’s day, physical circumcision remained a fierce point of contention between Jews and Gentiles. The contention in Shaul’s day was not a violent one as during the time of the Maccabees.

 

However, specific to Shaul’s time, the religious Jew had lost all Godly perspective as it related to the purpose and significance of physical circumcision. The religious Jew—highlighted by the featured rhetorical Jew or religious figure of Shaul’s diatribe in the second chapter of Romans—perceived physical circumcision as the nominal Jew’s pass/badge/guarantee to their receiving the Kingdom of Yah—the Malchut Elohim (m. Sanhedrin 10:1). And because physical circumcision was a commanded ritual that was primarily practiced by the native Jew, except for proselytes, salvation to the Jew was based solely upon his Jewishness or lineage.

 

Consequently, the Gentile coming into Faith was at a disadvantage in comparison to his Jewish counterparts. He was seen as unworthy and ineligible to receive salvation and the Malchut Elohim because he was not circumcised. So, for those Gentiles to receive these essential promises of the Faith, Messianic Jewish leaders pushed ritual circumcision upon all incoming converted Gentiles.

 

It should be noted that when a Judaizer successfully proselytized a non-Jewish male, that Judaizer received recognition and respect in his rabbinic community. Each new proselyte was then viewed as a new notch on a Judaizer’s religious belt, so to speak.

 

Proselytizing at the Heart of the Physical Circumcision Mandate

 

Y’shua spoke out against this practice in Matthew 23:15 in his rebuttal to a group of challenging pharisees:

 

“Woe to you scribes and Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you traverse sea and land that you might make one proselyte, and when he has become one, you make him double the son of Gehenna that you are yourselves” (AENT).

 

 

Y’shua wasn’t criticizing or denouncing the mitzvah of physical circumcision, as some might erroneously conclude. He was, in fact, criticizing and denouncing the practice of turning Gentile men into religious Jews for the sake of amassing unto themselves personal power and control over the people. In effect, the practice that Yeshua railed against served only to lead unwitting converts astray of Torah and of walking in obedient covenant relationship with Yehovah which leads the proselyte down a road to physical and spiritual destruction.

 

In fact, everything that is wrong with what the Judaizers were attempting to do with incoming Gentiles is brilliantly laid out in the second half of Matthew 23.

 

Fortunately, Shaul also recognized the inherent, spiritual dangers the Judaizers posed to the Gentile converts he oversaw. His rhetoric against the Judaizers throughout his writings was not against the Torah commandments related to physical circumcision. It was, instead, the intentions behind the Judaizers’ insistence that non-Jewish men coming into Faith had to be circumcised.

 

To the Judaizer, physical circumcision was simply a means to an end. In this case, circumcision served as the introductory step into Judaism; into a life of obedience to the rabbis and their traditions and laws that all too often ran contrary and a fowl of Torah and the teachings and instructions of our Master Yahoshua HaMashiyach.

 

The Benefit of Physical Circumcision-Covenant Relationship with Yehovah

 

Shaul asserted that physical circumcision was of benefit to the one who keeps Torah. Thus, the fully circumcised child of Yah who walks obediently in covenant relationship with Yehovah, pleases the Most High. That circumcised of heart and physically circumcised of body receives the praise of Yah. In return, that soul can accurately and appropriately boast of their personal relationship with the creator of the Universe.

 

Physical Circumcision is not a Requirement for Salvation

 

Now, I would not take a hardliner or take hold to the presumptuous position that every male Messianic in the true Faith must be physically circumcised for them to be Torah compliant. And I say this from the sincere position of one who believes that physical circumcision is “generally” not a salvific issue. I say generally from a “circumstantial standpoint.” For we know from Acts that there were several non-Jews who entered this beloved Faith of ours who did not receive physical circumcision. At least as far as we can tell from the text. These certainly received the gift of the Ruach HaKodesh and began walking in obedient covenant relationship with the Eternal. Acts is silent as to whether any of these were led to or afforded the opportunity to receive physical circumcision.

 

Given this reality, it would be foolish for any of us to conclude that because of Shaul’s stance against the Judaizers’ attempts to have incoming Gentiles circumcised, that no converted Gentiles were ever circumcised apart from those who received ritualistic, religious circumcision from the Judaizers. And I would submit that it is indeed conceivable that it is conceivable that some converted Gentiles at some point in their walk with Messiah, were ultimately led to be physically circumcised. No doubt for those souls who did get circumcised, recognized that the Faith, which they’d become members of, emerged from that of the original Hebrew Faith, of which physical circumcision was a significant element.

 

Nevertheless, I believe (and this is strictly Rod speaking here, so take it with a spiritual grain of salt) that we must leave room in our discussion on this issue of physical circumcision, for individual calling, the leading of the Ruach Kodesh and the depth of relationship one shares with the Great I Am.

 

So what does this all say about Yah’s people receiving the covenantal-mark of physical circumcision given the two examples I’ve provided above?

 

 

So, it comes down to the one who comes into Faith with a circumcised heart and who commits to walking in obedient covenant relationship with the Eternal, and he comes to a place in his walk that he recognizes the rich heritage (historical and spiritual) that he is now entitled to being a part of (that being the Hebrew Faith). He is drawn or led to partake of that rich heritage of covenants, promises and lineage from which our Mashiyach came to us in the flesh (Deu. 4:7). This my friends is the advantage Shaul writes about in Romans 3:1-2.

 

Obviously, not every man of Faith will desire or be led to receive the mark of the Avrahamic covenant. But those who are, are certainly responding to an obedience of Faith that is specific to their walk and faith and to their engrafted into the commonwealth of Yisra’el state and discipleship of the Hebrew Messiah.

 

To resist and disobey that call would put that individual in somewhat of a difficult spiritual predicament. For to disobey the instructions of Yehovah is sin, and sin leads to judgment and death (Rom. 6:23).

 

In other words, for any covenant walking man of Yehovah to receive physical circumcision is a very personal calling, the decision to do so being between the individual and Yehovah. And if Yehovah leads one to be physically circumcised, it falls upon that individual to respond in obedience.

 

So to answer the questions we posed at the start of our discussion

 

  1. Circumcision of the heart did not nullify or abrogate physical circumcision, for both circumcisions were given to us by Father in His Torah. Circumcision of the heart is a requirement for all of Yehovah’s people to possess. Physical circumcision applies only to the men of Yah who are led to take unto themselves the eternal physical mark of the covenant that was established between Yehovah and Yisra’el (I.e., the Avrahamic Covenant). Which leads us to the answer to question 2.

 

  1. Physical circumcision is still valid for the true man of Yehovah who is so led to receive the mark of the covenant between Yehovah and Yisra’el.

 

And 3., the advantage of physical circumcision is that it connotes a special bond between the man of Yehovah who is led to receive that physical mark. The circumcision is valuable to the one who obediently walks in covenant relationship with the Almighty through an indelible fellowship with the true remnant of Yisra’el. This circumcision is not the circumcision of the Judaizers. It is the historic, mitzvah-driven circumcision of Torah that applies exclusively the true remnant of Yisra’el, which we, who are Yah’s elect, have been grafted into.

Messianics—Modern Day Levites—Separated for Service to God—Thoughts and Reflections on Torah Portion Behaalosecha

Jun 21, 2019 | ,

This week’s Torah Portion-Behaalosecha-foreshadows a great many spiritual elements necessary for our service to the Kingdom of God. In a sense we are modern day Levites. We have been separated from all the nations people of the world unto God for His service. Are we up for the challenge? This is a wake-up call to the Body of Messiah to take immediate action.

read more

Israel: To Love or Hate Her—That is the Question—Part 2–A Biblical and Personal Perspective on the Significance of Physical Israel

Jun 14, 2019 | ,

In this 2nd Part to our Israel: To Love or Hate Series, we continue our analysis of some the most common reasons people reject physical Israel today. As well as we consider some of the miracles said to have resulted in Israel’s deliverance from certain destruction. And lastly we consider the problems associated with the nation state of Israel. Shalom and welcome.

read more

Marriage and Divorce According to Torah Part 2–A Discussion of Parashah 144

by | Aug 7, 2021 | Blog, Podcasts

by Rod Thomas | The Messianic Torah Observer's Sabbath Thoughts and Reflections

Marriage and Divorce According to Torah Part 2—A Discussion of Parashah 144

This is the second post or second half of the overall discussion I have for you regarding this week’s Torah Reading of Deuteronomy 24:1-4.

In this post we will cover the teachings of Y’shua Messiah and the Apostle Shaul on our focus passage, and end with a Spirit and Truth application discussion on the content of our Reading for this week.

Let’s re-read our focus passage so as to remind us what’s at stake here in our overall discussion of Parashah 144:

 

“When a man takes a wife and cohabits with her, it shall be, if she does not find favor in his eyes because he finds some shamefully exposed thing, and he writes her a document of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her away from his house, and she goes out from his house and goes and becomes another man’s, and the second man hates her and writes her a document of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her away from his house, or the second man, who took her to him as wife, dies, her first husband, who sent her away, shall not be able to come back and take her to be his wife after she has been defiled, for it is an abhorrence before the LORD, and you shall not lead the land to offend that the LORD your God is about to give you in estate.” 

 

  1. Our Focus Passage Interpreted Through the Teachings of Y’shua Messiah and the Apostle Shaul 

Robert Alter points out that verses 1-4 of our parshah consists of “one long run-on sentence” that is intended to regulate a “special case of divorce, remarriage and divorce rather than addressing the general predicament of divorce.” This does seem to be the case, at least in part. But we must resist taking this passage out of its biblical context and defer at the very least to that which our Master Y’shua and the Apostle Shaul had to say about this passage.

Let’s consider the following apostolic passages that are associated with our focus passage of Deuteronomy 24:1-4:

 

Matthew 5:31-32–“It has been said that he that puts away his wife will give to her a writing of divorce. But I say to you that any who puts away his wife aside from a case of fornication makes her commit adultery, and he who takes a divorced woman commits adultery” (AENT). –Here Y’shua clarifies our mitzvah portion or our reading.

Matthew 19: 3-9–“And the Pharisees drew near to Him (Y’shua) there (the border of Yehuda, on the other side of the Yardanan), and were tempting Him and saying, ‘Is it Lawful for a man to put away his wife for any cause?’ But He answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read, that He who created from the beginning, He created them male and female? And He said, Because of this, a man will leave his father and his mother and will be joined to his wife, and they will be both of them one flesh. Henceforth, they will not be two, rather one flesh. Therefore, what Elohim has united, man should not separate.’ They said to Him, ‘Why then did Moshe command to give a letter of divorce and to put her away?’ And He said to them, ‘Because of the hardness of your heart, you were allowed to put away your wives. But it was not thus from the beginning. But I say to you that he who leaves his wife without a charge of adultery, and takes another, commits adultery. And he that takes a divorced woman commits adultery'” (cf. 10:2-9; AENT).

Luke 16:18–“Everyone who divorces his wife, and takes another, commits adultery. And everyone who takes a divorced woman, commits adultery” (AENT).

1 Cor. 7:39-40—”A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only to the Lord. Yet in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I too have the Spirit of God” (ESV).

7:1-3—”Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress” (ESV). 

Hegg focuses in on the term ‘ervah in his commentary and suggests the term must be understood beyond that of adultery. And he takes us back to the previous chapter, 23:14, where the term is used to describe the sanitary condition of the camp that would be unacceptable to Yehovah. So it is suggested that we expand our understanding of the term ‘ervah beyond simple adultery. And he goes further to suggest that ‘ervah as used in our passage has little to do with adultery. And to defend this position, he argues that any woman convicted of adultery would be executed. Any wife believed to have engaged in adultery in which case there were no witnesses, the jilted husband had the recourse of having her put through the ritual of the bitter waters, as promulgated in Numbers 5:11.

And so, with all this said, Hegg contends that ‘ervah as used here in 24:1-4 likely refers to some form of “sexual unchastity which, though not rising to the level of adultery, still constituted sufficient grounds for the dissolution of the marriage.” And he offers the example of some rabbis asserting ‘ervah as used here could include that of a flirtatious wife (b. Gittin 90b).

I guess one could argue one way or the other on this issue. But the bottom line is that in this case, our Master’s interpretation of this passage should be what matters most. And it is there in the incident where Y’shua addresses the challenge put forth to Him by the Pharisees who were trying to trip Him up on matters of Jewish halachah, that Master also takes us all the way back to Genesis where we see that Father never intended for the marriage between a man and a woman to end except in death. The couple was to remain one flesh in service to Him and the Kingdom (Gen. 2:24).

However, it cannot be overlooked that man’s wicked heart is such that an originally intended, permanent institution such as marriage could, and in some situations, must be dissolved. The Pharisees insisted that Moshe “commanded” divorce (Matt. 19:7). And thus Master revealed to them the contrast in perspective they had in comparison to the perspective Yah possessed on the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage. And Master asserts, quite ingeniously I might add, that Moshe did not “command” anyone to divorce his wife. In fact, it was because of the hardness of the Hebrew heart (remember these were and remain a stiffnecked people) that Moshe “permitted” a man to divorce his wife over the issue of adultery, despite divorce not being a factor in Yehovah’s original plan in His institution of marriage.

Now, the regrettable element of divorce as addressed by Torah in Deuteronomy 24 has more to do with ridding sin from the midst of the people and the hardened hearts of the Hebrew men towards their wives. I would suggest that divorce then becomes more of a thing to be ashamed of and something to be avoided at all costs, more than a thing of life-necessity. For nowhere did Abba ever command a man to divorce his wife. He instead left wide open the opportunity for the husband to love his wife unconditionally and maintain the integrity of the marriage in spite of the contrary and even evil ways of his wife. Again, Abba placed tremendous responsibility for the integrity and maintenance of marriage upon the shoulder of the man. As Hegg asserts, “forgiveness and reconciliation are always the greater course to follow.”

As it relates to us, using Y’shua’s clarifying instructions on Deuteronomy 24:1-4, it should be rather clear to any set-apart disciple of Y’shua Messiah, that divorce must always be an extreme last resort for any couple to embark upon. And if by chance the sin of adultery enters into the marriage equation, there are two righteous options to consider:

(1) Reconciliation of the damaged marriage; or

(2) Divorce.

At the end of the day, the significance and permanence of the sacred marriage oath or vow must never be overlooked or marginalized. For the oath or vow clearly promotes that the marriage should be preserved at all costs.

Nevertheless, if divorce is ultimately decided upon, for purposes of living in peace as Shaul mentions in his letter to the Corinthian Messianics, then neither the husband or spouse should remarry until one dies (1 Cor. 7). Although I believe Shaul in his addressing the issue of marriage, divorce and remarriage here in this passage was consistent with Y’shua’s teaching on the subject, Shaul did take some liberties as to what constitutes ‘ervah and the basis for divorce.

And when one reflects on what the apostle says on this very hot topic and the actions that should be taken by the couple to address their marital problems, his counsel appears spiritually rational if taken in its proper context. For Shaul intended that his readers reorient their hearts and minds to walk in obedient covenant with Yehovah and prepare to receive His Kingdom. The cares of this life, as Shaul saw it (to include marital discord), only distracted one from pressing toward the mark or goal of the high calling in Mashiyach (Phi. 3:14).

So the apostle encouraged his followers to remain in whatever life situation they came to Faith in. If marital discord existed, the apostle urged the couple to work through those problems and salvage the relationship. And if peace could not be achieved or maintained within the disciple’s present life-situation—especially as it relates to marriage, and divorce appears to be the only solution to achieving that peace, then by all means divorce. But the apostle encourages neither party to remarry. (View my teaching on this passage to get a full, in-depth understanding of the things Shaul mentions therein. This is a very convoluted and challenging passage that cannot be simply read through. It requires hours of careful, context-driving, prayerful study.)

https://youtu.be/w-6RLIpjPxg

https://youtu.be/D4lLlk72_IY

 

  1. Spirit and Truth Applications of our Torah Reading

 

Let’s for a moment shed some light and attention on that elephant that is lingering in the room as it relates to this passage. I’m sure some of us have lingering concerns or a feeling that Yehovah favors men in this passage and that He is misogynistic in His treatment of the issue of divorce and remarriage here in our focus passage.

So let’s ask and then answer the following questions:

What if the husband commits adultery or engages in some forbidden sexual relationship? Shouldn’t he be held accountable for his transgression against Torah and his wife? Why does Yehovah only focus on a wife’s transgression and not the husband’s?

Well, the truth of the matter is simply this. The husband who transgresses Torah and cheats on his wife is subject to the penalties and punishments of Torah, which is more times than not, death. So if a husband is found guilty of the sin of adultery, he is subject to the death penalty. He doesn’t get a free pass.

That being said, however, this passage is not about a woman committing adultery which leads her husband to divorce her. It’s about a man, who because of his hardened heart towards his wife, making sure his divorced wife isn’t left to languish in poverty and shame for the rest of her natural life. It’s actually Yehovah who is looking after the divorced woman’s wellbeing here in this passage. This is the love of Torah in action my friends.

So to properly answer these questions, we must first and foremost understand the intentional and spiritual context in which this mitzvah was rendered. Both husband and wife are always subject to the penalties and punishment of Torah in the event either commits unseemly acts. Whether those acts take place within or outside the marriage union. Period. So the husband, like his wife, will always be held accountable for his or her sin.

So why then did Father focus exclusively on the husband divorcing his wife for an unseemly transgression she may have engaged in, as opposed to, conceivably, a husband being divorced by his wife because of an unseemly transgression he engaged in? Quite simply this: Yehovah recognized that He was working with a male dominated society. Whether we see it as right or wrong, men ruled during the time Torah was given. Males ruled nations and communities; as well as they ruled their homes and marriages. Therefore, at least as far as ANE cultures are concerned, no woman would ever be permitted to divorce her husband. For marriages were initiated and dissolved by the man. And as archaic as this may appear to our 21st century sensibilities, that’s just the way it was.

Yes, there was, as stated earlier in our discussion, a tremendous imbalance of power—completely favoring the man/husband–in the marriage relationship in those days. And as also stated earlier, the hardness of a man’s heart toward Yehovah and his wife made this imbalance of power in the marriage, potentially, all the more dangerous for the wife. For conceivably a wife, before this mitzvah was rendered, could be tossed out of her “husband’s home” (yes, the home belonged exclusively to the man/husband, not the woman; and the woman/wife was the exclusive property of the husband. So the husband could do with her as he so pleased). Thus, it was not uncommon for ANE husbands divorcing or putting their wives away for any conceivable reason.

Tragically, a woman who found herself expelled from her husband’s home, would be subject to, for the remainder of her natural life, a life of shame, poverty and vulnerability. She would have no protection and she would be viewed as a pariah in the community. It would seem that most women who found themselves in such an unfortunate life-situation, were forced to move back into her father’s home; assuming (1) her father would take her back, or (2) he was still alive. And even if she were able to find refuge in her father’s home, she was viewed as damaged goods/or property. Few, if any men of the community would risk their reputations in marrying a divorced woman before Torah was given.

And that’s why Yehovah had to step in and provide the divorced wife some form of safety net, through this and similar mitzvot, that might lessen the despair she would potentially face as a divorcee in ANE Hebrew society. So this mitzvah is NOT misogynistic as it may appear to our 21st century mindsets and sensibilities. The focus of this mitzvah is the wife’s wellbeing after she leaves her husband’s home through the instrument of the bill or certificate of divorcement (24:1).

Yehovah intended marriage to be something more than a simple contract or agreement between a man and a woman. The elements–those being the “rights and obligations” of the union that are encumbered by the man and the woman as a result of their union–are supposed to transcend the “arbitrary will of both husband and wife.” For those rights and obligations are dictated by the Creator of the Universe. Hertz describes this as a “higher sphere of duty and conscience” (pg., 931). (Reference last year’s teaching on divorce).

Contrary to anything Rabbinic Judaism has to say on the subject of divorce as derived or as based on the tenets of our Reading for this week, Yah has never commanded any husband to divorce his wife. For the husband, presuming he is walking uprightly before Yehovah in possession of a circumcised heart, will always consider the option to forgive, reconcile, or do whatever is necessary to maintain and or save his marriage, despite what his wife may or may not have done to endanger the sanctity and integrity of the marriage.

When we talk about application of Torah and the prophetic shadow pictures that Torah provides us, as it relates to the critical issue/topic of marriage, divorce and remarriage, we have the brilliant example of the covenant relationship that existed and continues to exist between Yehovah (the husband) and Yisra’el (His wife). We know from biblical history that Yehovah’s wife, Yisra’el, committed adultery and violated the established covenant she had with Him on numerous occasions throughout her history. Yet despite Yisra’el’s repeated violations of the covenant Yehovah had with His bride Yisra’el, He did not abandon her. Oh, Yisra’el went through some tough times of punishment because of her infidelity and during those times it appeared Yehovah had abandoned her. Yehovah states, in somewhat of a metaphorical way, that He did in fact divorce His beloved bride Yisra’el. However, because of His love for Yisra’el, He remained steadfast and true to the covenant he had with her. Therefore, He (Yehovah) still maintains a relationship with her (Yisra’el) as evidenced by the various prophecies scattered throughout scripture of Him fighting yet again for Yisra’el; Yisra’el returning to Yehovah (Teshuvah), having the blinding scales drop from her eyes; and all Yisra’el being saved.

This reality must be a central example to all Yah’s set-apart couples. And that is, despite what has happened to endanger the integrity of a set-apart couple’s marriage, divorce need not be the go-to option for bringing peace to the lives of the husband and wife. As heinous as the sin of adultery may be, Abba does NOT require, nor does He encourage divorce as the remedy to the discord and damage that has been done to the relationship. And this of course must be applied to both husband and wife. For under the Spirit and Truth paradigm of walking in holy covenant relationship with the Almighty, forgiveness and repentance must always be the first and foremost “go-to” solution to such relational crises and troubles. And I would add that it falls to the husband, more so than the wife, to see to it that reconciliation and forgiveness is given a fair chance in the reclaiming of the damaged marriage from the clutches of the enemy. For Yah made marriage to last a lifetime and it was never intended to be dissolved for any reason, with the sole exception of the death of either the husband or the wife.

But what about those situations where either the husband or wife refuses to straighten up and fly right in the relationship? Or what about those tortuous marriage relationships that involve physical and psychological abuse? I don’t believe Yehovah wants His elect to live in chaos and discord. For the Child of the Most High is tasked with serving Yehovah each and every day. And certainly, extreme marital discord has the propensity to hinder that service. And in those cases, Yah provides two options: (1) separation;  or (2) divorce (reference the teaching I did last year on divorce and marriage).  If one just cannot live in peace within the framework of a challenged marriage despite a former separation being in play, then maybe divorce is the only option: at the very least for the wellbeing of both husband and wife and the children. However, the scriptures seem pretty clear, that if the couple does decide to go down the end-game road of divorce, then neither husband or wife is qualified to marry another until their original marriage partner dies. Thus it would seem clear that Yehovah hesitantly permitted divorce, in particular in those situations involving infidelity or some forbidden sexual relationship. And he permitted divorce because the hearts of husbands were generally hardened towards Yehovah and towards their wives. As it relates to any matter other than an ‘ervah matter that would lead a couple to divorce, the scriptures are silent. How one interprets that silence is left up to the individuals involved and Yehovah. And just because scripture is silent on a matter such as this doesn’t mean Yehovah’s people are free to do as they so please.

Again, marriage was originally designed to last the lifetime of the couple. Yehovah hates divorce. And Yehovah never established the institution of divorce, but He recognized that the hearts of husbands were hardened toward their wives and towards Yehovah’s Torah. Yah recognized that the hearts of wives weren’t always pure and loving towards their husbands. Furthermore, every person will individually be required to give an account for their sins. So there’s no point to arguing that our Reading this week is misogynistic: everyone will have to give an account for their sins, whether here on this earth or in the coming judgment. No one gets away with sin. For the wages of sin is death.

This being all said, couples have these and other elements that are connected to the issue of marriage, divorce and remarriage to guide them in their decision whether or not to divorce. And if they do decide to end their marriage relationship, then they must recognize the consequences of what they are about to do: how it will affect them as individuals; their relationship with the Almighty; and their family as a whole. Thus, in dissolving the covenant that was originally established between the divorcing husband and wife before a holy and righteous Elohim, they must be acutely aware that remarriage is not a viable option for either of them. For the husband and wife are forever bound to one another until one dies, regardless what the laws of the land may say otherwise.

However, as tragic as such situations may be, all is not lost. As the Apostle Shaul conveyed to His Corinthian Messianic readers, those who find themselves no longer married will have the divine opportunity to devote their entire lives from that point forward to serving Yehovah and preparing themselves to receive the coming Kingdom, entirely exclusive of searching for another marriage partner.

I must take issue with Hegg’s position on Jewish-based divorce that leads to remarriage. The commentator teaches that in cases of irreconcilable differences—such that the relationship is broken beyond repair—”divorce is allowed and remarriage is honorable.” And that the whole point behind the issuance of a “get” was “Lo, you are permitted to any man” (m. Gittin 9:3, 11). And Hegg interprets this to mean that the “get” system was designed in part to facilitate the legal remarrying of a divorced woman. 

There’s nothing honorable about divorce and remarriage. This is clearly a rabbinic invention to somehow make the dissolution of the Yehovah-ordained institution of marriage seem less than a deplorable situation that should be avoided at all costs. But again, the heart of people is hard and divorce, unfortunately, is all too often the life-choice of far too many people of Faith.

Divorce, in and of itself is not a sin. It becomes a sin when one seeks to dissolve his or her marriage for purposes of fulfilling their selfish, evil desires and preferences (e.g., the husband desires to replace his present wife with a younger, prettier woman; the woman wants to replace her husband with a man who can provide her with the best things in life; or the husband and or the wife simply want to be free from their present marriage in order to pursue his or her own carnal interests.)

Let us never forget Abba’s declaration, through the Prophet Malachi:

“I hate divorce” (2:16). 

Remarriage, on the other hand, is an entirely different animal than divorce. There are no provisions for remarriage in Torah, with the exception of that which is rendered in our focus passage here today. And this provision was rendered as a form of protection for the woman who is sent out of her husband’s home for something she may or may have not done that is of an unseemly or indecent nature. It wasn’t that Yehovah was sanctioning remarriage. Abba was simply working within the framework of established ANE marriage dissolution or divorce and remarriage practices. However, Abba drew the line when it came to the woman returning to and remarrying her first husband. He wanted to make it clear to His set-apart people that women, contrary to the conventional wisdom of that day, were not pieces of property to be handed off between men to be used as they saw fit. They were, in fact, individuals who were to be treated accordingly; loved by their husbands and given respect in the family and in the Hebrew community that is worthy of any  child of the Most High.

As I see it, Torah provides no provision or true instruction for remarriage outside that which is established here in our reading. Yah is silent on the issue. Yet, in His silence on the issue of remarriage, He is fully cognizant that many of his people who enter into divorce will find themselves in a remarrying situation. It’s like anything else, just because Yehovah doesn’t condone a thing such as remarriage, doesn’t mean that He approves of it for His set-apart people. For if every child of His walks in strict covenant obedience in Spirit and in Truth, divorce and remarriage would be a non-issue in our Faith Community. Thus, Yah sees even the divorced couple as still married to one another and essentially ineligible to marry another. Abba doesn’t prohibit divorce, nor does He prohibit remarriage (with the exception of remarriage to the first husband after the death or divorce of the second husband). He recognizes that divorce and remarriage are practices that people enter into and take upon themselves. And these practices are indeed often fraught with terrible consequences and problems as denoted by Shaul in 1 Corinthians 7. So it can safely be concluded that Abba doesn’t approve of divorce or remarriage at all. The only thing He asks us to remember and keep in mind is that which His Son, Y’shua pointed out to the Pharisees of His day:

“Have you not read, that He who created from the beginning, He created them male and female? And He said, Because of this, a man will leave his father and his mother and will be joined to his wife, and they will be both of them one flesh. Henceforth, they will not be two, rather one flesh. Therefore, what Elohim has united, man should not separate” (Mat. 19:4-6). 

Yeshua, our Mashiyach, on the other hand, compels us, His disciples, to understand the issue of divorce and remarriage from a much higher and Godly perspective:

 

“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery” (Luk. 16:18; ESV).

 

“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (Mat. 5:31-32; ESV). 

As sons and daughters of the Most High, and as disciples of Y’shua Mashiyach, we have been called to a much higher standard of life and walk. We are compelled not to walk in the ways of this world and in the ways of man and society and community. We are compelled instead to walk in the Way of Covenant and Kingdom. We do have a choice, though. Unfortunately, many will choose, for their own conveniences, both within and outside our Faith community, to divorce and remarry because they can. But just because one can do a thing, doesn’t mean they are operating in the Will of their Creator and in sync with the teachings and example of our Master Y’shua Messiah.

Now, none of any of this is to say that, like the rhetorical couple who enters Faith, learns their marriage or divorce is not God-honoring, and upon coming into such obedient knowledge therein, is thus compelled or required to dissolve their present marriage. It simply means that upon their coming to such righteous knowledge, the couple needs to repent, seek Abba’s forgiveness and then honor Yehovah and remain obedient to His Torah as a covenant walking couple from here-on out. Yehovah is happy to forgive any who comes to Him with a contrite spirit and broken heart, repents and seeks His forgiveness and sins no more. As the Apostle Yochanan wrote:

“If we confess our sins (that is, confess our sins to Yehovah, not to man), He (Yehovah) is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 Joh. 1:9; ESV). 

I would be remiss at this juncture, however, to mention that, for those who have knowledge of the Truth as relates to marriage and divorce, but who within themselves falsely rationalize that he or she can divorce their spouse and marry the one that best fits their fancy, and then seek forgiveness from Yehovah after the fact, these are essentially setting themselves up for committing the great sin of “high-Handedness” (Num. 15:30).

Messianics—Modern Day Levites—Separated for Service to God—Thoughts and Reflections on Torah Portion Behaalosecha

by | Jun 21, 2019 | ,

This week’s Torah Portion-Behaalosecha-foreshadows a great many spiritual elements necessary for our service to the Kingdom of God. In a sense we are modern day Levites. We have been separated from all the nations people of the world unto God for His service. Are we up for the challenge? This is a wake-up call to the Body of Messiah to take immediate action.

read more

Israel: To Love or Hate Her—That is the Question—Part 2–A Biblical and Personal Perspective on the Significance of Physical Israel

by | Jun 14, 2019 | ,

In this 2nd Part to our Israel: To Love or Hate Series, we continue our analysis of some the most common reasons people reject physical Israel today. As well as we consider some of the miracles said to have resulted in Israel’s deliverance from certain destruction. And lastly we consider the problems associated with the nation state of Israel. Shalom and welcome.

read more

Marriage and Divorce According to Torah Part 1–A Discussion of Parashah 144

by | Aug 7, 2021 | Blog, Podcasts

by Rod Thomas | The Messianic Torah Observer's Sabbath Thoughts and Reflections

Marriage and Divorce According to Torah Part 1—A Discussion of Parashah 144 

Although our Torah Reading for today, Parashah 144, covers Deuteronomy 24:1–25:19, I was led by the content to focus only on the first four-verses of the entire reading.

The focus of these four verses is Marriage-Divorce-Remarriage. Indeed, very weighty subject-matter to say the least. But given that this four-verse passage has received so much attention from a great many individuals over the centuries, including, but not limited to rabbis, Y’shua and Shaul, bible commentators, teachers and preacher and so forth, marriage, divorce and remarriage remains as some of the most hotly debated and contested subjects to be found in scripture.

What I would like to do for this Torah Reading discussion today is, because I have so much content on this passage to discuss with you, to divide our discussion into two-sessions or postings.

So in today’s post we will cover the following:

  1. First read our focus passage (using the Robert Alter English Translation).
  2. Then sort of break the four-verses down into digestible portions (because the four-verses consist of a single run-on sentence).
  3. Discuss a few of the two-prevailing Rabbinic schools of thought on this passage as it relates to the topic of marriage, divorce and remarriage.

Then in the second posting on this parashah discussion we will cover the following:

  1. Interpret our focus passage using the teachings of Y’shua and the Apostle Shaul.
  2. And conclude our discussion with Spirit and Truth applications. 
  1. Robert Alter Translation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 

And the Alter Translation of our passage reads as follows:

“When a man takes a wife and cohabits with her, it shall be, if she does not find favor in his eyes because he finds some shamefully exposed thing, and he writes her a document of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her away from his house, and she goes out from his house and goes and becomes another man’s, and the second man hates her and writes her a document of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her away from his house, or the second man, who took her to him as wife, dies, her first husband, who sent her away, shall not be able to come back and take her to be his wife after she has been defiled, for it is an abhorrence before the LORD, and you shall not lead the land to offend that the LORD your God is about to give you in estate.” 

 

  1. A Rough Breakdown and Discussion of our Focus Passage 

As J.H. Hertz asserts, this mitzvah is not a commandment or an established institution for divorce. Divorce was common to the Semitic peoples of the ANE. However, in order to understand divorce YHVH’s Way, we must first understand marriage from His perspective as well. For its “sacredness goes back to the very birth of man” (Hertz; pg. 930).

Overall, divorce is viewed and treated as an unfortunate reality of male-women relationships. And depending on which side of Judaism you’re on (I.e., orthodox or reformed), you may think that there are certain circumstances or situations in a marriage that compel a husband to divorce his wife. But this belief or philosophy cannot be further from Truth. Yehovah never commanded any man to divorce his wife. But rather, the instruction that is given here is scenario-based: “If a man or husband” elects to divorce his wife because he learns of some indecency on her part, then he must give to her a certificate or bill of divorce, and so forth. There then is no sense whatsoever of Yehovah compelling a husband to divorce his wife as insinuated by the Pharisees who challenged Y’shua on the issue of divorce in Matthew 19:3-9. But rather, the commandment to the divorcing husband was that if you decide to divorce your wife because she was unfaithful to him or she engaged in some forbidden sexual relationship, you must give her a certificate of divorce. This commandment for the divorcing husband to give to his wife a certificate or bill of divorcement was for the benefit of the divorced wife, so that she would be legally eligible to marry another man within the Hebrew nation.

Hegg points out that this mitzvah dealing with marriage, divorce and remarriage is the only instruction on this subject in the whole of Torah. All other mentions of marriage and divorce in Torah relate to instructions on priestly marriages, the insolubility of a divorced woman’s vows/oaths and those unique circumstances where divorce would not be permitted (specific to our last parashah discussion 143). (Reference: Lev. 21:7,14; 22:13; Num. 30:9; Deu. 22:19,29)

As I see it, this passage is more scenario-based in its application of Torah instruction, then it is a global-universal instruction or premise on the topic of marriage, divorce and remarriage. For it describes a rhetorical husband who, after marrying his wife, is no longer favored by him because he finds in her some “indecency” (ESV)—”uncleanness” (KJV), “shamefully exposed thing” (Alter), which in the Hebrew is the term “’ervah.” ‘Ervah means “nudity in either a literal or figurative sense. To me, ‘ervah is suggestive of adultery or some form of forbidden sexual relationship.

Now, depending on the wording of the English translation you’re using, this husband is either led to or compelled to divorce her or send her away. In such a case, our rhetorical husband then writes his wife a “bill of divorcement (KJV).” This “bill of divorcement” or “document of divorce” in the Alter translation, in the Hebrew is Ker-ee-thooth” which means a cutting of the matrimonial bond, or simply divorce. He then gives that bill of divorcement to his wife and she departs his house—still rhetorically speaking—she then goes out and marries another man. If then that second husband—still rhetorically speaking—at some point dies or he finds problems with this woman as did the first husband, and he goes through the process of divorcing her and giving her a second “bill of divorcement,” well then her first husband (no longer rhetorically speaking) is prohibited from remarrying her.

Now, as I just pointed out, depending on the English translation you’re using, and let’s just add in there, the interpretations and teachings of bible teachers, preachers and so forth on this subject, the gist of our reading may be taken a number of ways to include the following:

  1. This passage lays out the process for a man to divorce his wife.
  1. This passage provides the criteria of which a divorce may be granted.
  1. This passage is a permissive whereby Yehovah establishes the institution of divorce and remarriage.
  1. This passage is about the sin of adultery or other forbidden sexual sins that may lead a husband to divorce his wife.
  1. This passage is simply a prohibition against a man remarrying his twice divorced wife.

And of course, there are other interpretations, understandings and positions on this passage, especially as it relates to the topic of marriage, divorce and remarriage.

 

III.  Two Prevailing Schools of Thought on our Focus Passage 

The Pharisees vigorously disputed one another over this passage of Holy Writ. The School of Shammai’s position on this passage, which also influenced its position on the issue of divorce specific to Judaism, was that divorce was permissible only in response to a wife’s unchastity; or just simply in response to a wife’s adultery or infidelity.

Conversely, the School of Hillel contended that divorce was permissible for “any reason which entailed a rupture of domestic harmony resulting in a daily violation of one of the main purposes of marriage, which is companionship” (Hertz; pg. 932).

The interesting thing we must also add to this marriage-divorce conundrum as understood in Judaism is the position of the Essenes, Zadokites, Samaritans and Messianic Jews that prohibited a divorced man from marrying a second wife as long as his first wife lived. Which is the position that I tend to side with on this issue of divorce. But I will expound upon my position further along in our discussion.

Hegg in his commentary on this parashah explains the different rabbinic schools of thought (I.e., the Hillel versus the Shammai) on what constitutes an act that is “unseemly” or “indecent” by the wife. And he provides us a rather nuanced but very interesting take on the competing schools of thought:

 

“The famous debate on this phrase between the house of Hillel and the house of Shammai reveals the polar positions taken by the Sages. Hillel ruled that the ‘ervat davar is governed by the use of ד   ָ בָָ ר, davar, interpreted to mean “any matter.” He therefore ruled that anything the husband found displeasing could constitute grounds for the divorce. Akiva took Hillel’s viewpoint to the extreme, as did Philo (Laws 3.80). Josephus also agreed with Hillel’s ruling (Ant. 4.8). Shammai, however, restricted ‘ervat davar to matters of unchastity, and found grounds for a valid divorce only on the basis of sexual misconduct. The mishnah describing the differences is m.Gittin 9.10 (cf. also Sifre Deut. 269; y.Sota 1.2, 16b)–The  House  of  Shammai  say,  “A  man  should  divorce  his  wife  only  because  he  has  found grounds  for  it  in  unchastity,”  since  it  is  said,  “Because  he  has  found  in  her  indecency  in anything (Dt. 24:1).”  And the House of Hillel say, “Even if she spoiled his dish,” since it is said, “Because he has found in her indecency in anything.” R. Aqiba says, “Even if he found someone else prettier than she,”  since it is said, “And it shall be if she find no favor in his eyes”” (Dt. 24:1).

 

Nevertheless, it must be understood that Rabbinic Judaism has for at least the last two-millennium stood firmly on the side of the School of Hillel as it relates to the issue of divorce. Furthermore, Rabbinic Judaism pretty much rejects the extra-orthodox-Jewish prohibition on remarriage. For the husband wields all the power in orthodox Jewish marriages and he is the sole determinant as to whether or not the marriage remains in tact or is dissolved. (This, as harsh as it may sound, is consistent with the tenets of our Torah Reading passage here today.) On the reformed side of Judaism, especially today, the husband has been stripped of this exclusivity by the rabbis and the courts control how the divorce proceedings will go. And the reformed Jewish courts tend to favor the wellbeing of the wife over that of the husband in the divorcement proceedings.

Hertz points out in his additional notes on this passage that Rabbinic Judaism, despite her general School of Hillel leanings (such that a husband could divorce his wife for essentially any reason), at some point clamped down on the granting of legal divorces by making the issuance of a “Get” (which is a rabbinic bill of divorcement) a rather challenging thing to receive by the husband and give to the wife. In other words, the rabbis took to themselves the exclusive power the husband once held to divorce his wife for any reason he saw fit and made the divorce process a court-based action. In so doing, the bill of divorcement spoken of in our focus passage transitioned into that of a court-issued document called a “get.” And the process  that would lead to the issuance of this so-called “get” by Jewish courts was made to be a challenging ordeal for the husband.

The rabbi’s claimed the purpose in their making the issuance of a “Get” so challenging to the husband was to “dissuade husband and wife from proceeding to divorce…in order to facilitate attempts at reconciliation” (Hertz). Despite the suggested challenges a husband faced in having a “get” drafted, divorces were indeed granted (Get) for a variety of reasons.

Hegg points out that this provision grants the husband sole right to divorce and dissolve the marriage. But Hegg goes on to note that under Rabbinic Law, the court could rule on the side of a wife and compel the husband to issue his wife a “Get” to dissolve the marriage under certain circumstances (Mechilta, Mishpatim,  3;  m.Arachin  5.6).

However, Hegg also addresses a nuance of Rabbinic Law that attempts to enforce the original spirit of this Torah instruction:

 

 “…the  rabbinic  debate  on  this  subject  immediately  raised  the objection that a valid get required that the husband act freely and not under duress. The response to this objection is contained in b.BavaBatra 48a: “Similarly in the case of divorces, [where the Rabbis have said that the husband can be forced to give a divorce] we say [that what is meant is that] force is applied to him till he says, ‘I consent.’” Thus, the judges act on the presumption that every Israelite intends to do according to the Torah, and the Torah requires that one submit to the rulings of the judges. Thus, the husband is compelled to obey the Torah and offers the get freely as the fruit of such submission” (Hegg, Commentary on Parashah 144).

 

Although under Rabbinic Law a woman could sue her husband for divorce. Regardless if she prevailed, still, only the husband was permitted to issue to her that “Get” or “Bill of Divorcement.”

And so it was, according to the Jewish historian Josephus, divorces were granted for all sorts of reasons:

 

“He that desires to be divorced from his wife for any cause whatsoever (and many such causes happen among men), let him in writing give assurance that he will never use her as his wife any more; for by this means she may be at liberty to marry another husband, although before this bill of divorce be given, she is not to be permitted so to do; but if she be misused by him also, or if, when he is dead, her first husband would marry her again, it shall not be lawful for her to return to him” (Josephus; Ant. 4.8.253).

 

Josephus’ interpretation of this passage of ours here today is consistent with that of the School of Hillel and that of the general consensus of the whole Pharisaical lot of Y’shua’s Day. And thus, this was the attitude or mindset and level of spiritual corruption that Master had to confront and deal with throughout His short personal ministry in Judah. For the very fact that our Master, the walking, talking Torah come down from heaven to clarify His Father’s Torah for us, interpreted this passage to mean divorce was to be granted to Hebrew husbands solely on the basis of adultery, shows just how corrupt the hearts of the people, in particular the Jewish leaders, had become (Mat. 19:7-9). This, despite the term for uncleanness or unseemly thing in the Hebrew being ‘ervah generally refers to things of a dubious sexual nature or that which is of an unclean nature, the hardness of their hearts towards women compels them to view Yehovah’s commandments and instructions in righteousness from their own, selfish perspectives as opposed to Yah’s perspective.

The “unseemly thing” or “’ervah” as it relates to our rhetorical husband who is thus led to divorce his wife  was interpreted by the two competing Rabbinic Schools differently.

Shammai narrowly interpreted “’ervah” as acts of “indecency.” This is of course in line with the school’s teaching that divorce was only permissible if the wife was determined to be guilty of adultery (aka, unchastity).

Hillel, on the other hand, interpreted “’ervah” in a more liberal sense as being “indecency in anything.” In other words, according to J.H. Hertz, “implying that a wife may be divorced also for reasons other than unchastity” (pg. 850).

The finding of that which is “unseemly” or as Hegg interprets, that which is “indecent” in one’s wife, that term ‘ervah being used only one other time in Torah: Deuteronomy 23:14—Yehovah commanding the people to strict sanitary practices because He walks through the camp and fights for Yisra’el and He does not want to see anything indecent among the people. When this understanding of “unseemly” or “indecent” is applied to this mitzvah, the term carries with it, according to Hegg, that which is “obnoxious.”

Robert Alter in his commentary on this passage interprets that thing that the wife is believed to have committed that caused her to lose favor in her husband’s eyes as a “shamefully exposed thing.” And Alter takes somewhat of a more liberal stance on what exactly this thing the wife has done could be. He suggests that it could be something as serious as a morally, reprehensible act, or as innocent as the wife having some form of physical defect that repulses her husband. Or simply that she and her husband are not compatible in an intimate sense.

The “bill of divorcement” the husband gives to his so-called “unseemly” or “indecent” wife that our present text denotes, was, as Hertz describes, a “certificate of total separation from her.”

The Rabbi’s, later on of course, altered this mitzvah in such a way that the divorcement process as described here in our present text was taken out of the hands or control of the husband. Control was instead shifted to what Hertz describes as “a public authority.” The purpose of this shifting of control out of the husband’s hands to that of the public authority as it relates to divorce was to eliminate, as much as possible, the “arbitrariness” and “selfishness” that all too often was part and parcel of the act of divorce in the ANE, which at first had always been left entirely to the will of the divorcing husband. This once so-called “bill of divorcement” under rabbinic oversight was renamed a “Get.” Supposedly the “Get” system of divorcement of Judaism recognized the sanctity and supposed permanence of the marriage union, while at the same time providing the husband and wife with an orderly and less arbitrary course for the dissolution of the marriage union as a permissible option of Torah.

Notice I said the get system of divorce provided the husband and wife an orderly and less arbitrary course for divorce. Well, the reason is this: Prior to the implementation of this system, the husband held all the cards in the divorce process. And the state of the divorcing husband’s heart ultimately determined, in most cases, the reason he was divorcing his wife and what provisions, if any, he would make for her in his sending her away from his home. In other words, the court sought to introduce into the divorce process of the ANE, less variance in terms of a husband’s reasons for divorcing his wife; a greater focus on saving the marriage as opposed to dissolving it; and general protections for the wellbeing of the wife in the event the get was issued and the divorce finalized. 

The prohibition against the husband remarrying his wife in the event she returns to him after a second failed marriage (or the death of the second husband) put into proper perspective how woman of Yehovah are to be viewed and treated within the framework of marriage. She was not a piece of property to be handed off to another man and then reclaimed when certain situations dictated. She is, according to Hertz, “a moral personality.” In Yehovah’s perspective, it is an abominable act for the first husband to remarry their former wife after her second marriage ends. She is defiled according to Torah. And such transgressions in turn defile the land.

This makes sense when we consider that the husband originally set out to divorce his wife because she committed adultery. Her original transgression made her defiled in the first place. And then to be remarried to her original husband only made the relationship all the more confused and chaotic.

Regarding divorce, Rabbi Eleazer wrote:

 

“One who divorces his wife, even the very altar sheds tears because of him” (Tractate Gittin 90b—Babyonian).

 

The writer of the article entitled “Divorce 101” suggests the courts seized from the husband the exclusive privilege of divorcing his wife and dissolving the marriage. This, as has been previously mentioned, creates a seeming “imbalance of power” in Jewish marriage. Nevertheless, Torah granted this power to the husband as long as he abides by certain qualifiers:

  1. The husband draft a bill/certificate of divorce and gives it to his wife in her hand.
  1. He pays her a form of alimony.
  1. In certain circumstances, he could never divorce her (an example is seen in last week’s Torah Reading discussion—Parashah 143).

The rabbis, supposedly for purposes of improving the divorced wife’s situation, instituted certain qualifying limitations on the husband during the divorce proceedings:

  1. They expanded the situations or conditions that prohibited divorce.
  1. They made the overall divorce proceeding complex and daunting for the husband.
  1. They required the wife’s consent to the divorce.
  1. They increased the financial compensation and considerations to be paid out to her by the husband to be more favorable to the wife.
  1. The issuance of a “get” required the husband’s full-consent. However, under certain circumstances, “the wife could request that the ‘beit din,’ or the Rabbinic Court, attempt to ‘compel’ the husband to grant the divorce.”

If a Jewish woman is sent away by her husband without said “get,” she is said to be “agunah,” or a “chained wife” who is ineligible to remarry.

For specifics on how divorce actually works in Jewish society, see the above mentioned article.

Messianics—Modern Day Levites—Separated for Service to God—Thoughts and Reflections on Torah Portion Behaalosecha

by | Jun 21, 2019 | ,

This week’s Torah Portion-Behaalosecha-foreshadows a great many spiritual elements necessary for our service to the Kingdom of God. In a sense we are modern day Levites. We have been separated from all the nations people of the world unto God for His service. Are we up for the challenge? This is a wake-up call to the Body of Messiah to take immediate action.

read more

Israel: To Love or Hate Her—That is the Question—Part 2–A Biblical and Personal Perspective on the Significance of Physical Israel

by | Jun 14, 2019 | ,

In this 2nd Part to our Israel: To Love or Hate Series, we continue our analysis of some the most common reasons people reject physical Israel today. As well as we consider some of the miracles said to have resulted in Israel’s deliverance from certain destruction. And lastly we consider the problems associated with the nation state of Israel. Shalom and welcome.

read more

What Loving One Another Looks Like–The Morality and Love of Torah-Parashah 143

by | Jul 30, 2021 | Blog, Podcasts

by Rod Thomas | The Messianic Torah Observer-Sabbath Thoughts and Reflections

What Loving One Another Looks Like–The Morality and Love of Torah-Parashah 143—Sabbath Thoughts and Reflections 

Our Torah Reading This Week—Parashah 143—Is Found in Deuteronomy 22:8-23:25

 

The physical should always be followed when applicable, but also the physical must point us to the spiritual application.

These are righteous living principles that separate the faithful covenant walking Child of the Most High from the world’s ways of conducting themselves and living their lives. Some say that these principles no longer apply to us because we are now under grace. And the truth of the matter is, indeed, we are under Yah’s grace. However, Yah’s grace is intended to provide us the means by which to resist the ways of this world and live in accordance with His holy and righteous Ways. For Yah’s Ways are the only Ways that we, His elect and His children, must live in order to remain in covenant relationship with Him and to receive the Kingdom of Yehovah. We study and receive and obey these instructions because we love Yehovah our Abba, the Creator of the Universe. And we faithfully obey these instructions because it pleases Yah to see His children living in obedience to His Ways and because it is just the right thing to do.

 

Key Obedience and Spiritual Take-Aways

 

  • Make our dwellings safe for family and brethren.
  • Love for one another.
  • Separation of classes.
  • The wearing of tzitzits.
  • Raising Godly daughters.
  • The sanctity of marriage.
  • Purity in the Camp of Yehovah.
  • Disqualifiers for the Congregation of Yisra’el.
  • Prostitution-Homosexuality and forbidden sexual activity.
  • Helping our brethren in need and not taking advantage of them in the process.
  • Proper treatment of foreign slaves.

 

Personal Responsibilities For Family’s and Neighbor’s Safety and Wellbeing (22:8) 

Instructions on making our homes safe for our guests (22:8. Abba instructed us to erect “parapet” around the edges of our homes once we entered the Land of Promise. People spent a lot of time on their roofs for various and sundry reasons. And with that extended time on the roofs of their homes, there existed a very real fall danger. The parapets offered a protective barrier around the roof to prevent people from falling and injuring themselves. And depending on the height of the structure, a fall could result in death.

It should be of no surprise that the rabbinic sages had to put their two cents into this instruction. Parapets, according to ancient Jewish law, were required to be a minimum of 10-handbreaths, which translates to about 30” high.

Turns out that a fall resulting in one’s death from a Hebrew’s roof because the owner was negligent in failing to install a parapet was viewed by Jewish lawyers as gross negligence or negligent homicide.

Thus, we see illustrated what love for one’s neighbor looks like. And for us today, we can draw from this example in our own day-to-day lives. Are we taking proper precautions to make our families and visitors to our homes safe? Do we care enough about others that we are willing to do the right thing and make the necessary improvements to our dwellings to prevent any chances of injury or harm? To do so is to be a responsible homeowner and an obedient keeper of Torah.

 

Separation and Class Distinctions (22:9-11)

Here we have a prohibition against planting mixed seeds (in our vineyards), plowing our fields using mixed species of animals and wearing garments that consist of a mixture of wool and linen (22:9-11). Linen in this sense consisted of flax (Exo. 39:8; cf. Exo. 30:22-27).

The linen-wool mixture was unique to the composition of the priestly garments and construction of the Tabernacle (4QMMT). Thus, a separating of the holy from the profane and common. The Hebrew terminology at play here is sha’atnez-the mingling of wool and linen. The unequally yoke beasts of burden prohibition is obviously a direct tie to our responsibilities toward the wellbeing of Yah’s animal creation. The mixing of seeds seems to get varied opinions amongst Torah and denominational teachers. But on seemingly sound explanation is Yah’s insistence that His vegetation creation order be maintained by His human creation. As far as Yah and we are concerned, hybridization was strictly prohibited.

 

Tassels—Aka Tzitzits (22:12) 

Here we have the instruction for Hebrews to make for themselves tassels, or gedilim, which differs somewhat in the terminology used in Num. 15:38-41–fringes or tzitzit. Tassels as used here being gedilim is used only here and in 1 Kings 7:17, which describes in that case “wreaths of chain work” on the capitals of the courtyard of Solomon’s Temple.

Tzitzit are to be sewn or attached to the 4-corners or wings of a Hebrew’s garments.

This is a universal commandment, although certain rabbis have restricted the wearing of tzitziyot to men.

But here in this passage we find no assigned or attached mnemonic for the Hebrew as we find for the tzitziyot of Numbers.

 

The Sacred Reputation of a Virgin of Yisra’el (22:13-29)—Raising Godly Daughters and by Extension Godly Men 

If an Yisra’eli male marries a professed Yisra’eli female virgin, who at some point and for whatever reason falls out of favor with him, and he accuses her of not being a virgin (Heb. is “betulim” which means the condition of virginity and the concrete evidence of her virginity) as she originally attested to him before they were married, thereby impugning her integrity, it falls to this woman’s parents to present to the court the evidence of her virginity. After verifying the evidence, the man making the false allegation will receive punishment that includes beating, financial reparations to the woman’s parents, and remain married to that man until either one dies. The reason for this sentence against the man is that he put forth a “bad name for a virgin in Yisra’el.”

On the other hand, if it turns out that there is no evidence to the fact of the woman’s virginity and it turns from (it would seem) further inquiry that the woman was not a virgin as declared to her husband before their marriage, that woman would be stoned to death by the men of the community. In this, according to Yehovah, evil will be rooted from the community’s midst.

It would seem as though there is a stark disparity in the degree of punishment as it relates to either party in this tragic situation is concerned. In both instances, either the husband or the wife is lying. If the man is found to be lying, he receives humiliation. If the woman, on the other hand, is found to be lying, she receives the death sentence. Why? It is not entirely clear from the text. But it would seem to me that the disparity in the degree of punishment was not about the man lying versus the woman lying about their respective positions. The disparity appears to rest on the issue of chastity and deception.

Marriage was one of those sacred pillar institutions that Father was unequivocal on. To Yehovah, marriage was intended to be for life: The life of the man and the life of the woman. The institution of marriage was intended as the only instrument or means by which we are to procreate. It also was intended to serve as the means by which our worship and glorifying of Yehovah here on this planet would be magnified: the man and the woman becoming one through the institution of marriage would create a situation of worship and service that would be impossible with just one individual. Two are better than one.

As far as intimacy is concerned, it is reserved only for marriage. Period. And sex outside of marriage is a transgression of Torah. So, there’s to be no shacking up and no premarital relations as is very much the common practice among secularists and even some people of Faith today.

When scripture speaks of the “marriage bed,” we are to always understand it to be a euphemism for marital relations.

Thus, it was imperative that the man and the woman get this whole marriage thing right for a lot was riding on it. And the woman who elected to live a less than chaste life prior to marriage, but then hides that reality from her betrothed (that is, she deceives her betrothed) only compounded her sin.

Ancient rabbis viewed this mitzvah as extremely draconian, and they drew up various impediments to carrying out the required punishment such as requiring at least two-witnesses attested to the woman’s fornication. The accusation and any such evidence the crossed husband might produce against his wife was viewed as circumstantial.

I contend there is another way to view this disparity. The imbittered husband had the option, if he truly believed he was deceived by his wife as it related to her supposed virginity, to not put his wife through such an ordeal. For if he truly loved her, he would have the righteous option of forgiving his wife of her deception and loose ways prior to their marriage and living happily ever after with her. If anything, if indeed the husband’s suspicions were correct, this mitzvah served as a test of the state of the husband’s heart and love for his wife. This mitzvah, if carried out by the husband, knowing the potential outcome his accusations would bring to his wife and to his wife’s parents, would certainly prove the hatefulness of the husband and no doubt his life would be miserable from that point onward.

The husband was not required to bring down judgment upon his wife, even if his suspicions were valid. The text stipulates that he comes to “hate her” and he elects to “impute to her misconduct and put out a bad name for her” (verses 13-14). Thus, Yehovah left the husband an out as a means of showing his true love for his wife.

The spiritual application here is undeniable. Yehovah likened Yisra’el as His wife as He entered into a marriage covenant with her. Yet she was not chaste. She was, from the very beginning, a deceptive and sitffnecked wife. And according to the terms of the covenant Yah made with her, He had every right to cast Yisra’el away from Him. But He didn’t. He has stayed true to his covenant with her because He loved her.

The same applies to us today. Most, if not all of us, came to this Faith covenant relationship with Yehovah in less than a spiritually chaste state. And after we entered into a covenant relationship with Him, we all have the tendency to violate the terms of that covenant relationship. Yet Father is loving and kind to us. He doesn’t want to hurt us, nor cast us away from Him. He provides us the means by which to remain in covenant with Him.

Yehovah, ideally speaking, always intended that a woman entering marriage would be a virgin. And this works only when the man does not transgress Torah himself. For if all men of the Congregation of Yisra’el were truly walking in covenant relationship with the Almighty, women would remain virgins till marriage. And men would also remain virgins till marriage. So, the onus was placed on the males of Yisra’el to “tow the line” as it relates to them and their families living righteous and Torah-based lives. As head of the household, the husband was ultimately responsible for raising his sons and daughters to act in accordance with Yah’s holy and righteous ways. Thus, a woman’s father was ultimately responsible for his daughter’s chastity until she married. And execution of the unchaste woman would serve as a loud acknowledgment of his negligence in properly raising his sons and especially his daughters.

Even today, it falls to Godly fathers to safeguard their daughters and teach them to be Godly woman of Yehovah and to remain chaste until Yah blesses them with the right Godly man.

___________________________________________________________

Another situation involves a “betrothed” female Yisra’eli woman who engages another man in sexual relations who, if caught, both the offending man and the virgin woman are to be stoned to death.

Yehovah sees a marriage betrothal as binding as the sacred marriage covenant. And the man who defiles another man’s “wife” (although betrothed) and the virgin, if caught in the act of adultery, are subject to being stoned to death, again to rid evil from the midst of the community. The woman, in this case, is punished because her contact with this man was not that of rape. If, however, the woman calls for help because the man is raping her, only the man is executed by stoning.

So, this mitzvah addressed the question of consensual sex outside of marriage. If the act occurred within a densely populated community, and it was NOT a consensual act but rather the man was forcing himself on the betrothed woman (I.e., raping her), it would be presumed that someone would hear the betrothed woman’s distress-calls and someone or someones would render assistance. In that case, the man would be stoned to death for his gross disrespect and violation of the marriage betrothal covenant.

Silence on the part of the woman would be indicative of the act being consensual. In this case, if caught, both the man and the betrothed woman faced summary execution.

If on the other hand the act occurs outside the densely populated community, such as in a rural setting, rape is generally presumed and only the man would be subject to execution. It would be presumed in such a case that no one would be within reasonable earshot to hear and respond to the betrothed woman’s cry for help. Thus, in this case, the woman would be deemed innocent. So, where there is no hard and fast evidence of the betrothed woman crying out for help, she is presumed innocent.

There are, of course, many questions surrounding this mitzvah. But the bottom line is: If indeed the betrothed woman is Godly—having received the proper training from her parents on how to behave and she in turn adheres to that Torah training—such situations ideally would not occur. And the same bottom line applies to the man: The man who walks in covenant with the Almighty who is well versed in Torah and who’s heart is true, will not find himself entwined in such situations. Thus, the one who is not Godly and who is evil, Yah has assured, will be found out and he will be uprooted from the Congregation of Yehovah.

__________________________________________________________

If a man engages in sexual relations with an unbetroth female Yisra’eli virgin and is caught, he will be required to give the woman’s father 50 weights of silver, and then marry her. This man will never be permitted to send this woman away.

Rape in this sense is “chazaq,” which means to be strong; such that a man seizes a woman and overpowers her.

The thing to consider here is the father of the unbetroth woman has the right to accept or deny marriage of his daughter to the rapist. In either case, the rapist must pay the father the bride price of 50-shekels of silver, essentially a dowry.

 

The Sacredness of a Parent’s Marriage (22:30/23:1) 

No son shall “take” (laqach–to be taken in marriage or be intimate with) their father’s wife. The confusing phraseology of a son “uncovering his father’s skirt” is best understood as simply “marital relations.” Skirt is not as we know it here in 21st century western parlance: That of a woman’s article of clothing. It refers to, instead, the son’s father’s bedcover.

Contextually, this passage is not a prohibition against a son marrying his living father’s wife. It is pertaining to the son who elects to wed the wife of his dead father or a former wife of his living father (i.e., a woman who is divorced from his father). This was apparently a common practice in certain pagan cultures of ancient Mesopotamia.

So, what we have here is a prohibition against Yisra’el engaging in Canaanite-type incestuous relationships.

 

Disqualifiers to Worship and Fellowship (3:2-9)

  1. Those men with “crushed testes or lopped member” (3:2). This appears to be a prohibition against the common ANE cultic/pagan practice of castration—the causing of one to become “unsexed” (J.H. Hertz). This passage further speaks of one who is somehow accidentally sexually mutilated (Isa. 55:3). Both situations would result in the individual being barred from worship and from becoming or remaining a member of the Community or Body of Yisra’el. For not being admitted into the Community or Commonwealth of Yisra’el meant such an individual would also be barred from marrying a Yisra’eli woman. And at the heart of the matter here, both situations speak clearly to the importance Abba placed on the sanctity of the marriage union and the family that would emerge from that sacred union. And in this case, fatherhood was an extremely important part of being a member of the Body of Yisra’el. So anything or anyone that would adversely impact the purity and fruitfulness of the marriage union was not tolerated. For indeed, the family was an integral part of worship and covenant relationship with the Almighty. And for us today, this mitzvah stands as a reminder of the importance Abba places on the integrity and wholeness of these bodies, or rather these temples. It is imperative that we safeguard and look after these bodies of ours to ensure that we provide Yehovah’s Ruach a proper—pure and sanctified—dwelling place so that we may image Him to all the world. But the primary takeaway must always be the state of our hearts towards Yehovah and our neighbor. For the wholeness and wellbeing of our bodies means nothing in the eyes of Yehovah, if our hearts are uncircumcised. Furthermore, Yehovah demands that we be men: Physically and spiritually. He’s not looking for men who are less than His ideal man, who is best exemplified in the Person of Y’shua HaMashiyach. (Note: some contend that one who scriptures describes as being excluded from the “Assembly of Yehovah” means one who is excluded from serving in one of Yisra’el’s governing bodies, as opposed to being excluded from being a part of the Congregation of Yisra’el. And the reasons given by those who believe Moshe is talking about a governing/legislative body as opposed to the Congregation of Yisra’el is that the excluded individuals’ judgments on these governing bodies would be adversely influenced by their particular physical situations. This seems to me a bit of a stretch and I can’t buy into such thinking. It seems contextually more sensible to conclude Moshe is talking about individuals who are to be excluded from the Congregation of Yisra’el.)
  2. One who is the product of or offspring of an “uncertain” (Hebrew of “mamzer”) or dubious sexual relationship (e.g., a prohibited sexual relationship) were also barred from worship and being a member of the Body of Yisra’el (3:3; cf. 18 and 20). It is not at all barring those born in what is commonly referred to as “wedlock” (as some may teach and think) from being members of the Body of Yisra’el. The Hebrew term “mamzer” provides the clarification we need by stipulating those born of prohibited sexual unions such as incest and or adultery.
  3. In 3:4-9, we find that no Ammonite or Moabite, along with their descendants, were prohibited from joining/entering the Body of Yisra’el or worship because of the way the Ammonites and Moabites treated Yisra’el and the partnership they established with Balaam in the corrupting of the nation at Baal Peor ( Neh. 13:1). When read outside of context, it would appear that we have a major contradiction here. For we know that Boaz married Ruth, a Moabitess, which would have been a violation/transgression of this mitzvah. And what makes this situation even worse is that the Boaz-Ruth marriage led to the birth of King David and ultimately the birth of our Master Y’shua Messiah. But we find in this verse that Moabite and Ammonite are rendered in the masculine. Thus, the so-called sages deduced that this mitzvah was specific to male Moabites and Ammonites. And I would have to agree with those sages. For our Elohim is not a God of confusion and He doesn’t do double-talk. That being all said, it is safe to conclude that Abba was prohibiting the inclusion into the Body of Yisra’el any Moabite and Ammonite men. I would conclude that this is a restrictive mitzvah in that it was specific for the physical nation of Yisra’el throughout her generations. Clearly, Abba had a serious issue with the Moabites and Ammonites, especially when we look at this thing from the perspective of Him instructing Yisra’el “not to abhor an Edomite” and “not to abhor an Egyptian.” Both Edom and Egypt provided Yisrael their fair share of grief throughout their early history. But that which the Ammonites and Moabites did was unforgivable in Yah’s sight. Abba’s perspective is the only perspective we must have. And if He said cut off the Moabite and the Ammonite, that’s the way it’s got to be. Our perspectives on the issue are irrelevant.

The Warriors of Yisra’el Were to Always be in a State of Ritual Purity (3:10-15) 

The Yisra’eli soldier was to separate himself from that which was unclean and evil (3:10). And I like what J.H.

Hertz has to say about this insistence that Yisra’el’s warriors remain in state of purity/cleanness and separation from that which is evil: “The camp was hallowed by the Divine Presence and must therefore be a place of purity. Uncleanness leads to ungodliness” (Pentateuch and Haftorah; pg. 847). Today, we as Yah’s spiritual warriors, ourselves, must remain in a state of cleanness and purity. This involves not just spiritual cleanness and purity, but also personal and physical purity and cleanliness. Too many of us contaminate our covenant relationship and walk with Mashiyach by involving ourselves in ungodly things ranging from the things we entertain ourselves with; relationships we engage ourselves into; personal habits such as smoking and excessive drinking and pornography. These and other such things make us spiritually and physically unclean and unworthy as dwelling places for Yehovah’s Ruach. These bodies of ours and the lives we live, to borrow from J.H.Hertz’ commentary above, are to be hallowed by Yah’s Divine Presence and must therefore be a place of purity. Amein.

Abba then addresses other personal, natural bodily functions that He views as unclean: nocturnal emissions and excrements (3:11-15). In both cases, the warrior is instructed to exercise extreme care and be responsible for properly taking care of his own bodily functions. And the reason Father was insistent upon these seemingly innocuous physical situations was that He, being their Elohim who dwelt in their midst, walked about their camp. He being holy then, did not desire to see such things and be forced to turn back from them.

 

Yisra’el to be a Place of Refuge for the Slave (3:16-17) 

Yehovah instructed that Yisra’el was to be a safe haven for foreign run-away (fugitive) slaves. Yisra’el was to be a welcoming place for the slave, who would find peace from his former life of servitude. That slave would not be returned to his/her master. This instruction ran contrary to the coventional wisdom and practice of most ANE cultures. Yah’s Ways are truly not the Ways of men. As it related to slaves within the commonwealth of Yisra’el, Abba provided the legal framework for his/her freedom—the Sabbatical Year.

From a Spirit and Truth perspective, our Faith Community must always be a welcoming refuge for those who seek to come out of the physical and spiritual slavery of this world. We must offer them the opportunity, without the danger of turning them back over to their former foreign master, to start anew and join into the Commonwealth of Yisra’el. Thus, these must be taught what walking in obedient covenant relationship with the Almighty looks like. Adopt them as fellow brothers and sister in the Faith once delivered. Disciple them and teach them the Gospel that Y’shua taught. Provide them the peaceful oasis we’ve come to love and enjoy in Y’shua HaMashiyach.

 

Prostitution and Homosexuality Strictly Prohibited in the Holy Nation (3:18-19) 

Yehovah strictly prohibited Yisra’eli woman practicing prostitution and Yisra’eli men engaging in homosexuality. Any commerce generated from prostitution would be deemed as abominable by Yehovah. Those funds could not be used in or given to the House of Yehovah (that being, the Sanctuary).

Sexual misconduct/malfeasance/impropriety, at every level, undermines the sanctity and integrity of Yehovah’s sanctioned family unit and the marriage union. Additionally, it defiles the bodies of the participants as well as anything that flows from such activities and unions, such as financial transactions or children just to name a couple, are considered as abominable by Father.

Thus, for us today, sexual sins at any level, undermines and destroys in addition to what I mentioned above, the covenant relationship we have with Yehovah. Apart from the obvious, sexual sin-forbidden sexual relationship (my post on forbidden sexual relationships) lead both parties deeper and deeper into physical and spiritual despair and ultimate destruction. It consumes one’s thoughts and draws one’s heart completely away from Yah and His perfect will. As well as it causes Yehovah’s Name to be blasphemed, by both the individual and by the unbelieving who learn of the impropriety. Case in point are those ministry leaders who have over the last several decades, become entangled in sexual sin and who were found out in the media. These faced having their spiritual and secular careers and ministries irrevocably ruined and their relationship and favor with the Almighty forfeited.

 

Yah’s People Exacting Usury Prohibited (3:20-21) 

Usury is the practice of exacting interest on loans that one makes to another. In the case of loans made to one’s Yisra’eli brother/sister, it was forbidden. Pure and simple. However, a Yisra’eli may exact interest from a stranger. In our abstaining from exacting interest on loans we would make to a fellow Yisra’eli, we open the door to blessings from Yehovah, because we helped someone in need.

The reason for the prohibition against exacting interest on loans rendered to a brother or sister is easily understood. Yah commanded us to love one another. This mitzvah is one of the ways we demonstrate the love we are supposed to have for others. Making a dollar and a cent off the needs or difficulties of a brother or sister of Faith is self-serving. It denies the blessings and provenance Yehovah has over our lives. Y’shua instructed us to provide for the need of a brother or sister by freely giving him or her that which they need, expecting nothing in return on our part:

 

 27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, 28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. 29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also. 30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. 31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. 32 For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. 33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same. 34 And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. (Luk 6:27-34 KJV)–

 

Let Your Yea Be Yea and Your Nay Be Nay—Keeping Vows We Make to Yehovah  (3:22-24) 

Yehovah commands that we keep our word always. Whatever vow or pledge we make unto Yehovah, we are bound to keep and fulfill that vow or pledge. And in our fulfilling of those vows and pledges, we are instructed to make haste to fulfill them. This instruction is unique in that Yehovah also makes an out for those who cannot keep their word to Yehovah: Simply keep your physical and spiritual mouth closed and don’t make a vow or pledge to Yah.

Our Master backed up this mitzvah when He taught His disciples the following:

 

33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:  34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: 35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. 36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.  37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. (Mat 5:33-37 KJV)

 

Bottom line: There’s absolutely nothing wrong with making pledges or oaths in the service of Yehovah. Desiring to do something to glorify or please Yehovah is always a good thing. And making a pledge or putting forth an oath to do that pleasing thing for Yehovah is only good if one actually carries it out. The problem with making promises to Yehovah is that Yehovah will hold us to fulfilling those promises. And Yeshua, our Master, admonished us to simply not make promises to Yehovah. He instead admonished us to simply do that which we are led to do.

It’s human nature, unfortunately, from time-to-time to make promises to Yehovah and not keep them. It’s best to simply not make the promise in the first place. Go forth and do that good thing that will be pleasing to Yehovah with a pure and loving heart, and in so doing, Yah will bless in the end.

 

Satisfying One’s Hunger Versus Being Greedy (3:25-26) 

Yehovah provides a simple command that shows forth one’s love and respect for his fellow neighbor. If one is traveling in Yisra’el and is hungry, he/she may eat from an owner’s standing field of produce. It’s a free provision that Father commands all who He has blessed to bless others. Yehovah, on the other hand, draws the line at one taking advantage of the blessings bestowed upon them by the owner of the field and greedily heaping unto him/herself beyond that which satisfies their immediate hunger.

The spiritual application cannot be denied here. When we are materially blessed by the provisions of a brother or sister in the Faith, we are compelled to not take advantage of that brother or sister’s kindness and provision. It befalls us to bless Yehovah for the provision and to show our respect for the individual(s) who provided for our need.

Messianics—Modern Day Levites—Separated for Service to God—Thoughts and Reflections on Torah Portion Behaalosecha

by | Jun 21, 2019 | ,

This week’s Torah Portion-Behaalosecha-foreshadows a great many spiritual elements necessary for our service to the Kingdom of God. In a sense we are modern day Levites. We have been separated from all the nations people of the world unto God for His service. Are we up for the challenge? This is a wake-up call to the Body of Messiah to take immediate action.

read more

Israel: To Love or Hate Her—That is the Question—Part 2–A Biblical and Personal Perspective on the Significance of Physical Israel

by | Jun 14, 2019 | ,

In this 2nd Part to our Israel: To Love or Hate Series, we continue our analysis of some the most common reasons people reject physical Israel today. As well as we consider some of the miracles said to have resulted in Israel’s deliverance from certain destruction. And lastly we consider the problems associated with the nation state of Israel. Shalom and welcome.

read more