Deuteronomy (Messianic) Vol. II - The Harvest

For some, this notion of practical application of Scripture is unsettling. Perhaps it stems from the overwhelming traditional application and misuse of Scripture prevalent in much of Rabbinic Judaism today (in essence, tradition is given more weight than Scripture). Because of such notions, I will briefly address this issue again before going into our teaching this week. Borrowing notes from last week’s portion, I shall summarize halakhah and the concept of “oral tradition”: “Chapter 17 of Deuteronomy talks about the details surrounding official and legal matters. Of particular interest is the subject dealt with in verses 8-13. To be sure, the sages of old understood this to be talking about the matter of halakhah and the authority of what is known in rabbinical circles as Oral Torah. From a cursory reading, it appears to be a valid teaching about establishing a governing body of legal authority based on the spoken opinion of the judge of the day. This is where the halakhah gains its strength and application. This term is roughly translated the way in which to walk. The rabbis see in this passage an opportunity to establish the tradition of the Oral Torah. As they see it, this passage instructs its readers “In accordance with the Torah they teach you, you are to carry out the judgment they render, not turning aside to the right or the left from the verdict they declare to you (v.11).” Taking the verse in its most natural and literal sense, it does seem to validate the right for the rabbis to impose their judgments on all succeeding generations. And to strengthen the suggested interpretation, a first century Rabbi by the name of Yeshua had this to say to his crowd, “The Torah-teachers and the P’rushim,” he said, “sit in the seat of Moshe. So whatever they tell you, take care to do it. But don’t do what they do, because they talk but don’t act!” What Yeshua is addressing here is the issue of hypocrisy when it comes to correctly interpreting the Torah, yet failing to implement it into our lives. But our LORD does not condone the Oral Tradition as binding.” Back to our Torah portion. Marriage and Divorce Of great concern to the community living during this time period (as well as for any time period for that matter) was the area of sexual relations. To be sure, a great deal of time is spent addressing possible situations that might arise during the course of everyday dealings with each other. Moreover, in all of the five books that Moshe authored, only here in D’varim chapter 24 is marriage and divorce specifically addressed head on, and then only in a scant four verses. The matter became a major source of disagreement by the time Yeshua entered the communal scene. During his time period, two major schools of thought existed and vied for the majority opinion. The conservative School of Rabbi Shammai (Beit Shammai) and the liberal School of Rabbi Hillel (Beit Hillel) both supplied their interpretation of Moshe’s words here in our Torah portion. The Talmud gives us our most complete look into the minds of the early Judaisms of Yeshua’s day, thus the Talmud states concerning this passage in D’varim: “The School of Shammai say a man may not divorce his wife unless he has found unchastity in her, as it is said, ‘…because he has found in her indecency in a matter.’ But the School of Hillel say he may divorce her even if she burns his food, as it is said, ‘…because he has found in her indecency in a matter.’” Rabbi El’azar, a member of Beit Hillel has been noted in the Gemara as saying, “When a man divorces his first wife, even the altar sheds tears” (Gittin 90b), his source for such logic stemming from D’varim 24:13-14. Modern translator and commentator David H. Stern has noted in his Jewish New Testament Commentary that there is a Jewish tradition that in Messianic times the stricter rulings of Beit Shammai will become the standard (JNTC, p. 59).

QUESTION: “What is the Messianic Jewish position about remaining single. I've always heard that the rabbinical teaching is that a person is not truly a man until he has procreated. I am single and it looks like I may be remaining so. Does this mean that I'm less a man? Does God want everyone to marry? What about a homosexual person who foregoes all sexual activity in order to be faithful to the Lord? I'd be interested in your thoughts on these issues.” ANSWER: “I want you to read 1 Corinthians Chapter 7. In it you’ll find some very good instructions given to the married and unmarried alike. It is true that the rabbis had, and still have, a high view of marriage. The Talmud stresses this view. The unmarried person lives without joy, without blessing, and without good’ (Jeb. 62b); An unmarried man is not a man in the full sense; as it is said, Male and female created He them, and blessed them and called their name man (Gen. 5:2) (Ibid. 63a). A wife meant a home; hence the saying, A mans home is his wife (Joma I.I), and R. Jose said, Never have I called my wife by that word, but always my home (Shab. 118b). But don’t let all this scare you. Remember this is commentary on the Torah, not the authoritative Torah itself! These are men’s opinions. High remarks are made in the Torah, to the single individual who fully devotes himself to HaShem in his singleness! Pray about your potential mating. It is a very important decision to make! To be sure, the Torah designed it to be a lasting one. Now as far as the issue concerning homosexuality goes, the Torah is explicitly clear: this lifestyle is not pleasing to HaShem, and is thereby forbidden. In the TaNaKH the instances are told of pagan temple prostitution, by those women (and sometimes men) who had separated themselves unto the temple cult. This sanctification is where we get the Hebrew word kadosh from, meaning, set apart for a specific work. This separation was certainly not prescribed by the Torah of Moshe, and was not condoned by the Holy One! If you mean a homosexual turning from that lifestyle, and forgoing all further sexual activity in order to pursue faithfulness to HaShem, then let his t’shuvah (repentance) be true renounce his sin of homosexuality and turn to HaShem with a renewed heart! True biblical separation always agrees with the Will of HaShem, and accomplishes the purposes of HaShem. Because homosexuality is outside the pale of a biblically correct lifestyle, it is not sanctified or blessed, but rather condemned by the Torah. This Torah Teacher does not recommend such a lifestyle for anyone, but forgiveness through the shed blood of Messiah Yeshua has been made abundant for all, regardless of your past sins!” Thus we see that our passages here in the Torah portion are not in contradiction to Yeshua’s rulings on the matter. Moreover, Moshe’s rulings do not undermine HaShem’s original intentions for the married couple. Rather, quoting Dr. Stern again, “Yeshua in adducing Scripture harks back to the beginning, in Gan-Eden [Garden of Eden] to support his view that a marriage must not be dissolved for anything less than the most direct insult to its one-flesh integrity, adultery. He goes on to point out, as I [Stern] have above, that “Judaism has always considered marriage both normal and desirable… [Quoting the Talmud] “The unmarried person lives without joy, without blessing and without good….An unmarried man is not fully a man” (Yevamot 62b-63a).

Conclusions: In its most normative sense of application, the Torah addresses the individual on a complete level (overview), yet leaves room for each individual and unique situation. Surely each unique situation needed addressing. That is why HaShem set into place certain mechanisms which would help deal with the fluidity of ever-changing community life among the followers of HaShem. Halakhah is meant to fit the times in which it is being applied. It is rightly called “the humanization of Scripture”. This gives it the feel of stability, based on the Scriptures from which it is derived, yet at the same time, room is allowed for individual and unique application on every level. Thus, our Torah portion forms the basis for our modern halakhic rulings today, as Yeshua proved to his first century listeners. I have heard some today attack halakhah on the basis that tradition has no merit in the lives of a believer in Yeshua. I have also heard the very Scriptures attacked on the basis of antiquity and out of date rulings. Yet there can exist harmony in the seemingly simplistic commands of the Torah of Moshe, when combined with the halakhic decisions that are derived from the Torah. To be sure, don’t we all as believers cite the very same Torah as evidence for our rulings? And yet, there exists great diversity among our ranks. Should this diversity give rise to disagreements and disunity? In my opinion, I think it should not. Rather than separate we believers from one another, the Scriptures and the halakhic decisions we derive from them, should be uniting us, especially in the eyesight of the disbelieving world in which we are surely being examined for our faith. Difficult issues to come to halakhic rulings on, such as marriage and divorce, should not discourage us from setting the example among all men, even as the Torah commands us to do. Far from becoming another statistic, as many believers have become (God help us!), we should be leading the way in our examples of what a loving couple, joined by God, should look like. Justice should not only exist as some noteworthy concept that can be pointed out in the lives of those who follow HaShem. Like HaShem, our justice should be an extension of who we are as believers in Messiah Yeshua. It should be a part of our make-up, internal and not merely outward in its appropriation and application. As is stated in Parashat Shof’tim “justice should be pursued!”

Ki Tavo means, “When you come”. The opening p’sukim (verses) speak to Isra'el about taking of the first fruit of the ground and offering it to the LORD upon entering into the Land of Promise. To offer the first of the produce of the ground was to affirm and signify that the person was dedicating everything he has to the service of HaShem. What is more, this offering was a declaration of HaShem’s faithfulness that as he swore to our ancestors he has indeed performed: “We have come to the Land of Promise!” (see verse 4) The offering, like any other offering, was facilitated through the priest. This has always been HaShem’s pattern of worship, and it remains down to this day. All who carefully name the name of the LORD must approach him in the sacrificial intercession of his Only and Unique Son Yeshua. To approach him otherwise is to risk rejection and ultimately spiritual death. Thus, the pattern remains. Chapter 26 The crux of the parashah is found in chapter 26 verses 16-19 where we see that truly God and Isra'el are an inseparable covenant pair. Moshe informs his listeners that it is HaShem’s desire to have his covenant people intimately identify with him by becoming his “’Am S’gulah” (Treasured People), and by carefully upholding (establishing) his commandments. To be sure, Moshe describes in no uncertain terms, the condition in which the mitzvot are to be carried out: with all your heart and with all your soul (verse 17). So what is the problem with these instructions? Absolutely nothing! The man Moshe continues by stating that they, ‘Am Yisra’el (the People of Isra'el), have distinguished HaShem to be their only God, and to walk in his ways, while HaShem for his part has distinguished ‘Am Yisra’el to be his Treasured People, and to make them supreme over all the other nations on the earth. Don’t confuse this unique position. This special election is a display of God’s divine Will, and not a matter of “playing favorites”. In other words, Isra'el is singled out for a purpose: to showcase the holiness of HaShem to all the peoples of the earth, and to bring glory to the One and Only Creator of all mankind. We who live with the tension of believing in Yeshua’s faithful sacrifice while becoming submissive to the Torah of HaShem must understand that we have joined ourselves to this divine calling as well. I say “tension” because for the last 2000 years or so there has existed a great confusion over whether or not a believer should even attempt to become Torah submissive. The idea is really rather ludicrous when common sense is exercised. Of course a genuine child of God should be Torah submissive. It is rather cruel to imagine a God who would put a whole nation of people through the unnecessary judgment of wandering for 40 years in a barren wilderness for failing to perform his commandments, only to send his Son into the world to set all men free from these very same commandments! We need to understand the Torah from God’s eternal perspective. This Torah portion vividly details the curses associated with failure to obey the commandment of HaShem. However, in order to grasp the concepts contained within these next few chapters, the reader MUST understand true Torah obedience first! I cannot stress this issue too much here! If we are to live our lives in a manner that is pleasing to our Heavenly Abba, then we must understand and come to grips with the mitzvot and our heart’s attitude toward them.

Tochacha Chapter 28 contains what is known in Judaism as the ‘Tochacha’. We have encountered this before in Leviticus 26:14-46. Allow me to recall my notes from there for you: According to one online Hebrew-English dictionary, the origin word ‘tocheycha’ conveys a “reprimand.” Browns, Driver, Briggs defines this word as “rebuke, correction, reproof, punishment, chastisement.” By its context, since the source is the Holy One Himself, it conveys the purpose of “divine retribution.” Interesting by comparison, the Hebrew of this current perek (chapter) is written in the plural, addressing collective Isra'el. Its counterpart in D’varim 28, however, is written in the singular. The Gaon of Vilna explains that the difference conveyed by the listing in D’varim is that the Holy One, Blessed Be He, is addressing collective Isra'el, that is, each and every Jew that was present then and each and every Jew that will be born in the future. Indeed a quote from the JPS version of Parashat Nitzavim (D’varim 29:13, 14 [14, 15 in English Bibles]) gives the Gaon this impression: 29:13 But it is not with you alone that I am making this covenant and this dread oath. (V’lo itchem l’vadechem anochi koret et-hab’rit hazot ve'et-ha'alah hazot.) 29:14 I am making it both with those who are standing here with us today before God our Lord, and with those who are not [yet] here with us today. (Ki et-asher yesh’no poh imanu omed hayom lifney Adonai Eloheynu ve'et asher eynenu poh imanu hayom.) Rashi explains that the phrase "v’lo itchem l’vadchem" includes even "dorot ho’asidim l’hiyot" - generations that are destined to yet come into existence. Indeed, the Gemara (the commentary on the Mishnah) explains that the principal of communal responsibility - kol Yisroel areivim zeh bozeh - is rooted in Parashat Nitzavim. Thus, the collective nature of the Tochacha in particular, and K’nesset Yisra’el (Assembly of Isra'el) in general, includes any future member of B’nei Yisra’el (Sons of Isra'el) as well. Accordingly, the Gemara derives the concept of arvus (say “ar-voos”), “joint responsibility [of one Jew for another's performance of mitzvot]”, from the tochacha, which emphasizes the collective unit of B’nei Yisra’el. In this sense, Rav Yeruchum Perlow explains the view of the Bahag who counts the Tochacha and its blessings and curses among the 613 mitzvot. He suggests that the Bahag was not referring to the ceremony and ritual of the Tochacha, but rather to the mitzvah of arvus, which is rooted in the Tochacha itself. In the Hebraic mind, to accept the yoke of heaven (also spoken of as the yoke of the Kingdom) means to place one’s trust in HaShem. Additionally, to accept the yoke of the Torah means to be submissive to God’s Written Word. We know from spiritual hindsight that trust in HaShem and submissiveness to his Torah should result in trust in his Son Yeshua. Such trust is meant to be a safeguard against idolatry. Sadly, far too few believers actually avail themselves of the full measure of protection that the Ruach HaKodesh offers. If the historic Church would have kept the Written Word guarded (Heb: shamar) we might not have the penchant lust for Sun worship that is rife in Christianity. Conversely, if the historic Synagogue had not aligned herself against the newly formed Church, we might not have the lack of faith in Yeshua (Jesus) that we find in Rabbinic Judaism today. So what should a proper balance of trust and obedience look like?

“Trust and Obey for There’s No Other Way…” (Recalling the old, familiar Baptist tune…) Part One: Trust… Paul and James on Justification Some see a contradiction between Paul and James on the teaching of justification. Paul emphatically taught that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law while James argued that a man is justified by faith and works (James 2:14-26). Luther is such an individual who saw the two prophets' teachings to be in opposition. Insisting that Paul's view was correct, Luther belittled James's epistle, calling it an 'epistle of straw.' Such an approach to the two authors is not necessary. When the literary context of each other is examined it can be demonstrated that there is no contradiction. The key to understanding these two seemingly contradictory authors is to understand how each uses the terms justified, faith, and works. These words must be defined by their respective contexts. Paul emphasized that we are saved by faith in Yeshua, and not by our natural or achieved ethnic status. James emphasized that the kind of faith that results in salvation will necessarily produce works that show evidence of that faith. Paul was concerned about people adding anything to faith that they believe is meritorious for their salvation. James was concerned about people professing to have faith that is not really faith at all, but rather a lifeless mental-assent to Messiah. It seems that James was attacking the 1st century Jewish distortion of the Torah’s teaching on justification, wherein faith is some dead orthodoxy with no corresponding behavioral changes. Even Paul found it necessary to fight against this distortion of his teaching on justification (Romans 3:8; 6:1, 15). James pointed out that if a person has genuine salvific faith, works will follow after him showing evidence of that faith. Part Two: … and Obey Let us now examine what Ya’akov has to say about faith and works. Sanctification and holiness are near equivalents theologically. Both words in their various forms are translated from the same Hebrew root meaning to "cut" or "separate," and the Greek word hagiasmos aJgiasmovß, meaning "consecration." The core concept of holiness, then, is separation and consecration to God (Leviticus 11:44). In our culture sanctification has come to mean the pursuit of moral perfection. Although the latter is included in the Biblical concept of sanctification, it is a corollary to the idea of separation. Sanctification results in morality, but sanctification is not tantamount to morality. God is said to be holy because He is separate from creation and is morally pure in contradistinction to sin. A reading from James chapter 2 verses 14-26 appears as an overemphasis of actions as opposed to faith. In reality, a common understanding of these verses might give the reader the impression that works are more important than faith itself. Yet, Ya’akov’s audience, unlike Sha’ul’s, seemingly did not have a problem with an enforced conversion policy. Instead they had a problem with a dead faith that led them nowhere! So Ya’akov masterfully constructed a correct biblical theology that showed that genuine biblical trust ALWAYS leads an individual into genuine biblical actions! This is in complete harmony with what Sha’ul was teaching! Faith must not be substituted for good works, and good works should not be substituted for faith! Moreover, good works do not replace faith, nor does faith cancel out the performance of good works. To be straightforward: “Faith and good works go hand in hand! One without the other is incomplete and lacking of true biblical righteousness!” We therefore come to understand that for Paul, there was no bifurcation between “faith” and “faithfulness.” They are two sides of the same coin. One may therefore speak of either with the full assurance that the other exists.

One Law for One Corporate People At this point in my commentary, it becomes painfully clear that I need to define whom the recipients of the blessing and the curses are, based on responsibility to the Torah. For it is indeed true that historic Gentile responsibility differs slightly from Jewish responsibility. The operative word is “historic”. Volumes could be said, but I will be brief. Historically, those identified as Corporate Isra'el were first given the task of showcasing God’s holiness and righteous standard in the earth (“…to the Jew first…”). To this end HaShem supplied them with his Written Word of holiness. The very same God expected them to accept and uphold this Torah in faith. So the Jews have been given Torah, and their responsibility and response to it should be a heart that is circumcised towards God. The corporate Gentiles are in a position to receive the very same Torah and grace demonstrated by believing Isra'el, by becoming partakers and fellow covenant-keepers, through their demonstration of the exact same biblical faith! Yeshua the Messiah came to inaugurate the covenant originally made with the offspring of Avraham (read Jeremiah 31:31-34). This covenant now includes Gentiles en masse, provided they continue in the very same trust that Isra'el was expected to demonstrate. Don’t get me wrong. God has always ‘included” the ger (a technical term referring to a non-Jew”). But Yeshua demonstrated the Father’s plan by reaching out to the disenfranchised Y’hudi (Jew) first, while sending his sh’li’chim (apostles) to the Gentiles afterwards. Are you following me? Failure to continue in genuine trusting faithfulness for either Jew or Gentile participants invited God to place them in a position that Sha’ul called “broken off”. In other words, natural branches (Jews) could be broken off because of lack of trust, and grafted-in branches (Gentiles) could also be broken off due to lack of trust (read Romans chapter 11)! Far from purporting that some “ethnic-driven” halakhah secured one’s place in the ‘olam haba (Age to Come), the native born Jew, the convert Jew, and the good old fashioned Gentiles all faced the same penalty for remorseless lack of faith: spiritual death. So we see that the Torah is the universal document for both peoples and it outlines God’s plan for all mankind, both Jews and Gentiles. To walk in disobedience and lack of trust is to invite God’s punishment and withholding of blessing. To belong to the family is to mentally, spiritually, and physically accept the family rules. To this end, both Jews and Gentiles are expected to practice Torah submissiveness within their hearts and within their communities. To submit to God is to desire and allow his Holy Spirit (Ruach HaKodesh) to continually mold a person’s life into the example of the Son of God, who vividly displayed a Torah-obedient and submissive life! This is the responsibility of a believer. To sum up my commentary this week: Blessings and curses are dependent upon the orientation of the individual’s heart, and his responsibility to the Torah of HaShem. To the Jew, the Torah spells out the consequences of failing to heed the instructions of HaShem, while attempting to be included in the covenant family. An uncircumcised heart is simply not acceptable in terms of Torah-based righteousness. For the Gentile, to be grafted into the family of HaShem one needs to place his unreserved trust in the Son of HaShem—just like any Jew—and then let God work in him the good work which was designed for him since creation (Ephesians 2:8-10). Everyone else who falls into the category of simply not being found in covenant relationship with HaShem, through his Son Yeshua, fails to receive covenant blessings, and is ultimately a candidate for destruction. God only deals within covenants. His Son freely offers a covenant with salvific benefits and all men are freely enjoined to participate!

The “Scarlet Thread” of the Torah Here’s the meat of my commentary—pay attention: The Nation of Isra’el, as a whole failed to grasp the central concept of the teaching of Moshe, and consequently, the teaching of Rav Sha’ul. Moshe describes, in no uncertain terms, the availability of the grace of HaShem, when it comes to attaining “life”. Most assuredly, he presents before them, the option to choose “life” and “good”, or “death” and “evil” (30:15-20). In the verses quoted at the onset of my commentary, Moshe describes “IT” as not being too hard for them to grasp; he describes the “IT” as not being beyond their reach either! This important “IT” wasn’t in the sky, which was obviously out of their reach, providing them with a legitimate excuse for disobedience, had “IT” remained there. Likewise, the “IT” wasn’t beyond the [Mediterranean] sea, providing them once again with the same excuse for disobedience. “On the contrary,” says Moshe, “IT” was very close to them, in their mouths [!], even in their hearts (New Covenant feature again)—therefore, they could do “IT”! Whoever said that a person could not keep the Torah? Where does this idea come from that “IT” is too difficult? Or that “HaShem is asking too much of me”? But wait! What is the “IT”? Obviously (or maybe not so obviously), the “IT” that Moshe is referring to can only be the Torah! Or could it also be a hint (remez) of something even greater? Rav Sha’ul, I believe, supplies us with the answer. I need you, the reader, to recall the strange but true example that John used in Chapter 1, verses 1-14 of his Gospel. Here, John gives us a lesson in “Torah algebra”. In verse one, the Torah was with HaShem, yet, the Torah is HaShem (Torah=HaShem)! But in verse fourteen, John goes on to tell us that the Torah became a human being and lived with us (Torah=human being)! The rest of John’s account in that first chapter, explicitly states that Yeshua the Messiah is that human being! So, according to “Torah algebra”: If Torah=HaShem, and Torah=human being, then HaShem=human being! This is controversial indeed! No Jew, using normal modes of logic would accept this interpretation. But Rav Sha’ul was not using normal logic when he quoted the passage in Deuteronomy 30:11-14, and applied his rabbinical teaching tool called midrash on it! He was using heavenly logic. Yeshua the Messiah is undoubtedly the subject of Romans 10:5-8. Yet the rabbi identifies the “IT” of Deuteronomy with the Messiah! Why? Because of the truth that you and I already know about Yeshua, as explained earlier by John. Yeshua came from heaven! —He did not remain up there, out of our reach, providing us with some valid excuse for lack of faith, which leads to disobedience; nor is he “beyond the sea”, or to put it the way Sha’ul did, still “in Sh’ol”. The fact that Sha'ul doesn’t use the exact same wording as Moshe here, but opts for the example of Sh’ol (the place of the dead, i.e. hell), does not seriously alter the meaning of what Moshe meant. In fact, Sha’ul’s example takes the application a step further. For the Hebrew mind, if something was “beyond the sea”, it might as well have been “in Sh’ol”—for it was beyond the reach of normal human efforts to obtain! And in the case of Sh’ol, it was impossible! At any rate, Yeshua was not, and still is not beyond the reach of normal human efforts—for he has been raised (from Sh’ol) by the power of HaShem, and is now available for everyone who will trust! His life from the dead now produces life in all that obey and put their trust in him! These are the very same choices that Moshe was describing!

In order to understand why HaShem uses Moshe to point out the downfalls of the people, we must read what it says in verses 24-29 again carefully. I won’t quote it all here; I want you to read it for yourself. Allow me to use material from a previous commentary that I’ve written to explain it to you: Prior to coming to faith, the Torah served as a reminder of sin (Romans 7:7-12). This is not the only function of Torah, but it is a primary one. After coming into a relationship with HaShem, through His Son Yeshua (Jesus), the [person] underwent a change in relationship to the Torah. The Avrahamic Covenant became for him or her, a “promise of inheritance”. An “inheritance” of what? Of “eternal life”, through trusting faithfulness. It became their “proof of ownership” so-to-say. It still reminded him or her of their sin. However, because we now constitute the Righteousness of HaShem (2 Corinthians 5:17-21; Ephesians 2:1-10), we are now free to pursue following HaShem without the threat of death for disobedience! “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God.” What does he mean that he “died to the Law?” Is he dead to any responsibility to uphold and follow the injunctions of the Torah? Is he free to chart his own course apart from God’s objective instructions as outlined in the pages of the Five Books of Moshe? Allow me to pull a few comments from my Exegeting Galatians commentary: Comments: At first blush this verse seems to spell the end of any Torah relevance for the apostle. But a careful reading will reveal its true meaning. The verse starts out with the word “for” (Greek=gar) a conjunction indicating that it is linked to a previous argument. In this case, Paul’s “for” represents an answer to the “if” clause introduced in [Galatians 2] verse 17 ("If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners..."). The key to understanding verse 19 is in answering exactly how we as individuals in verse 17 come to be made aware that “we ourselves are sinners”). Prior to his salvation experience Sha'ul was blinded to his true condition: dead in trespasses and sin. However, now that the Spirit has taken up residence within him, via the sacrificial death of Yeshua, he can look back to how the Torah played a part in bringing him to this newfound revelation about himself. The Torah, working in concert with the Spirit of God, revealed sin for what it was: violation of God’s righteous standard. Thus, through the Torah—that is, through its proper function of revealing and condemning sin, the individual is brought to the goal of the Torah, namely the revelation of the Messiah himself. Once faced with the choice to remain in sin or be set free by the power of the Blood, Paul confesses that he “died” to his old self and was consequently made alive in the newness that is accredited to those who choose life! But Paul says that he died to Torah. What does he mean by such a statement? Are we to assume that in Yeshua Paul is now somehow dead to obedience to the Torah? May it never be! Simply put, he now realizes that his new life in the Spirit is a life to be lived without the fear of being condemned as a sinner by the very Torah he previously thought he was upholding! The Torah has a properly installed built-in function of sentencing sinners to become the object of HaShem’s punishment and ultimate rejection, a rejection that will result in death if the person never choose the Messiah of life. Paul is teaching the Galatians that his choice of Yeshua is to be understood as a death of self and the former life that Torah condemned in favor of a new life of serving God through the Spirit, a choice brought on by the revelation of Messiah found within the very pages of the Torah itself! Such freedom in Messiah does not liberate one from Torah, rather, such freedom liberates one to be able to walk into Torah as properly assisted and seen from God’s perspective!

“The Good News… and the Bad News” “Why”, we might ask, “does HaShem seem to constantly emphasize our shortcomings? Is he so enamored with how we will fail him that he fails to see the good in us? In the case of the Jewish People, was he so positive that they would forsake him and follow after false gods, that he needed to stand poised like an executioner, ready to bring down his blade in swift punishment?” Much as this may seem to be the case, fortunately, for our sake, it not true. HaShem is a God of undeserved-mercy and loving-compassion. Most accurately, Moshe predicted and expected how easily Am Yisra’el (the people of Isra’el) would fall into gross idolatry. It is simply amazing that he didn’t give up on them! The unexpected response from HaShem culminates in verse forty-three. Let’s see what the Torah has to teach us about the goodness of HaShem’s nature. If I were to conduct a paraphrased, verse-by verse overview, it would read something like this: Moshe proclaims, up front, the greatness of their God (vv. 3, 4) But within the people themselves lies defect (vs. 5, 6) HaShem takes unto himself this undeserving people (vs. 7-11) He alone provides for all of their needs (vs. 12-14) But their greed and lust overtake them (vs. 15-18) HaShem administers fatherly correction, to “woo” them back (vs. 19-25) Again, recognizing their defect, he compares them to their enemies (vs. 28-33) When HaShem’s judgment consequently comes upon those who hate him, his own people begin to consider him once again as the only source of all sustenance (vs. 34-42) This righteous judgment from HaShem elicits a proclamation from Moshe to the nations, “Sing out, you nations, about his people! For he will avenge the blood of his servants. He will render vengeance to his adversaries and make atonement for the land of his people” (vs. 43). As we can see, far from being cruel and unmerciful, HaShem desires to maintain a loving, lasting relationship with his children! The Torah clearly states that the problem is not found within HaShem or his righteous ways. Rather, the problem lies within us! This is repeated in the Apostolic Scriptures, in the book of Hebrews. It tells us in 8:7-8 that the New Covenant was necessary because of the fault that was within them—indeed the same one that is within us! We have an inherited defect, which causes us to lack wisdom. This lack of wisdom (of HaShem’s ways) brings us into conflict with his holiness, thereby leaving us hopeless to reach the goal that the Torah outlines for us. In our utter desperation we have no choice but to concede that he alone can make the necessary corrections in our sinful makeup. This correction is sometimes defined in the “judgment” of God.

Moshe: Types and Shadows Now I want to briefly examine the final eulogy about this man Moshe. The text (34:10) says that Isra’el has not enjoyed a prophet on the same level as Moshe, since his death. From a natural point of view this is true; Moshe stands in a class all by himself. But earlier in the Torah, in Deuteronomy 18:15-19 (Parashah Shoftim), Moshe himself told the people that the LORD would raise up another prophet, like himself, for the people to follow. First Century literary sources show that the people living in and around the time of the Second Temple period applied this prophetic passage to the coming messiah figure. Yeshua ben-Yosef was such a figure. To be sure, even the New Covenant echoes these same sentiments. • Moshe had his humble beginnings in a relatively unknown family in Egypt, having his life spared by the protection of his immediate family; Yeshua also had his humble beginning in a lowly, unknown family, his parents having saved their lives and his by fleeing to Egypt • Moshe began his public ministry after a period of “forty”; Yeshua began his public ministry after a period of “forty” • Moshe was the “giver” of the Torah; Yeshua explained the fullness and correct interpretation of “Moshe’s Torah” • In more than one instance Moshe acted in the role of intercessor between the people and HaShem; Yeshua became our Great High Priest, interceding for us on behalf of the Father, and forever lives to make intercession on our behalf • Moshe “instituted” the Old[er] Covenant; Yeshua “instituted” the New[er] Covenant Thus we see that Yeshua was greater than Moshe in many respects, yet the context of the verse is not compromised. These facts about Moshe and Yeshua are important for us to internalize, because many members of the Jewish Community have taken the words of this prophecy to a literal extreme, discounting any possibility of Yeshua being the Messiah. In fact, a rather famous teacher by the name of Rabbi Moshe ben-Maimon, affectionately known as “RaMBaM” (1135-1204) produced a serious of Thirteen Principles (still recited in synagogues today), one of which states that this verse means ‘no prophet has arisen in Isra’el like Moshe, and none ever will’. Consequently, according to RaMBaM, Yeshua could not have been “The Prophet”. (For more information on Deuteronomy 18:15-19, and the subject of “The Prophet”, read my commentary to Parashah Shof'tim). Returning to Our Roots Our parashah has come to an end, but our study of the Torah should never end. Just to be sure, we invite you to “turn the Torah over again” (a quote by Rabbi ben-BagBag, Talmud: Pirke Avot) by starting in Genesis right after the conclusion of the Fall Feasts. In fact, in keeping with Jewish custom, I want to recite for you the last few verses of the book of Deuteronomy and immediately follow them with the first few verses of Genesis: (Since that time there has not arisen in Isra’el a prophet like Moshe, whom ADONAI knew face to face. What signs and wonders ADONAI sent him to perform in the land of Egypt upon Pharaoh, all his servants and all his land! What might was in his hand! What great terror he evoked before the eyes of all Isra’el!) (In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was unformed and void, darkness was on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God hovered over the surface of the water. Then God said, “Let there be light”, and there was light.) I challenge you to continue studying God’s Word on your own, or with the aid of a good commentary. You are invited to continue studying with us here at this web site. A weekly commentary is provided for every Shabbat reading of the Torah schedule. You may also wish to consult other various rabbinical commentaries on the Parashot HaShavuah, the Weekly Portions. It is customary after the completion of a book of the Torah to say, “Chazak, chazak, v’nit’chazek!” (Be strong, be strong, and let us be strengthened!)