Question #35
Did Yahshua (Jesus) lie in John 7:8. Question concerning specifically verse 8 (I am not yet going up to this feast).
You had discussed this earlier this year, but not in depth or I didn't listen "in depth". We were discussing this at work the other day and the consensus of opinion among most of the others was that the word "yet" simply meant, yes Yahshua was going but at a later date, so in effect he did tell the truth.
Going back to the original translation was the word yet there, and/or do we have the correct understanding of the word "yet" as not now with you but later?.
These verses have troubled me since I was a kid. Did Messiah lie, tell the truth or bend the truth?. Or things were mistranslated.
Thanks for your time.
Beverly
Rabbi's Answer
Dear Bev: Read the different translations below, then read my commentary.
John 7:2 Now the Jews' feast of tabernacles was at hand.
John 7:3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.
John 7:4 For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, show thyself to the world.
John 7:5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.
John 7:6 Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready.
John 7:7 The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.
John 7:8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come.
John 7:9 When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee.
John 7:10 But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret. (KJV)
John 7:2 Now the Jewish festival of Booths was near.
John 7:3 So his brothers said to him, "Leave here and go to Judea so that your disciples also may see the works you are doing;
John 7:4 for no one who wants to be widely known acts in secret. If you do these things, show yourself to the world."
John 7:5 (For not even his brothers believed in him.)
John 7:6 Jesus said to them, "My time has not yet come, but your time is always here.
John 7:7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify against it that its works are evil.
John 7:8 Go to the festival yourselves. I am not going to this festival, for my time has not yet fully come."
John 7:9 After saying this, he remained in Galilee.
John 7:10 But after his brothers had gone to the festival, then he also went, not publicly but as it were in secret. (NRSV)
John 7:2 Now the feast of the Jews, the Feast of Booths, was at hand.
John 7:3 His brothers therefore said to Him, "Depart from here, and go into Judea, that Your disciples also may behold Your works which You are doing.
John 7:4 "For no one does anything in secret, when he himself seeks to be known publicly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world."
John 7:5 For not even His brothers were believing in Him.
John 7:6 Jesus therefore said^ to them, "My time is not yet at hand, but your time is always opportune.
John 7:7 "The world cannot hate you; but it hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.
John 7:8 "Go up to the feast yourselves; I do not go up to this feast because My time has not yet fully come."
John 7:9 And having said these things to them, He stayed in Galilee.
John 7:10 But when His brothers had gone up to the feast, then He Himself also went up, not publicly, but as it were, in secret. (NASB)
John 7:2 Now the feast of the Jews, the Feast of Booths, was near.
John 7:3 Therefore His brothers said to Him, "Leave here and go into Judea, so that Your disciples also may see Your works which You are doing.
John 7:4 "For no one does anything in secret when he himself seeks to be known publicly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world."
John 7:5 For not even His brothers were believing in Him.
John 7:6 So Jesus said^ to them, "My time is not yet here, but your time is always opportune.
John 7:7 "The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.
John 7:8 "Go up to the feast yourselves; I do not go up to this feast because My time has not yet fully come."
John 7:9 Having said these things to them, He stayed in Galilee.
John 7:10 But when His brothers had gone up to the feast, then He Himself also went up, not publicly, but as if, in secret.
John 7:8 “I am not going up to this festival (NEB)
There is a textual question related to verse 8. The preferred and most numerous renderings in the manuscripts is ouk, meaning “not,” and is the most accurate reading. The word oupa found only in a few manuscripts means “not yet,” but is considered by scholars to have been added later. Bruce Metzer, a highly respected Christian scholar in his commentary on New Testament Greek, said it was introduced by scribes who were uncomfortable with verse 10, which says, “He did go up,” therefore inferring Yahshua lied. Yet, Yahshua did not sin for He did not break the commandment most regard as relating to lying, which is reality relates to testimony under oath in a judicial proceeding. See below.
Modern translations have elected to translate the text as “not” since it is the prevalent rendering in the manuscripts. I alos believe that the latter is the better translation because of verse 10. He went up secretly not openly as His brothers had taunted Him to do if He were so convinced of His destiny and calling. This suggests to me that He mislead them into thinking He would not go, so as to go secretly. See the translations above for confirmation. Of course, if your discussion is with “King James only” individuals they will not accept any other translation.
Just for your information, the following is a glaring King James is in error on some counts.
Acts 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternion of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
First Easter was not a "church" festival during the writing of Acts. The "church" was still Jewish and Easter did not become a festival until after Constantine 321 CE.
The Greek word translated Easter here is Pescal / Pesach. We all know that Pesach is Passover. The Greeks have a word for Passover that was used in the manuscripts here, Paschal. Why did they use Easter, a derivative of Ishtar, the moon goddess wife of Baal, the sun god?
Strong’s give the follwing: 3957. pascha, pas'-khah; of Chald. or. [comp. H6453]; the Passover (the meal, the day, the festival or the special sacrifices connected with it):--Easter, Passover.
However even here we see they connect it to a Pagan holiday Easter, in keeping with their agenda.
The point I was trying to make using the example of Samuel who lied to Saul at YHVH’s behest and the above is that the commandment: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor” is referring to testimony in a judicial proceeding,” where loss of life, freedom or property might be the result of false swearing. Not every untruth someone utters. Contrast that with a “white lie” to spare someone hurt feelings or embarrassment. Is that a greater mitzvah? The concept being that YHVH does not view a “lie” to save someone embarrassment and hurt the same as He views sworn testimony in a court that is a sin by definition. In both Samuel and Yahshua’s cases, the “lie” was designed to deceive, one, in Samuel’s case it saved his life. They do not fall in the category defined by the commandment. Samuel may have made an altar and made sacrifices, yet his true purpose was to anoint David, and Yahshua although denying He would attend, even if later, did go to the Festival immediately after his brothers departed. He and Samuel allowed their hearers to believe something else, both knowing that their true intent was hidden by a falsehood. Specifically, Samuel was there to anoint David and Yahshua intended all along to go the Feast of Tabernacles. He had to in order to fulfill His appointment with destiny. We can only guess why He did not accept His brother’s challenge.
Hope this helps:
Shalom v’brachas,
Rabbi Davis (R. Milchamah b. David)
Question #36
What is adultery in the bible and other discourses on the subject. This was an interesting exchange so have included several of the e-mails. The following gives a little of the flavor of the interaction between the inquirer and myself.
Rabbi's Answer:
Dear Lance,
Maybe I can make the biblical definition of adultery in the Old Testament a little clearer. The Bible’s definition of adultery is not the same and that used in contemporary society. According to Biblical law, whether or not adultery has occurred depends exclusively on the woman’s marital status. A married woman who has sexual relations with anyone other than her husband is regarding as having committed adultery, as is her lover. However, an unmarried woman who has sex with a married man has not committed adultery, nor has her lover. Biblical law permits a man to have more than one wide, therefore having sex with a woman other than one’s wife is not viewed LEGALLY as a betrayal of one’s spouse. However, since a woman is forbidden to have no more than one husband, sex with anyone other than her husband is always regarded as adultery. In the ancient world in which the biblical definition of adultery was generally considered to be a crime against the husband alone. He had the right to insist upon punishment for the adulterous couple, or to forgive them. Take the case of Joseph and Mary. When he learned she was with child he was want to put her away privately and not cause her to suffer under the law. Of course, he was informed that the pregnancy was of the Ruach (Holy Spirit) and he married her. Marriage is not considered consummated until there is sexual union. Remember, betrothal had the same restrictions on sexual conduct as a marriage. In the biblical view, adultery is also regarded as a crime against G-d; therefore, it is not within the purview of the cuckolded spouse to forgive the betrayal. According to rabbinic law, if a woman commits adultery, she is subsequently forbidden to both her husband and to her lover. Yet we see in Scripture that David marries Bathsheba with whom he had an earlier adulterous relationship (and G-d allows it) and Hosea takes back a wife who had betrayed him. Traditional Jewish law forbids a man from acting as Hosea did for his wife committed adultery, and was a prostitute in the common understanding of the word. In Jeremiah 3:1 we read: Jer 3:1 They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD. In the case of Hosea G-d is giving Israel an object lesson that he has taken her back many times for her spiritual adulteries but He will no longer do so.
As to the difference between Adultery (see above) and fornication the terms are interchangeable and you have to look to the context of the Hebrew passages where you encounter the word. Now, to try to answer your questions below. I have answered in bold print in the section where you have asked the question. Apply the rules above.
Also, as the Jewish sages said when the Messiah comes (He came) He would interpret the Torah (Law) for us. Since Yahshua’s advent He has clearly stated that G-d intended for us the be the husband and wife of one person. Therefore, any outside sexual activity a part from marriage would constitute adultery.
Rabbi Davis,
Thanks for your time and knowledge of the scriptures. I have a few more questions. I know you are a busy man but if you could help with this, I would greatly appreciate it. I could call you if it would be quicker and easier than email.
1. married man with unbetrothed virgin equals a marriage but is it considered fornication? Could a man have 2 wives legally?
Yes, a man could have more than one wife legally in that time, therefore if it is not rape a woman taken becomes his wife and neither are guilty of adultery and has no legal standing. Fornication is sexual knowledge or knowing meaning sexual intercourse and would be levied against a woman more than a man to stigmatize her as an unclean woman of ill repute who is not available for marriage to an observant man.
2. married man with unmarried woman not a virgin is prostitution, what penalties apply?
Prostitutes were considered ritually unclean but tolerated, and if a man was found to be with one no penalty was exacted, but he was considered ritually impure and had to perform ritual absolution. Read the story of Judah and Tamar in Gen 38: 1-26. I did not mean to imply that because a man had sex with a woman not married she is a prostitute. This might not be the case. She may have sex with him because she loves him and takes no money for her favors. In any case, it is not adultery for the reasons above on either side according to biblical law .
3. unmarried man with unbetrothed virgin is a marriage but is it considered fornication?
Only in the sense that fornication implies sexual union. Fornication had no legal validity.
4. unmarried man and unmarried woman not a virgin is prostitution, what penalties apply?
Two unmarried people do not necessarily mean the woman is a prostitute even though she is not a virgin. She may be promiscuous but takes no money for her favors. What I recall is I gave you three examples and listed a “prostitute” as one but did not mean all sexual unions with women who are not virgins makes her a prostitute. See the bible reference above concerning Judah and Tamar.
Leviticus 20
10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife,
even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and
the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
This confused me because if the definition of adultrey only meant a man being
with a married woman why would it specify the type of adultery - "adultrey with
another man's wife". Am I reading this correctly that it implies that there
are other types of adultery besides a man being with another man's wife?
See the above. Any sexual union with a married woman by an unmarried or married man constitutes adultery.
This alludes to a man not married having sexual relations with a woman who is and that is adultery. The woman’s husband is offended and he can exact the full measure of the law, death, or he can forgive them although this action is outside G-d’s law. I have given you three examples above. Chesed “loving kindness.” It was grace extended by the husband over and above the Law. Yahshua extends us grace through His faithfulness when the Law demands death by forgiving us of past sins (Romans 3:25) if we trust His faithfulness.
There are two kinds of adultery. Betraying the bonds of marriage legally only applied to the woman in biblical times and that of Spiritual Adultery.
Also,
Isaiah 57
3 But draw near hither, ye sons of the sorceress, the seed of the
adulterer and the whore.
Is this refering to children of a married man and an unmarried woman that is not a virgin? Or does this mean idolotry?
Your statement "the penalty of death which is
adultery." Are you saying that "adultery"
also refers to the punishment and not just the act?
Penalty of death was enacted against adulterers but not fornicators when the meaning is sexual union not constituting adultery as in the cases cited above in the opening. I don’t remember how I used the above term in context, but the meaning is that the act that constitutes legal adultery results in the punishment of death.
Could you tell me why you are interested in this subject? Is there something specific that is bothering you? I do not mean to get personal, but it is obvious that you have given it a lot of thought. I’m curious because I get all kinds of questions I get inquiries from many people who are writing a thesis or essay on biblical subjects, preparing bible classes for their church, etc., and I was wondering if this is the reason for the interest. Many of the inquiries are from religious institutions and professors of Bible and religion. Some for bible students attending college. Your e-mail address suggests to me the Virginia Military Institute. Am I correct? With a little more information, I might be better able to address your concern if the above is not sufficient. There is such a body of information on the subject it requires “whittling” down a little.
Shalom v’brahcas,
Rabbi Davis (R. Milchamah b. David)
Dear Lance:
Keep up the good work and many blessings because you want to learn and
understand the Word of G-d.
I took no offense in the slightest at your e-mails. Sometimes e-mail sticks out,
and I suspected you had a serious desire to understand by the way you
constructed your questions. Too many people are superficial with the word of
G-d. I appreciate those that are not!
On the internet there is the handicap of not always understanding the deep
commitment of the inquirer because there can be no "give and take," and I wanted
to know something of your conviction in the matter. I find it commendable. It is
also helpful to understand a person's educational background, and spiritual
maturity. Answering questions from various individuals demands different levels
of response. It can mean starting from the beginning of a doctrine, and
explaining its development before you can actually address a specific question
or for the more knowledgeable a shorter specific version.
With inquirers like you who sincerely want some input on a question, I will
spend as much time as is necessary for that is the will of G-d.
May HaShem bless and keep you and may your studies go well.
I suspect you will be more desirous of knowing the Word of G-d as you progress
in your studies. After 10 years of studying at the undergraduate and graduate
level at Jewish institutions and another 10 years at Christian institutions I
find you can never be satiated with the Word of G-d. Study is a life long
pursuit for those that Love G-d.
Shalom v'brachas,
Rabbi Davis (R. Milchamah b. David)
Rabbi Davis,
Thanks for the explanation. I was interested in this topic because of a conversation that I had with an individual. About five months ago he told me that men were never referred to as adulterers in the Mosaic law. About two months ago he stopped by my office and brought the topic up again. I explained that in Leviticus 20 man is referred to as an adulterer and offered to show him but he refused to look at it. Last week he approached me with the explanation that I emailed you. The fact that he changed his position then said "see I was right" and my past experiences with him made me not trust him completely. His answer made some sense so I told him I could see it and would check into it. I left our discussion at that, I didn't point out that he changed his position because I didn't want to argue - and he would. I decided to look into it and wanted a Rabbi to explain it so I would have the correct understanding. It was definitely a blessing because it has given me more passion for G-d's (I like that spelling) word. Over the last few nights, I have fallen asleep wrapped up in my thoughts about the word. I will admit it is great.
I am an active duty Staff Sgt in the USAF at VMI. I am also a student through (Name of University deleted) University and will be graduating in May with a B.S. in Religion/Business. I will be enrolling in the seminary at (Name Deleted) in a few months. I hope I didn't trouble you to much when I emailed you. G-d's word is something that I take seriously and want to understand it correctly. I find the best way to learn and remember is to completely break down a topic and put it back together. That is why I asked so many questions.
I really enjoyed your emails. If I was still in Florida I would visit you. I was stationed at Eglin AFB (Ft. Walton Beach) for 8 years before coming to VMI over 2 years ago. I believe the 6 hour trip from Eglin to Lecanto would be worth it.
Your brother in Christ,
Lance
Question # 37
Hi, I was wondering if it is wrong (Not to make any figures for ornament, even if they are not worshipped --Ex. 20:20) to have a Menorah pendent. A friend had given it to me a long time ago, because I couldn't have a real menorah, because my mom wasn't into having anything Jewish.
Thanks,Ashley
Rabbi's Answer
Ashley, it is not wrong to have a Menorah pendant or such
unless you make it an idol.
The commandment is not to make for yourself a likeness of anything and bow down
to it and worship it.
Exo 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any
thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in
the water under the earth:
Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the
LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the
children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
In today’s world most people are materialist and that to is idolatry. They are
putting some material possession before G-d or even putting another person
before G-d.
Shalom v'brachas,
Rabbi Davis (R. Milchamah b. David)
Question #38
What is your view and and the traditional Jewish view of Daniel’s vision of the kingdom?
Rabbi's Answer:
I will try to give you a succinct version of my understanding of the kingdom. Then, I will give you the traditionally Jewish interpretation of these passages.
It is a world wide political system incorporating both religious and political authority into one entity. It is headed by the anti-messiah who is HaSatan incarnated in a human. Horns stand for political powers most likely countries that have given their sovereignty to this “man.” The little horn coming up in the midst of the horns is representative of a man who shall rule as the vicar of HaSatan. He takes control of three horns and eventually rules all. There is much more here, but I will cut to the chase.
It is my opinion that the then horns are represented by the EU. It is now a political block that challenges the only “world power,” the US. It shall someday soon ascend to the pinnacle as the only world power. I believe that the US is mentioned in Revelations as Mystery Babylon – not the religious system, but the commercial system. There are two distinct Babylon’s mentioned. The commercial system (Babylon) that sets between the waters is destroyed, and the nations of the world that have done commerce with her commensurate on its fall. A careful reading of this section seems to point to a great world power, exceedingly rich that is located between two great bodies of water. A description of the US.
The political power represented as the “beast” will ally himself with a powerful religious system and soon will assume both the political and religious summit declaring himself god. He exterminates the false shepherd in the process. This is at the ½ way mark of the Tribulation. It will culminate with the Battle of Armageddon when Yahshua comes to set up His earthly Kingdom, in Jerusalem and Israel will ascend to the summit of nations as YHVH promised.
This is a brief outline. I am soon posting a lot on eschatology in the prophecy section on the site.
The Traditional Jewish view. First, the book of Daniel is not considered prophecy nor was Daniel considered a prophet. It is listed in the K’tuvim (writings) division. Nevi’im is the prophets division.
The Sages, rabbis and traditional Judaism treat your reference to Daniel 7:7 and 7:8 as historical. The fourth beast is considered a manifestation of the Roman Empire with all it metamorphoses. The fourth kingdom has a double nature, which is divided, into two parts, Islam and Christianity. The Ten Horns are viewed historically as ten emperors: Julius Caesar, Augustus, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian which brings us to 69-79 C.E. (AD). Titus the son of Vespasian destroyed the Temple in 70 CE. On Sage allows that the “beast” will disintegrate and split into 10 smaller countries that would become a world power but does not elaborate on it. These 10 countries or governments are accordion to Rabbi Saadiah Gaon, a greatly recognized Jewish authority as: Constantinople –now Turkey, Armenia, Hungary, Germany, and Bulgaria. The western Slavic countries-Bohemia, Moravia, Slovakia, France, Spain, Russian and the Arabic Empires. The little horn is characterized as a power that does not gain power by brute force, as did the Ten Horns, because it is characterized as having human eyes. It gains it power by the force of reason and a mouth speaking “haughty words, i.e. the force of persuasion. Historically this little horn is linked to Titus who spoke with haughty word in the inner Sanctum of the Holy Temple when he destroyed it. The Little Horn assumes power over the Ten Horns and exists until the war of Gog-Magog.
This is the Jewish view. In the next couple of weeks I will have posted a number of messages in the “Prophecy section” on the site that will elaborate and detail much of what I have written here in brevity.
Shalom v’brachas.
Rabbi Davis (R. Milchamah b. David)
Question #39
Here's yet another question: Genesis 32:24-32, when Jacob "wrestled a man" until the breaking of the day-- I was taught that the man Jacob wrestled with was the LORD, for it was Him that told Jacob that his name was to be Israel, and Jacob goes on to name the place they wrestled Peniel because he had "seen God face to face" and survived. My questions about this are:
1) why isn't (according to the KJV) "he" or "him" written as "He" or "Him" when pertaining to the LORD?
2) why did [H]e say to Jacob, "Let me go, for the day breaketh"?
and 3) why did they wrestle?
Meg
Rabbi's Answer
Dear Meg:
First, the traditional Jewish answer:
The translation is from the Hebrew Bible but you can match up the verses with your KJV.
The rabbis explained that the man with whom Jacob wrestled was the guardian angel of Esau (Rashi) in the guise of a man. The Sages teach that every nation has an angel (a power) that guides its destiny on earth. Esau became a nation and the eternal enemy of Israel. These powers are an intermediary between G-d and the nations. However, Israel needs no intermediary and may go to G-d directly. Jacob because his image is engraved upon G-d’s throne of Glory symbolizes man’s highest potential. Esau’s guardian angel (demon angel) is different from all the others for just as Esau epitomizes evil, so his angel the prime spiritual force of evil, Satan himself.
Satan descends and seduces man to sin then he ascends to incite G-d, by prosecuting man for his sinfulness and then he receives permission to take man’s life. The Angel of Esau had to attack Jacob because as the last and greatest Patriarch, Jacob’s symbolized man’s struggle to raise himself and the rest of the world with him, and Satan exists to cripple that effort. Therefore, the battle between Jacob and the “man” was the eternal struggle between man’s capacity to perfect himself, and Satan’s determination to destroy him spiritually.
V. 24-“and a man wrestled with him until the break of dawn” the sages say that an angel was dispatched to Jacob to pave the way for ultimate salvation of Jacob and his descendents. Just as Jacob was temporarily injured in the struggle, he prevailed and went on to greater accomplishments. Likewise, the Jewish people would suffer losses in the future but would prevail and emerge with even greater accomplishments and blessings.
“until the break of dawn” interpreted as the angel of evil who will fight Jacob’s descendents throughout history, until the dawn of salvation.
v. 27- “let me go for dawn has broken.” The Jewish sages explain that the angel asked to be let go for it was his turn to sing G-d’s praises as part of the heavenly chorus, but Jacob insisted on receiving the angel’s blessing before he would let him go. This blessing by the guardian angel of Esau was an acknowledgement that Jacob was entitled to Isaac’s blessings (Rashi). Rhetorically, the angel asked Jacob’s name in order to introduce his statement of blessing. Then the angel declared, “it will no longer be said that you deserve the name Jacob which implies heel, deceit, because you obtained the blessings deceitfully, as Esau had charged in 27:36, instead Jacob would receive the additional name Israel meaning prevailing, superiority. From then on, it would be acknowledged that he received the blessings because he had prevailed and demonstrated he was more deserving then Esau (Rashi).
You mentioned Peniel, and it is rendered Penuel, which literally means “face of G-d.” This is because the angel had no power to grant a blessing on his on, but acting as G-d’s agent it was as if Jacob was face to face with G-d, metaphorically.
That is the Jewish interpretation of this section.
My belief is that the Angel was a theophany, a pre-incarnate visitation of Yahshua. Elsewhere in the Bible, such visitations identifying Him as the Angel of G-d lends credence to this interpretation. During the Exodus YHVH warns the Hebrews not to anger or disobey this Angel for He has G-d’s name in Him, and the power to judge sins and exact punishment, powers delegated to G-d only. This would lead us to believe that this angel is not a messenger but a manifestation of G-d himself. Abandoning some of the ideas of the rabbis, the scenario they paint as to the purpose seems valid with the addition that Jacob was tried as was Abraham in the Akeda (sacrifice of Isaac-G-d knew Abraham would obey Him, but Abraham did not, and it was a test respectively to build trust)
The references to the KJV inclusion of the pronouns he, him, do not appear in the Hebrew manuscript. The translators put these pronouns in of their own accord. Probably to make it more readable, but it is not in the original manuscript. This leaves the question moot. You may have noticed that many times LORD is written in capital letters. This indicates YHVH; why not just write YHVH. When it is not capitalized, it is Adonai or Elohim. G-d is sometimes YHVH, Elohim or Adonai. In the English, there is no way to determine which. We might conclude that G-d purposely left out these pronouns because the Angel was a theophany, or the pre-incarnate Yahshua. Nevertheless, the translators included them even though they are not in the manuscript. Unfortunately, translators have included words in the English Bible that have led to false doctrines. That is why it is important to know Hebrew and Koine Greek to fully understand the Bible.
I hope this helps.
Shalom v’brachas,
Rabbi Davis (R. Milchamah b. David)
Question #40
Where does the basis for Jewish matrilineal descent come from?
Rabbi’s Answer:
Matrilineal descent is derived from Deuteronomy 7:4 according to the Talmud (Jewish Commentary on the Bible) The Talmud was begun in 188 CE with the Mishnah, but not completed until about 474 C.E. The closest we can get to when the matrilineal descent became fixed in Jewish Law would probably fall within that period.
Part of Jewish law (called the Oral Torah) as contrasted with G-d’s Torah reasons that if a woman is married then the assumption is that her children came from her husband. This is true even if she is raped. If she isn’t married then there is no question that the rapist is the father. Most rapes of Jewish women were from invaders who were clearly not Jewish. The only question then was if a child was from a non-Jewish invader, who is not Jewish, is the child Jewish, and Jewish tradition clearly states the child is Jewish.
“Because he will lead astray your son from before Me” We must look at the preceding verse to understand this verse. “And you shall not intermarry with them, your daughter you shall not give to his son and his daughter you shall not take for your son.” Verse 4 should have stated, “Because She will lead astray your son” for the non-Jewish girl that your son married (your, meaning Jewish) should be the one that would lead your son astray. So, who is the “He”? It might be the girl's father, but in general, women leave their father's house and live in their husband's house; they would then not be living with her father. Hence, it would not make sense for the girl's father to lead "your son" astray if your son does not live with him.
The Rabbis concluded that 'HE' is the man that your daughter married, and 'your son' mentioned in verse 4 is your grandchild, meaning Jewish grandchild. Thus, verse 4 is referring back to the middle section of verse 3. It reads like this, "Your daughter you shall not give to his son because he will lead astray your son" This shows that the child of a Jewish girl and a non-Jewish boy will be Jewish.
It is not uncommon for the Torah to refer to a grandchild as an actual child. For instance, 1 Kings 15: 11 states, " And Asa did that which was correct in the eyes of G-d just like David his father". David was not Asa's father. He was his great-great-grandfather.
Additionally, Leviticus 24:10 speaks of the son of an Israelite woman and an Egyptian man as being "among the community of Israel" (i.e., a Jew). On the other hand, in Ezra 10:2-3, the Jews returning to Israel vowed to put aside their non-Jewish wives and the children born to those wives. They could not have put aside those children if those
children were Jews.
An analysis on: Intermarriage where the mother is a Gentile and the father Jewish.
Many people argue that the Bible showed lineage from the father and why now from the mother. In the Bible, the lineage listed was for inheritance rights and not to show ethnicity. Daughters in biblical times had no rights of inheritance, therefore the lineage shown is tribal and from the father to prove legal inheritance rights of the eldest son.
Question #41
Many Christians believe Jeremiah 30 is talking about a future event; Jacob's trouble. I think it has to do with the Babylonian captivity. What do you think?
Larry
Rabbi's Answer
Dear Larry:
I have to put the whole text down to make my points. This is not an in depth analysis, but simply a reliance upon the plain meaning of the text. You are right that these passages refer to the Babylonian captivity, but if you read my notations you may believe as I do that it also refers to the latter days.
Jer 30:1 The word that came to Jeremiah from YHVH, saying,
Jer 30:2 Thus speaketh the YHVH Elohim of Israel, saying, Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book.
Jer 30:3 For, lo, the days come, saith YHVH, that I will bring again the captivity of my people Israel and Judah, saith YHVH: and I will cause them to return to the land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall possess it.
Jer 30:4 And these are the words that YHVH spake concerning Israel and concerning Judah.
Jer 30:5 For thus saith YHVH; We have heard a voice of trembling, of fear, and not of peace.
Jer 30:6 Ask ye now, and see whether a man doth travail with child? wherefore do I see every man with his hands on his loins, as a woman in travail, and all faces are turned into paleness?
Yahshua spoke of a woman in labor as typical of the characteristics of the last days and what it means for Jews. . That men’s hearts would fail for fear, etc. This conveys the same metaphor.
Jer 30:7 Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob's trouble; but he shall be saved out of it.
Another reference that a remnant of Judah shall be saved during the Tribulation, the last great Holocaust the Jewish people shall face. .
Jer 30:8 For it shall come to pass in that day, saith YHVH of hosts, that I will break his yoke from off thy neck, and will burst thy bonds, and strangers shall no more serve themselves of him:
Jer 30:9 But they shall serve YHVH their Elohim, and David their king, whom I will raise up unto them.
This reference is to Yahshua, the son of David. David had already died. Yahshua has the “Key of David.” The “Key of David” has long been recognized as it is applied in Isaiah 22:20-22 when Elyakim was given the “key of the House of David” to act in full authority on behalf of King Hezekiah. Likewise, Yahshua has been given the “key of David” to act in full authority on behalf of YHVH Elohim.
The Kings of Israel when Jeremiah served were King Josiah (627/6 CE). He was active under the Kings Jehoahaz-Shallum (609 CE) (22:11), Jehoiakim (609-587 CE.), Jehoiachin/Jeconiah/Coniah [all the same](597 CE.) and Zedekiah (597-586 CE). Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians in 587 B.C., Jeremiah is writing primarily to Judah here as well. Israel has already been led into captivity. This is an intimation that this prophecy is also for the future.
Jer 30:10 Therefore fear thou not, O my servant Jacob, saith YHVH; neither be dismayed, O Israel: for, lo, I will save thee from afar, and thy seed from the land of their captivity; and Jacob shall return, and shall be in rest, and be quiet, and none shall make him afraid.
A reference to the Jews and Israelites who have gone into the diaspora. Also the future. As of yet not all the Jews nor the Lost Tribes of Israel have returned to the Land. It is still in the future in the Millennium reign of Yahshua is my opinion.
Jer 30:11 For I am with thee, saith YHVH, to save thee: though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee: but I will correct thee in measure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunished.
This is a reference to the :Last Days.” The battle of Gog-Magog and Armageddon still in the future. The days of the anti-messiah.
Jer 30:12 For thus saith YHVH, Thy bruise is incurable, and thy wound is grievous.
Jer 30:13 There is none to plead thy cause, that thou mayest be bound up: thou hast no healing medicines.
Jer 30:14 All thy lovers have forgotten thee; they seek thee not; for I have wounded thee with the wound of an enemy, with the chastisement of a cruel one, for the multitude of thine iniquity; because thy sins were increased.
Jer 30:15 Why criest thou for thine affliction? thy sorrow is incurable for the multitude of thine iniquity: because thy sins were increased, I have done these things unto thee.
Jer 30:16 Therefore all they that devour thee shall be devoured; and all thine adversaries, every one of them, shall go into captivity; and they that spoil thee shall be a spoil, and all that prey upon thee will I give for a prey.
The Jews even where they were accepted came finally under persecution, except in the US and I doubt this will continue. All nations that mistreated the Jews shall be made accountable according to this passage and that too is still in the future.
Jer 30:17 For I will restore health unto thee, and I will heal thee of thy wounds, saith YHVH; because they called thee an Outcast, saying, This is Zion, whom no man seeketh after.
Jer 30:18 Thus saith YHVH; Behold, I will bring again the captivity of Jacob's tents, and have mercy on his dwellingplaces; and the city shall be builded upon her own heap, and the palace shall remain after the manner thereof.
The above translation of the word captivity could just as well mean bring prosperity. It is sheb-ooth' in Hebrew and in concurrence with the book of Joel 3:1, I believe it should mean prosperity and refers to the reestablishment of Israel in 1948.
Jer 30:19 And out of them shall proceed thanksgiving and the voice of them that make merry: and I will multiply them, and they shall not be few; I will also glorify them, and they shall not be small.
Jer 30:20 Their children also shall be as aforetime, and their congregation shall be established before me, and I will punish all that oppress them.
Jer 30:21 And their nobles shall be of themselves, and their governor shall proceed from the midst of them; and I will cause him to draw near, and he shall approach unto me: for who is this that engaged his heart to approach unto me? saith YHVH.
Jer 30:22 And ye shall be my people, and I will be your Elohim.
Jer 30:23 Behold, the whirlwind of YHVH goeth forth with fury, a continuing whirlwind: it shall fall with pain upon the head of the wicked.
This reference to “whirlwind” is an apocalyptic word.
Some examples are:
Prov 10:25 As the whirlwind passeth, so is the wicked no more: but the righteous is an everlasting foundation.
Isa 17:13 The nations shall rush like the rushing of many waters: but G-d shall rebuke them, and they shall flee far off, and shall be chased as the chaff of the mountains before the wind, and like a rolling thing before the whirlwind.
Isa 40:24 Yea, they shall not be planted; yea, they shall not be sown: yea, their stock shall not take root in the earth: and he shall also blow upon them, and they shall wither, and the whirlwind shall take them away as stubble.
Isa 41:16 Thou shalt fan them, and the wind shall carry them away, and the whirlwind shall scatter them: and thou shalt rejoice in YHVH, and shalt glory in the Holy One of Israel.
Isa 66:15 For, behold, YHVH will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.
There are many more.
Jer 30:24 The fierce anger of YHVH shall not return, until he have done it, and until he have performed the intents of his heart: in the latter days ye shall consider it.
Of course we see here a clear reference to the “Latter Days,” which indicates that part of this prophecy is for this time as well. May times a prophecy is only partly fulfilled and its complete fulfillment comes at a later date. That is why I said initially it refers to “both” the Babylonian captivity and to the coming Tribulation when Jews will suffer as never before.
I hope this helps. Perhaps you still do not agree with me but I have written what I think as you requested.
Question #42
Dear Rabbi Davis,
Being Christian and having no Jewish background, my curiosities have grown when reading the Bible (King James Version) and I have often found myself wondering whether the translation (or the translation of certain words) in the book are the same as it was written in Hebrew. I've a good Concordance that has brought me closer to understanding the original words of the Bible, but there are still some things that have puzzled me. For instance, the creation of Eve--the KJV translates as such: "And the LORD G-d caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;". I looked up the word rib pertaining to this context in the Concordance book I have, and it gives a translation of side, or chamber, rather than being that of an actual rib bone. This I could understand to an extent-- the place where I stumble is: What was taken out from his side? It was very much a surgical procedure, it seems, as the LORD had to put Adam into a deep sleep and close up the flesh from within (the "within" part I obtained from my father's book which contains original Hebrew text and an English translation).
Rabbi's Answer
There are two accounts of Elohim creating humankind in
Genesis. This has stumped many Christian commentators. In the first it states
"in His image." In Hebrew G-d's name YHVH is made up of both feminine and
masculine gender syllables. That is unique. Hebrew indicates when someone or
something is female or male. Therefore, we see revealed in G-d's personal name
that His essence is both male/female. That is he has attributes of both feminine
and masculine qualities. The first man was both male and female combined,
created in His image. G-d removed the feminine part from Adam and made a woman.
Strong's definition is better understood when we realize that the feminine part
of Adam was removed from within. Also remember it is a metaphor. That is why
the Bible states a man and woman must come together to be One (echad) or a whole
person. Judaism believes a man and woman must be married to fulfill G-d's will.
That it is unnatural not to be married, for we will never realize our full
potential until we unite our souls becoming one in direction and focus. Another
interesting aspect is that Elohim associated with the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy
Spirit) is a feminine gender word. This may be shocking for you since you have
had no Hebrew or Jewish training but it is supported by Scripture and the
language. If you think of the qualities or attributes of the Holy Spirit you
will see that they are feminine in nature, comforting, nurturing, and standing
alongside helping, guiding like a mother.
Another question I had pertains to the sin of Ham. Gen 9:22-24 tells the events of what occurred, but vaguely. What was Ham's terrible sin? That he saw his father naked and told his brothers about what he had seen? Then I am thrown a bit off when 9:24 speaks that Noah "knew what his younger son had done unto him." Something was done unto Noah, and this makes me wonder as to whether Ham's sin was the first homosexual act mentioned in the Bible. If so, this is truly a horrifying sin that Ham had committed. Was that the sin, or am I running off on some dark tangeant?
No you are not. I believe Ham was guilty of "uncovering"
his father. That is a euphemism in Scripture to mean fornication or sexual
intimacy. There is another version from the old rabbis, but I think you
already have understanding so I want go into it.
Here's yet another question: Genesis 32:24-32, when Jacob "wrestled a man" until the breaking of the day-- I was taught that the man Jacob wrestled with was the LORD, for it was Him that told Jacob that his name was to be Israel, and Jacob goes on to name the place they wrestled Peniel because he had "seen God face to face" and survived. My questions about this are:
1) why isn't (according to the KJV) "he" or "him" written as "He" or "Him" when pertaining to the LORD?
2) why did [H]e say to Jacob, "Let me go, for the day breaketh"?
and 3) why did they wrestle?
This question requires a long answer and I am pressed
for time right now, with Passover coming tomorrow. I will answer it after Erev
Service Monday night. I need to give you aspects or perspectives for you to
fully understand.
Two final questions, if I may, pertaining to holidays:
Should Christians also observe the Passover (even if we should observe as foreigners)?
Yahshua observed Passover and not Easter. Easter is a pagan holiday
instituted by Constantine to replace Passover when he dejudaized the "church."
Look in your concordance where you find Easter and you will see the Greek word
is paschal (Passover). Look the word up in your English dictionary if it is an
order one and you will see that Easter is another word for Ishtar, a goddess of
fertility. Look on the web site on the index page and go to "Festivals" and read
"Yahshua (Jesus) Revealed in the Passover." It will give you an understanding of
this festival. To conduct a Passover seder you would need a Passover Haggadah.
Let me know if you want one and I'll send it to you. If you are a true believer
you must be a partaker of the covenants of Israel (grafted in-Romans), and
therefore you should celebrate Passover and all the other festivals as well. In
the Millennium we will for certain be celebrating the "Feast of Tabernacles" as
the Bible says.
And should Christians be celebrating the birth of Christ on Dec. 25th (as this was most likely not the date of his birth, though we are still unsure exactly when he was born), and should we be careful in celebrating Easter? I ask these questions specifically, as I know that their roots are tied directly to pagan Babylon.
We should not celebrate Easter or Christmas as they are pagan holidays
instituted into the church by Constantine a sun god worshipper who dejudaized
the "church." and solidified his political power as emperor of Rome with that of
Papa of the Church. He replaced G-d's law with church law. I have a lot
of papers I've written in detail with citations that can be checked on the
subjects you mentioned but so not know if they are on the site. I'll look around
and send them if you want them. Let me know. I'll be a little remiss until after
Passover. Apparently, G-d is calling you out as you already seem to realize
what is wrong with religion in general. Look on the site, first page and just
below the Ark select and read: "Are you a True Believer?"
Shalom v'brachas,
Rabbi Davis (R. Milchamah b. David)
Thank you very much for taking the time to review my questions, and I await anxiously to hear from you soon!
~Megan
Question #43
Dear BethLLives:
My answers are often forthright. Please do not be offended if I do not agree with you. I always state my reasons why. I’ve been told my style is sometimes curt and undiplomatic especially for Christians. I’m used to a Jewish congregation, and in that context have no problem of offending anyone’s sensibilities for most Jews are extremely forthright and passionate about their beliefs. I’m giving you my take, and you might disagree. If you do that is okay for we must always remember “we see through a glass darkly but some day we shall know as we are known.”
Your questions edited by me to a shorter format:
Rabbi's Answer
You remarked in your e-mail one of the proofs that brought you to the decision that Smyrna represented the Jewish people is because Christians already have the crown of life. This was in reference to Yahshua remarking, “Let no man take your crown.” On my level of understanding, this presupposes that you must have a crown in order for someone to take it. I do not believe in the doctrine of eternal security or eternal salvation characterized as “once saved always saved.” Scripture does not support it, and therefore this passage could certainly be referring to Jews as well as Christians. Let me add that in the KJV Romans 3:25 and 2 Peter 1:9, Sha’ul and Kefer respectively tell us we are saved from our past sins and not our future ones. We are reconciled to YHVH by trusting in the faithfulness of Yahshua’s work (imputed righteousness), but then we must be obedient to His Torah to maintain the process of progressive salvation. We fall, we sincerely repent, and we do not commit “high handed” sin for which there is no forgiveness. This is the same process of salvation in the Old Testament. G-d does not change.
It is advantageous to list the verses you referred to and go over them line by line:
Rev 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
Rev 2:10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.
Rev 2:11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.
Let us take the first sentence and interpret it. Note for many ages people have taken the last three words of this verse to castigate and persecute Jews saying they are of the synagogue of Satan. First, the plain rendering is about those who claim to be Jews, but are in fact not Jews. Therefore, the plain sense of the verse is about someone masquerading as a Jew. What is the motive for this? Then as today, there are those that adopt a smattering of Jewish practices, adopt the festivals, and call themselves Messianic Jews, but still maintain their false doctrines. Yochanan in my understanding is writing about such Gentiles who say they are Jews but are not; on the contrary, they are of the synagogue of HaSatan. Perhaps because they subject themselves to a legalistic perversion of the Torah and, as a result, they drive Gentiles away from the truth. It is regrettable that practically all the commentators ignore the plain and straightforward interpretation of this verse. In verse two John says: “you tested them that call themselves apostles, but aren’t and you found them to be liars.” This verse is accepted by the literal sense of it, but in the preceding above, they opt for the metaphorical interpretation that Yochanan is talking about Jews who reject Yahshua as the Messiah. This double standard has fueled ages of anti-Semitism. Accepting it as such denys what is said in Zechariah 8:23 “Thus saith YHVH of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that G-d is with you.”
You might also check that nowhere in the B’rit Chadasha (NT) are unbelieving Jews called non-Jews. A good rule for interpreting Scripture is “when the literal sense makes good sense, seek no other sense.”
You refer to Yahshua identifying Himself as the first and the last, which would have enabled Jews to readily identify His office or who He is from the Old Testament. First Century Judaism would not have understood this. One the NT as we know it did not exist and was not readily available. The OT and rabbis comments on it only refer to the Alef- Tav as G-d’s Word, that is the Torah or the literal written Torah. Not the manifestation of the Word or Torah manifested as Yahshua. The Alef – Tav that would equal “the first letter and last letter” of the Hebrew alphabet that is comparable to Yahshua’s title in Revelation of Alpha and Omega would have been completely unknown to them. This understanding did not occur until much later and in fact, not many, Jews or Christians even understand it now.
Resurrection was a doctrine held by the Pharisees, but denied by the Sadducees. There is no body of writing extant in Judaism that refers to a resurrected human before the day of judgment. Therefore, this would be an alien doctrine to most Jews of the first century.
Your reference to the 10 days of Awe being consistent with their suffering 10 days may be considered as a legitimate form of interpretation even under the rules of interpretation of Pashat. It would fall in the category of “remez,” hint. JR Church came up with an interesting study on this some time ago. I concur with him in that the 10 days of awe represents three years of afflictions and testing before the seven years of Tribulation, but for believers. Traditional Jews are not believers. Moreover, if they maintain that status into the Tribulation they are subject to martyrdom if they them believe.
I’ve earlier set down my belief and understanding of the giving of the “crown of life.” This does not differentiate the Jews, but in my opinion confirms that the letter is to the Gentile believers at Smyrna. Note, he says as elsewhere in Scripture, stand fast, persevere and overcome. All warnings to live an obedient life and not risk falling away from grace.
The bottom line is that I do not believe that Smyrna represents the Jewish people, but is addressed to all believers both Jew and non-Jew.
The church of Philadelphia:
The premise you advanced is that Philadelphia represents Christians and Smyrna represents Jews. I disagree with the latter as you have read, but let us examine the church at Philadelphia.
The name: Philadelphia means, "love of brother." A Hellenistic city in the province of Lydia in western Asia. We are to love our brethren even our enemies, but few truly practice this quality. I’ll comment on the two names later at the end.
Rev 3:7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;
Rev 3:8 I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.
Rev 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
Rev 3:10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.
Rev 3:11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.
Rev 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.
Rev 3:13 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
The “Key of David” has long been recognized as it is applied in Isaiah 22:20-22 when Elyakim was given the “key of the House of David” to act in full authority on behalf of King Hezekiah. Likewise, Yahshua has been given the “key of David” to act in full authority on behalf of YHVH Elohim.
Notice the reference to making them the synagogue of Satan in verse 9. A Jewish commentator sees this verse as referring to the day that Israel ascends to the heights YHVH promised, referring to the humiliation of Gentiles before Israel. It may also be refer to the conversion to Gentiles to the faith of Israel. Sha’ul says, Gentiles must be grafted into Israel, and this seems to me to be a better interpretation.
“Let no man take thy crown.” This is a warning against false doctrine as preached by false teachers. Again, in my opinion it means we may fall from grace if we do not hold to the truth. This does not mean to me that it is Christianity to which He is referring. The word “church” is ecclesia meaning “called out ones.” It was mistranslated as “church,” which is a derivative from sun god. To me it this phrase is addressed to anyone who believes in G-d’s truth. A Jew does not have to become a Christian to believe. Yahshua was not a Christian, but a faithful Jew who practiced Judaism to the fullness. On the contrary, a true believer has to be partakers of the covenants of Israel and a citizen of that commonwealth, i.e. an Israeli. Yahshua disagreed with some of the rabbi’s interpretation and traditions (oral law), but in no way established, a new religion called Christianity. The early assemblies were all-Jewish, and were not separated from Judaism until late in 200 CE (AD). You will read in Acts that they were zealous for the Torah (Law). By the way, Torah should have been translated as “instructions,” not Law. Today as in ancient times, “Christians” were identified in Hebrew and called Nazarets.
I agree there are two witnesses on earth. Christians that testify to the Grace of G-d and Jews that testify to Torah. In the Book of Revelation, the faithful sing the Song of the Lamb and The Song of Moshe representing grace and law. Yahshua came at a time in Jewish history when there were to houses of authority: Hillel who represents liberalism or you might say grace. Shammai who represented conservatism or you might say law. Yahshua took some of His doctrine from Hillel and some from Shammai. He was liberal on some issues but stringent on others. A careful analysis shows he chose a middle path. Not one or the other exclusively. We need to see Torah in a new light and see it as a necessity of grace. Read on the site “ The definition of a true believer.” And are we Legalists?” on the first page.
So, the bottom line is that I see Philadelphia as representing the ‘called out ones” Jew or non-Jew who have been reconciled to YHVH under the covering of Yahshua’ blood and who obey His voice as He was the Manifested Torah.
The Two Olive Trees. In the shield of Israel, you see olive leaves on either side of the menorah. There are 24 and a flame on the top of each. To me this stands for the 24 elders of Israel around G-d’s throne. 12 patriarchs and 12 apostles, again joining together Law and Grace. You made a reference similar to this about the transfiguration..
Rev 11:4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the G-d of the earth.
These two witnesses are identified with the two olive trees of Zechariah 4:3. Some have likened the two olive trees to Moshe and Elijah or Moshe and Enoch. Elijah and Enoch were translated, and G-d says it is appointed for man to die once. These two have never seen human death. So, we have some thinking to do here. In any event the text clearly says they will witness in Jerusalem and be killed there, lying in the street for three and half days. After which they arise from death and go to heaven. The text is speaking about literal men. I think to extrapolate it into including Christians and Jews as represented by the above churches of Philadelphia and Smyrna in this context is not warranted.
About the names:
The following is from strong’s. 4667. Smurna, smoor'-nah; the same as G4666; Smyrna, a place in Asia Minor:--Smyrna. 4666. smurna, smoor'-nah; appar. strengthened for G3464; myrrh:--myrrh.3464. muron, moo'-ron; prob. of for. or. [comp. H4753, G4666]; "myrrh", i.e. (by impl.) perfumed oil:--ointment. I also looked Smyrna up in a good lexicon and do not come up with the same definition you did: as dealing in bitterness. The root means perfumed oil something that is attractively scented.
Philadelphia is self-evident.
Shalom v’brachas,
Hope I covered all the bases it could be a most detailed study.
Rabbi Davis (R. Milchamah b. David)
Question # 44
Rabbi,
In Genesis 9:5
Why are the animals included?
Genesis 9:22-27
Why was Ham cursed so harshley?
Shalom, Sharon
Rabbi’s Answer
Dear Sharon,
Gen 9:5 "And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of
every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every
man's brother 8will I require the life of man."
"Why are the animals included?"
This verse upholds the sacredness of life. It does not prohibit capital
punishment for premeditated murder. but it places a limitation on humanity to
take life. YHVH Elohim's Torah tells us that human life belongs only to Him.
The term "of every beast" means that beasts too are forbidden to kill people,
and if they do, they will be killed through Divine means. Further, it
condemns suicide, and YHVH will require an accounting from everyone who kills
themselves, for only G-d has the right to end life. The emphasis is that G-d
will not permit the taking of life to go unpunished. The murderer will be
hunted down by man or wild beast; ultimately G-d Himself will bring about
judgment upon anyone taking innocent life. It also incorporates the possibility
of someone killing another human accidentally or unintentionally, but who
merits a degree of punishment because of carelessness or because they did not
exercise the proper vigilance. Whenever life is taken G-d will inflict whatever
punishment is merited according to the degree of the crime or carelessness that
led to the death. It might even mean that a killer may be killed by a wild
beast.
Gen: 9:22-27 Below. "Why was Ham cursed so harshly?
This is explained by a Midrash. In other words we must look beyond the literal.
In the preceding verse we see that Noah debased himself by planting a vineyard
before any other trees. His craving for wine and his resultant drunkenness was
due to this sinful craving. Wine is not forbidden, but overindulgence is. The
plain meaning of verse 22 is Ham "saw " but many commentators try to make more
of it than that by supplying or interpreting the Hebrew word " ra'aw" as
"uncovered" , which implies Ham had homosexual intercourse with his father. This
is incorrect. The sense of the passage is that in Noah's intoxicated state he
became uncovered and Ham gazed at him disrespectfully. Some Jewish rabbis
interpret the Hebrew word translated "nakedness" as "shame." Noah lay in shame,
and Ham enjoyed the sight of his father's dishevelment and shame. Ham's actions
speak for themselves for unlike his brothers who showed respect and honor when
they gazed upon their father's indignity averting their eyes and covering
Noah, he instead ran derisively to tell his brothers. Ham's actions are a direct
violation of the commandment to "Honor your father and mother," and this is why
Ham was cursed so harshley as an object lesson for all of us. In Messianic
Judaism or traditional Judaism we are not to harshly treat our parents,
condemn, subject them to ridicule or indignities even if they are wrong in
their actions. We must always give them respect and honor .
Shalom v'brachas,
Rabbi Davis (R. Milchamah b. David)
Question #45
My wife and I are committed members of the Messianic movement. My mother, however, practices her Judaism at a Conservative synagogue, and my new found beliefs have been hard for her to accept.
We have a 2 year old daughter whom we wish to raise in a manner consistent with scripture. The problem is my mother has a committed relationship with a man with whom she has lived for the past 6 years. My wife and I believe it would be improper to bring our daughter into their home as it would be a bad and immoral example for our little girl. This has caused some estrangement between my mother and I, as well as my brothers and myself. I am feeling very sad and conflicted about this situation, as I love my mother and brothers very much.
My question is should I relent and bring my daughter into my mother’s home in which a couple resides without the benefit of marriage, or should I risk total alienation from my family?
Please, I need your advice.
Rabbi's Answer
Dear XXXXX,
May I say that I truly feel for you in this situation. We must try to derive an
appropriate answer from Torah. First, we are to honor our parents even when they
are living against YHVH's Torah. If we can;t remedy the first cause, we are then
faced with the dilemma of how do we do this and still teach our children G-dly
values. Much would depend on the age of the children and their understanding.
As Messianics, we do not accept the situation you described as living in the
Will of G-d. However, in traditional Judaism cohabitation often equals marriage.
This may be the case in your mother's Conservative Temple. Even in some states
now it constitutes a legal marriage if it is of any enduring space of time. Much
depends on the rabbi as to the ruling on an individual case. Some would condone
such a union and some would not.
Perhaps you need to understand how does your mother sees it? If she is an
observant Jew she must have some qualms about her situation unless her rabbi set
her mind at ease on the matter. As I said some rabbis would counsel her that the
union is sanctioned by G-d since it is a lasting relationship and it is not
necessary to have a religious or civil ceremony. This is not the question you
presented, but it may help provide some understanding. You said, committed and
lasting relationship. What is the reason they never legally validated the union?
You don't have to answer to me that question, but the answer might help you make
a final decision. Some elderly people don't marry for economic reasons. What do
we do there? I'm not being facetious but am encouraging looking at the situation
from all perspectives.
The second consideration is this and I know you have thought about it from your
letter. But I think you have looked at it from a positon of either/or. There
might be another solution that incorporates a compromise within Torah. The
proposition seems to be :Is it more important to instill biblically sound moral
values in your daughter or compromise your own beliefs for the sake of family
harmony? You can look at this two ways. One "kal v' khomer " from the lesser to
the greater. Yahshua used this form of argument in most of His disputes with the
religious authorities of His day. One, we have to honor our parents. How do we
do that and protect our children from a parent's unlawful (sinful) ways? If the
child is old enough we might explain the situation to them. If very young the
explanation can come later. Children are more capable of grasping a situation
then most of us give them credit. You might also take it as an opportunity to
instill Torah in a child i.g., we are to love and respect our parents although
they have faults (sins), and we obey G-d's commandment to us. Parents are not
perfect, neither is or were we. Yahshua loved and loves us, lived with us, and
died for us even though we are sinful. He calls us His brothers and sisters.
Therefore, we love them without approving of their sins or being influenced by
them. Our Torah observant lives may even be the agency whereby they are
influenced to repent. Two. Cut them off and we destroy the opportunity to
influence them to a more Torah observant life. To a life in the will of G-d.
My best counsel is that if you decide to ostracize your mother it will create
more conflict, and eventually your daughter will question why this estrangement
exists. She may even blame you for her not having the benefit of a grandmother.
The only solution I see is the above. Honor your mother, but explain now or
later to your daughter the situation, and your thoughts on it as informed by
Torah. I believe your daughter will come to understand the great love you have
for her and how you mother's relationship caused such a conflict for you because
of the love you have for her. It should also demonstrate the love and honor we
must give to our parents. If she is too young now, some day she will see the
wisdom in the decision you make. If you close the door on a relationship there
is no opportunity to influence it. By following this course, you are not
dishonoring YHVH's Torah, but in fact are honoring it. Your daughter will
eventually be exposed to all sorts of sin around her, and this example and how
you handle it shoud serve as guide in how she handles society and sin, be they
family, friend or acquaintances.
I pray that this will help you or give you pause to think of a G-dly solution.
Shalom v'Brachas,
Rabbi Davis (R. Milchamah b. David)
Question #46
I’m not clear about the concept of binding and loosing can you help me?
Unfortunately, there are no shortcuts to answering the issues you have raised.
You state you are struggling with the concept of “binding and loosing.” I do not know if you read my papers on this subject, but if not, they may be found on the web site. Go to studies and in that category, you will find two papers:
Please read these if you haven’t already.
Now to address your concerns. I agree with you that Torah is the Standard for all true believers. We are admonished not to add to, nor subtract from G-d’s standards as set forth in the Torah. However, the mechanism of “binding and losing” as Yahshua set forth is not addressing the Torah. Unfortunately, like in His day, as in this age, men frequently impose their own will above that of YHVH and misuse Scripture to justify overriding YHVH’s Torah. “Binding and loosing” is only intended to regulate the communal life of assemblies, and not to supplant the Torah.
Primarily, it is a “bet din,” a court of the synagogue leadership comprised of true believers to deal with any issues brought before it that pertains to communal life. A G-d appointed leadership would deal with such issues based upon what is taught in Torah. Of course, there is always the possibility that a corrupt individual or leadership will use this mechanism to promote private or self-promoting agendas.
You cited, 1 Cor 5 and Mathew 18:15-20. When both of these letters were written, the NT was not yet complied nor canonized. The Corinthian letter was addressed to Gentiles in the mid 50’s CE. There was one problem in the community that was doctrinal but most of the problems addressed concerned attitudes and behavior, some of the problems raised by the Corinthinians were: celibacy, marriage, divorce, food sacrificed to idols, veiling of women in public worship, disorder at the L-rd’s Supper, charismatic gifts and their use in public and the resurrection of the dead. If you look at this list, you can see the ones that might need a ruling to maintain good order and unity in a congregation. This would be addressed by the concept of “binding and loosing.” Those directly addressed by Torah need not be and Sha’ul addresses them in a different way.
In 1 Cor, 1:11 Sha’ul declares that in the house of Chloe he is aware of contentions among them and to this he will address his halacha (ruling). Now he starts with a long colloquy stating his position and credentials. In 3:3, he identifies their problem as being carnal resulting in envying, strife and divisions. He then prefaces his Halacha with doctrinal statements to lend credibility to his halachic position. In 5:1, he addresses the problem of fornication and the belief that a man may have his stepmother for a wife. He goes on to relate other problems. Notice that his decisions and therefore rulings are directly from the Torah in most cases.
In 1 Cor 6: 1 Sha’ul tells the Corinthians not to go to a secular court of law, but to submit themselves to the ruling of a “bet din” to settle disputes. This is in accordance with Yahshua’s concept of “binding and loosing.” In 1 Cor 7:6, notice how Sha’ul phrases this verse, I speak from permission and not commandment referring to the preceding verses concerning avoidance of fornication. The phrase infers that some of his halacha is binding, yet some like that of fasting and prayer in relation to physical union of married couples is suggested without the stricture of being a halachic ruling.
Space does not allow a complete analysis, but perhaps some of the example above will help you in your struggle with the concept.
Matthew 18:15-20. The first verse uttered by Yahshua here refers to Lev. 19:17 where we are commanded not to hate our brother, but to correct or plead with him. In Verse 17, Yahshua tells us if we are unsuccessful in reconciling the brother to us in the steps outlined then the last resort is to submit the issue to the “bet din,” and whatever shall be bound on earth will be bound in heaven, etc. This passage does not necessarily mean to bring the issue before the whole assembly for in some respects that might violate Torah. However, it certainly requires the issue be examined by a “bet din,” a panel appointed from the spiritual leadership of an assembly and whatever ruling they render under the covering of Torah will be upheld in the courts of heaven.
Next reference is to “stoning.” Throughout Torah, sin is judged on the principle of justice equal to the sin. Stoning was the means of Jewish execution of the time, today the powers ordained by G-d carried out capital punishment by any number of means. The result is the same. Stoning is a concept. The concept included that every one participate in the stoning therefore, it was less likely that that someone would pervert justice if he himself had to cast the “first” stone. The teaching in “the woman caught in adultery.” Hebrew is a block language, and a language of concepts. Greek is about the opposite. We have to learn to think with a Jewish mind conceptually, to fully realize the import of the individual words. For instance, the Sh’ma. Hear, Oh Israel, does not merely mean to audibly hear, but to hear, internalize and act upon the Word of G-d. The same concept is expressed in Greek when we are told, to call upon the name of Yahshua, and you shall be saved. This does not mean that all those that calls or even shouts out the name Yahshua will be saved that is ridiculous. The concept, even as the Greek word implies is that those that call on Him, believe Him and obey Him acting on His teaching will be saved.
How do we who believe G-d’s word never changes reconcile what appears to be a turning from some of G-d’s clear directives? That is to stone children who dishonor their parents, kill idol worshippers, and many other injunctions found in the Torah that would result in a prison sentence or death to anyone who carried them our today. The Torah is made up of 613 laws, statutes, and ordinances. The Temple cult is invalid today for we are a priest hood of our Messiah after the Order of Melchisdek. The Levitical priesthood is now invalidated (Hebrews). Traditional Judaism does not follow any of these commandments because the Temple is destroyed and we cannot fulfill the mitzvot. Traditional Judaism has therefore enacted Halacha (legal decisions) that approaches Christian doctrine. And that is former animal and grain sacrifices in the Temple have now been replaced by the lives of Jews, prayers and good deeds. The table has become the altar and the father the priest. We also have to consider that statues and ordinances are subject to Halacha because of changing conditions in society and environments. Many of the Old Testament Laws cannot be applied to today’s social environment without undergoing review and analysis therefore applying the foundational concept of the law and not the actual terminology applied. The phraseology “Eye for and eye, and tooth for a tooth,” is understood by all Judaism as not meaning literally and eye for and eye, but the applicable concept is “equitable justice to redress a wrong committed.” This could entail monetary damages or the loss of someone’s life. The US Civil Tort law is based on this concept. Yet, we agree G-d’s Torah itself is not subject to change. That leaves us in the position of having to be able to determine the difference between statutes, ordinances, and His Unchangeable Law. Some Jewish Sages have said that the Ten Commandments are G-d’s direct standards (laws_ for us and that all the rest of Torah is commentary upon them. Furthermore, G-d gave some laws and did not tell us how to carry out the commission of these mitzvot, and therefore we are left to our own devices on how to implement them. Like the Sabbath laws, men have perverted G-d’s law of the Sabbath that we are to set it aside and occupy ourselves with Torah into a very burdensome day that annuls His intent for us. In traditional Judaism, the rabbis built hedges around G-d’s Torah in order to assure that the law would not be broken and this led to legalism. Sorry for the long effort above but it is a concept hard to understand for most people, especially if they are not Jewish.
Now specifically “stoning.” How do we reconcile that with Paul’s injuction to “just don’t have anything to do with them? When Torah clearly tells us to “stone” certain individual’s for specific sins the end result is death. The NT is given as Torah as reported in Hebrews so we are told to excommunicate them. Furthermore, we are admonished to follow the rule of the land of the civil government. Of course, if it conflicts with G-d’s Torah we must follow Torah. In the OT Torah there is a reference to being “cut off,” excommunicated. The result of being “cut off” is equated with being a “living dead.” In our society, we are prohibited from carrying out capital execution for many of the offenses listed in the Torah and we must follow the law of the land. Yet, if we follow NT advice and we act in accordance or we are reconciled to OT Torah we are instructed when all else fails to “cut off” the individual. This leads to “spiritual death or the state of being as the “living dead.” The concept is the same and the results are the same in the spiritual realm. They are dead to us and likewise to YHVH if we have acted in a prudent manner.
New rulings or rather interpretations are made to address the age in which we live. This does not mean we abrogate YHVH’s Torah, but adhere to it by applying the concept in a manner that is consistent with our time.
I hope this helps.
Shalom v’Brachas,
Rabbi Davis (R. Milchamah b. David)
Question #47
Shalom Rabbi Davis,
I have been talking a while now with some Jewish people at a place for debating
about different issues of faith ect...
This person said Yahshua could not have been the Messiah because Messiah had to
be of the tribe of Judah. And Joseph was not his father and even if he was he
had been disqualified so even if you tie Yahshua to Joseph it would not matter.
I told him that Mary was of the tribe of Judah and Levi so Yahshua was of both
the King and Priest line.
And I quoted him from saying in earlier post that you are Jewish if your mother
was Jewish .
Well then he said this to me below:
The halacha states that a son of a jewish mother is born jewish. The same
halacha states that tribe and priestly rights are inherited thru the father
line.
Rabbi's Answer
True, Jewish lineage today is passed through the mother, matrilineal line, but this is Halacha that evolved after the Second Temple in the Diaspora and was not halacha (Jewish Law) during or before Yahshua's time. No one knows when for sure when Jews started deciding who is a Jew by matrilineal descent. Yes, tribal inheritance rights are traced through the father. The argument that Yahshua had priestly rights through Mariam is moot because He is not a High Priest in the Levitical cult, but a High Priest after Melchisdek. So it would not apply to Yahshua. Nor would your correspondent probably accept the argument not being knowledgeable of the NT nor accepting its authority.
Then he said this was a name used for Yahshua only it was in Hebrew text so I copied it and this is the way the word came out "hamamzer hamutzlav" do you know what this name might be?
This term, "Mamzer" means illegitimate. Most Jews do not know how to apply
it and it has taken on the shape of a term of derision. Like calling a child a
bas-ard. A mamzer is the offspring from unpermitted marital unions. One that is
adulterous or incestuous but not one born out of wed lock between two unmarried
persons. A child born out of wedlock is not considered illegitimate and bears no
stigma at all in today's halacha. There is a great deal more halacha involved to
list here. The problem is that most Jews unless very knowledgeable do not know
the laws of Mamzer. Most times, it is a term of derision.
The bottom line how do I address this comment about tribe and priestly rights are inherited by the father or how would you handle it?
It is true in Jewish Law so you cannot deny it. Nor would you advance the
argument, "After the order of Melchisdek,” have much credence for most Jews.
Unless you advance the incident where Abraham offered tithes to Melchisdek where
it signified that Melchisdek who was the priest and king of Salem (Jerusalem)
was greater than the Levitical priesthood because they were still in the lions
of Abraham (Levi not born yet) and as such they too offered tithes, a Jewish
principle. In addition, Milchisdek was both a King and High Priest. The problem
is that most Jews' minds are closed to an honest evaluation of Yahshua. Until
the Jewish leaders began to open themselves up to honest dialogue concerning the
person of Yahshua will the rank and file open up. Jews are taught not to read
the NT and you can not argue from the perspective of the NT. Christianity to
most Jews represents persecution and death. The cross is an emblem of
destruction and this is true because Jews for centuries have been killed in the
name of Christianity or Jews have been branded "Christ Killers" to justify all
kinds of pogroms. This does not make Jews open to witnessing as most Christians
practice it, appealing to the emotions. Jews cannot be approached emotionally on
this matter. You see how this individual keeps throwing halacha at you and
this requires you to know halacha. Most Jews do not know halacha. Unfortunately,
most Christians are dismally prepared to debate a knowledgeable Jew on this
matter. It would be better that Chritstians prayerfully and financially
underwrite credible Jewish leaders in the field of Messianic Judaism to lead
this fight then try it on their on.
I want you to
know this forum is a forum for Jews and Christians to debate issues on their
beliefs. If it was stickly for Jews I would not debate about this on it.
Rabbi Davis I love the Jewish people am I wrong for sharing the Gospel with them
?
No, you must follow the dictates of your heart, but you
must also be prepared for rejection. Remember, some of the Jews in this forum
are looking for answers outside their own experience, and others are there to
defend the faith of their fathers. In fact, there are groups organized to debate
with what is called "missionaries endeavors of Christians," and they are
recognizable by their abundant knowledge of Jewish law. A believer must
remember many are called, both Jew and Gentile, but few are chosen. What you
have to decide is are you equipped to advance your cause or ill prepared and in
fact may be hurting it giving a platform from which the opposition is advancing
theirs. I am an example of a Jew who believes, yet I did not receive it from
some one who witnessed to me personally. Christians turned me off. Read my
article on The "Wrong Way to Witness," and draw your own conclusions. It was
written from years of experience. Jews are not even open to other Jews
witnessing because the leadership teaches that a Jew that embraces Yahshua is no
longer a Jew but a Christian. In one fell swoop that transfers me from a
"landsman" to a representative of Christian persecution. I treat proselytizing
like one who is asked by a child about sex. Answer only the question and do not
elaborate. I have a Holocaust victim of acquaintance that I have never
"witnessed to," and we both have avoided the subject of religion except in
general terms because we value our friendship, and do not want to allow anything
to harm it. However, lately he is now asking me questions about Messianic
Judaism. I answer each and do not elaborate nor proselytize. Had I pushed my
beliefs on him he would have resented it, and not only would a friendship be
lost, but the opportunity to personally acquaint him with a Jewish Yahshua would
have been lost. It has to be on his terms not mind. All this is controlled by
the Ruach (Holy Spirit). I am just there when the opportunity arises if he
begins the conversation. One, he sees that I am more Torah observant than most
Jews not saddled with the epitaph of being a "Christian," and this has sparked
his interest. Other characteristics he sees are fruits of the Spirit not
evident in many religious Jews. There has to be something that attracts a Jew's
interest and that is, not "bible bashing" with Christian dogma.
I feel it is planting seeds that G-d can make grow sometime even if I never know about it.
That is true and if you can accept rejection without
becoming angry or frustrated just study and equip yourself more so you are more
effective in the process.
I would love
to hear your opinion on this so when you have time because I know you are very
busy please
let me know what your thoughts are on this.
Shalom v'brachas,
B.
Question #48
Question: I was just wondering, how observant RU and other questions.
ShaRone
ShaRone,
The subject of your e-mail was "Do you keep Shabbos?" You might say I am almost
"Shomer Shabbos." I do work on Shabbat, I'm a rabbi. I'm kidding you...
All the answers you seek are on the Web Site. Start with the first page on the
definition of a True Believer and then read the studies, teachings, and sermons
and you will get a very complete picture of my beliefs and the beliefs of the
congregates at Beth Elohim.
HOWEVER,
I have individually addressed your questions below.
In addition, I will amplify on a couple of your comments below. If YHVH's Torah
is dead as many Christians teach then so is Yahshua for He is the Living
Manifested Torah. Secondly, if you really want to know Yahshua then you must
know YHVH's Torah for Yahshua is Torah manifested. We agree! Christians who tout
Yahshua as the Messiah, the Living Word of G-d, do not see the contradiction in
their thinking by teaching Torah is invalid, dead, for the Jews, etc. et
al....Talk about a veil over the eyes...
Read Below.
Shalom v'brachas,
Rabbi Davis (R. Milchamah b. David)
Hello there!
I am just wandering...
How observant R U?
I follow YHVH's Torah as interpreted by Yahshua. For
instance, in the Sermon on the Mount He introduced the spiritual element
inherent in Torah that all believers need to address if we are to please YHVH,
and be truly observant. Example: It is not enough to not commit adultery, but
necessary not to even entertain the thought or to lust after a woman in our
minds.
Do U study or believe in the Kabbala, Chassidus etc.
I am interested in all kinds of subjects and disciplines
and find there is some truth resident in most. I find Kabbalah extremely
enlightening in some areas. Other areas I dismiss. We have to filter what we
learn through Scripture. When it is contrary, we discard it. However, we must
not throw out the baby with the bath water.
My grandfather was a Chassidic rebbe and I learned a lot from him before he
departed. Obviously, I have been influenced by his teachings. On the site read
what I have posted on Kabbalah.
Many x-tians believe in the "freedom" from the law.
This disturbs me so, and also make JC take on a very evil manifestation.
Because Torah is so infinitely incredible and beyond.
It is the very instrument we can know G-d.
It is so one with G-d.
Antinomianism disturbs me too. What you say above is incredibly true. One of
the basic problems is their misinterpretation of Paul (Sha'ul) of whom Peter
said, he would be misinterpreted to their own destruction.
2 Pet 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2 Pet 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in
them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they
that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures,
unto their own destruction.
If JC truly is the Moshiach, he has to completely be Torah.
I agree! See above...By the way JC, short for Jesus
Christ is a pagan name. Iesous (Jesus) from Iesu in Greek means, "dawn deity, a
healing god." Christ, in Greek Christos, commonly thought to mean Messiah (Greek
word for Messiah is Messias) derives from the sun-deity Orisis. Another example
of the hellenization and syncretism of an original Jewish movement that has now
evolved in what we know as Christianity since the removal of Jews from the
initial movement of "The Way." However, Messianic Jews though little in number
and influence have been evident and extant from the 1st century until today.
And yet the Rabbis have it that he rebelled against it.
They too are misinformed, fueled by decades of Christian persecution. Even
more today than shortly after Yahshua's Advent. Unfortunately, Yahshua ran afoul
of the Roman appointed illegal priesthood that felt they had to protect their
privileges and the stability of Roman rule that guaranteed them their positions
and power. Yahshua appeared a threat to them and to the stability of Roman rule.
Careful examination of the events surrounding Yahshua's execution reveal both
biblically and extra biblically that He was executed for political purposes.
Many in the Sanhedrin were some of Rabbi Yahshua's first followers. Yahshua
never rebelled against Torah She'bi-khetav (Written Torah). The disagreements
were over Torah She'bi-alpeh (Oral Torah). Example: The arguments presented in
the NT. Yahshua himself made halakhah, and followed halakhah unless it was
contrary to Torah She'bi-khetav.
But indeed, alas, we see the Joseph story in that too...
I am not sure how you are applying the Joseph story
here, as it has been used to vilify the Jews. It is good to remember, the first
believers were all Jewish and zealots for the "Law," and predominantly so for
about 200 years. In addition, it was Judah (Progenitors of the Jews) who saved
Joseph from death by suggesting they sell him instead of killing him. There is a
lot in the Joseph story that many people overlook. There were 11 other brothers
involved in the incident with Joseph and the descendants of 10 of those tribes
are now resident in what is called the Gentile nations.
To what extent do u follow halachah?
To the extent that Yahshua did. If I find it contrary to the Written Torah I
follow YHVH's Torah. Much of Halacha is designed to go around YHVH's Torah, such
as Shabbat laws that I have witnessed firsthand as now practiced in Israel.
Thanks
~ ShaRone.
You're Welcome, Rabbi Davis (R. Milchamah b. David)
Question #49
Is this statement correct. Only the blood of a "sinless lamb" could remove sin in man. The sacrifices of the Old covenant only covered sin.
Thank you
Becky
YHVH required a "perfect" lamb, no blemishes or physical
deformities. The following verses although not the only verses addressing this
subject are demonstrable of this commandment:
Lev 22:21 And whosoever offereth a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD
to accomplish his vow, or a freewill offering in beeves or sheep, it shall be
perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish therein.
Lev 22:22 Blind, or broken, or maimed, or having a wen, or scurvy, or scabbed,
ye shall not offer these unto the LORD, nor make an offering by fire of them
upon the altar unto the LORD.
Lev 22:23 Either a bullock or a lamb that hath any thing superfluous or lacking
in his parts, that mayest thou offer for a freewill offering; but for a vow it
shall not be accepted.
Lev 22:24 Ye shall not offer unto the LORD that which is bruised, or crushed,
or broken, or cut; neither shall ye make any offering thereof in your land. (KJV)
This concept of "perfect" is typical of the doctrine that we must be without sin
to be acceptable to YHVH Elohim. Yahshua (1 Pet 1:19 But with the precious
blood of Messiah, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:] was perfect in
that He lived Torah to the fullest and was without sin, therefore He was an
acceptable sacrifice to atone for the PAST sin (Rom 3:25, 2 Peter 1:9) of all
those that place their trust in His faithfulness. Note our putting our trust in
Yahshua's faithfulness reconciles us to G-d, but then we must be obedient to Him
and follow His standards, the Torah. If we stumble, we must sincerely repent to
be reconciled to Him. It was the same in the Tanakh (Old Testament).
The sacrifices in the Temple were for different things. Sin, consecration,
thanksgiving, etc.,. Go the "Teachings" area on the index page of the site, and
select it. From the menu page select "Tabernacle and Sacrifices Class" and you
see what al; the sacrifices and offerings represented to us as Believers.
Now to address the first part of your question. Only the "perfect" sacrifice,
lamb. bull etc. could remove sin from the individual who offered it. The Hebrew
word in Scripture for both Yahshua and the animal sacrifices is "kippur" meaning
"covering." The difference is that Israel had to do this once a year to remove
sin from themselves while Yahshua has done it once and for all for all peoples
who place their trust in Him. However, again Scripture teaches it is for past
sins. The doctrine of original sin enters here. All humanity needs atonement
because we are all guilty by virtue of Adam's sin as corporate head of humanity.
Even if we were capable of living a perfectly acceptable Torah Observant life,
we are still tainted by the original sin of Adam. That is why Yahshua had to be
born of a Virgin. As corporate head of humankind, the sin nature is passed
through the male to the children. YHVH eliminated that curse by having Yahshua
born of a Virgin and the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit). Yahshua had the
same opportunities to succeed as Adam who also was not born with the sin curse,
but failed.
You referred to "Old covenant." I find that there is a lot of confusion
regarding the "old" and "new" covenantsm, so I will be posting a paper tonight
on this subject. Should be available tomorrow. It is titled "No covenant for the
Gentile Church." Too many believe that Israel has been replaced by the church,
and the church has inherited the blessings and promises of Israel as in "Church
Replacement Theology." Please read it. I will post it in the area of "Teachings"
found on the index page.
I pray this had helped.
Shalom v'brachas (The Whole Peace of G-d and His blessings be upon you)
Rabbi Davis (R. Milchamah b. David)
Question #50
Dearest Rebbe,
Thanks so much for all of your trouble! I am so excited about our Mikvah on Shabbat. Is this kosher for Shabbat. I do have a type of Torah question for you. this has been coming up.... this two house stuff. One house "Epraim sp?" and "Judah". I thought Epraim was part of Judah since they were through Josephs sons. So in actuallity aren't they considered Jew already?
As far as the Christian gentiles who accept Yeshua but also the paganistic practices that go along with it - what are they called? I mean I thought about the babylon church and a verse in Revelation where Yeshua looked in the Book for those who had accepted HIm and obeyed his commandments.
One person told me today that christians were considered Ephraim, and would stand in the Heavenly Jerusalems temples outer courts were those who were following Torah in Yeshua would be in the inner courts as they are the Bride that is spoken of for Yeshua.
The story of the 10 virgins was brought up. Those that had bought extra oil were those who followed Torah and Messiah, where as those that ran out of oil were those who accepted Yeshua but didn't follow His torah. They will not be allowed in the inner courts as they are "guest's" of this great wedding between Yeshua and His Bride. the Bride again are those Virgins who accepted Yeshua HaMashiac and followed and obeyed Torah.
Then someone told me that it was only Jews in the inner courts other wise it's considered replacement theology. What kind of junk is this that is tearing up Yah's children? Which is the truth, I believe exactly as it says in the Word, that all who accept Yehshua and obey His Commandments are grafted into the olive tree being part of not replacing.
Those who accept Yeshua as Lord but diliberately disobey and fight about it havent really accepted accepted Him as L-rd in their in thier life. So they would have no place with Yeshua eternally.
Its hard to explain, all I think is correct is that you must accept Ye