On the 7th Day, Cessation

Maybe if the word "Sabbath" in conventional bible translations was actually translated into English, such as into "cessation", there would be more clarity to the public on the issue. Maybe fewer people would be inferring it to be the "day of church" or things of that sort, and would recognize that it is indeed to be a day of ceasing work. Then again, that's already explicitly stated in the translations as it is.

Thanksgiving Turkey

Some argue that the American Thanksgiving holiday is a completely secular holiday and is therefore all inclusive.  That assertion would seem to be a failure of considering the basic concept of the holiday, which is to "give thanks".  Give thanks to whom, exactly?  It seems more likely that the Calvinists established the tradition from which the modern observance is derived.  In that case, they would very obviously be giving thanks to their god (their triune gods).  This would seem to be the reason for establishing such a holiday.

It might be asserted that, "it's ok, because there's nothing wrong with giving thanks to God".  Would one observe a Canaanite religious festival that is just about giving thanks?  Or what about an Islamic festival?  For what reason would we feel the need to worship the God of Israel with the ways that any other religion would worship its gods?  This would very much seem to be contrary to what is presented in Dt 12:29-32.

The whole concept of trying to "purify" a holiday is not reasonable, and is hardly different from the supposed Christianization of Halloween or Christmas.  At their core, they are still Celtic or Norse and Roman pagan holidays, and claiming that they are now about worshiping a man-god changes nothing (especially for us, being Torah-obedient).

It's certainly good to be thankful to the God of Israel for what He provides.  However, we should not be adopting these non-Torah holidays and trying to worship our God in the way that other people established to worship their gods.  We should be thankful according to the dictates of the Torah, not according to the dictates of other religious traditions. 


Additionally, regarding the traditional turkey offering, and partially as an aside, we should reconsider our understanding of what is clean and unclean concerning birds:

Bird Species Identification: Is Chicken [or Turkey] Kosher?

Generalizations Should Not Override the Actual Text

A personal generalization about a set of commands should not serve to supplant the commands themselves. We should not go about nullifying the actual text by asserting our non-textual assumptions about the commands.

One might have had beliefs about how the Sabbath should be, for example, but one needs to differentiate between what is personal assumption and what is Torah. If one assumes that the laws of the Sabbath must conform to what one has personally generalized regarding how the Sabbath should be, then interpretation issues are likely to arise. Such a person will have been more interested in figuring out how to preserve their personal generalization rather than adhering to an honest interpretation of the text. Indeed, the actual text might not even be apparent in such a case, and one might not even allow themselves to recognize it.

Fire on the Sabbath

In the past couple months, I’ve had repeat discussions with various people regarding the command of Exodus 35:3.  This commandment is commonly translated as (and commonly understood as) “Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day”.  The following are the learnings and observations I have gathered from these studies and debates:

In analyzing this command, there are three phrases of interest that we will look at and seek to interpret:  Lo thba’aru esh (“Ye shall kindle no fire” in KJV), bkol moshbotheykem (“throughout your habitations”), and byom hashabath (“upon the sabbath day”).  I intend to focus on the first phrase the most, specifically the verb ba’er, then I will address a common interpretation issue in regard to the other two phrases.

———-

Lo thba’aru esh is an interesting construction that has elicited quite the unexpected debate in my discussions, but it has some noteworthy corollaries in the text.  Lo and esh are “not” and “fire”, respectively, so the main question in regard to translating this phrase is in regard to the verb, thba’aru.

Pardon the brief technical description: Thba’aru is a form of the verb ba’er.  If we rely upon the vowel pointing, it would theoretically be the pi’el form of that verb, implying an intensive second-person plural imperfect form.  Otherwise, it could theoretically be a similar but non-intensive form.  Regardless, it is clear that it is directed at us, and it is something we are to do.

Now, the question arises regarding what action the verb ba’er specifically refers to.  That exact form of the verb used in Exodus 35:3 does not appear anywhere else in the Torah or TNK, but there are nearly 100 uses of the verb in other forms throughout the TNK for us to reference.

Ba’er is used in varied contexts in Hebrew, such as with using fire, as well as the act of separating or consuming.   These contexts, of course, certainly connect with each other in some ways.

—

First, we’ll look at Torah uses that are separate from the issue of fire:

-In Exodus 22:5, livestock grazing is described with this verb.  A man causes field or vineyard to be grazed (yab’er) by sending his livestock (b’iyro).  It should be noted that the word for livestock in this case is etymologically related to ba’er, the verb in question.

-Balaam’s father’s name was B’or, but this is of little indication to us.

-Numbers 24:22 says Cain l’ba’er, but this is ambiguous.

-Deuteronomy 13:5 states that we are to bi’artha false prophets from within us.  They are to be consumed or otherwise destroyed from our midst.  Similar uses appear in 17:7, 17:12, 19:13, 19:19, 21:9, 21:21, 22:21-24, and 24:7.

-Deuteronomy 26:13-14 refers to the removal of the holies from the house, and the not removing of it in uncleanness.  The holies in question were to be given to Levites, sojourner, orphan, and widow, so they were not exactly “consumed” by the person doing the bi’arthiy, but the idea of removal or eradication is certainly relevant.

—

There are also many contexts when the verb is used in connection with fire.  Some of them could be treated similarly to previous examples, but there are definitely interesting applications to take note of:

-Exodus 3:2 has the bush bo’er in fire, yet the bush is not eaten.  This is a prime example of the word’s use that we will refer back to.  While the verb can certainly be used to refer to consumption (such as with livestock in the aforementioned Ex 22:5), the use of bo’er in this verse is certainly intended to have further implications beyond consumption, especially since it is specified that the bush was not eaten.  More interestingly yet, the very next verse states that the bush is not yib’ar.  If the bush is both [ba'er] and not [ba'er] at the same time, then either there is an obvious contradiction, or there must be a different implication in one of the uses.  Take note that v2 refers to “the bush bo’er in fire”, while v3 has no mention of fire, with instead “the bush not yib’ar“.

-Somewhat similarly to Exodus 22:5, we have the following verse referring to fire going and burning grain or a field.  Hamab’ir eth-hab’erah (the one causing to consume the consumption) is to repay.  In this situation, the law refers to destruction of property, so arguably the words in question could be deemed as referring to consumption/eradication.  Other implications would not be definitive.

-Leviticus 6:12 involves the fire being caused to burn on the altar all of the time.  The priest is to bi’er wood on it every morning so that it will not be extinguished.  The idea of consumption might be argued in this passage as well, however, this does not explain entirely what is going on in this passage.  The wood is not just being consumed or eradicated in the morning, as the fire is burn continually (v13).  Instead, the wood is to be bi’er on it every morning so that it will be continually burning.  In this context, it would seem that ba’er can refer to the fueling of fire, or the kindling of fire.

-Numbers 11:1 says fire of YHWH thib’ar in them, and it ate in outer parts of the camp.  V3 also refers to this.  These uses could possibly refer to consumption or eradication, in that the fire was consuming or eradicating.

-Deuteronomy 4:11, 5:23, and 9:15 refer to the mountain bo’er in fire.  It would not seem that there is any indication of a mountain being destroyed, as the TNK refers to it later as something that still exists.  It would also seem unlikely that the mountain served as fuel itself.  The context, however, obviously indicates a burning in fire, possibly related to how it is used in Exodus 3:2.

—

Before reviewing what we have covered from the Torah, there are some final passages of interest from the TNK.  The uses in the TNK at large are fairly consistent with what we see in the Torah.  While the non-Torah parts of the TNK are not inherently valid, especially when dealing with unverifiable prophecy, its use in linguistics is certainly of value to us.  These passages are similar to our ultimate passage in question:

-Judges 15:5 refers to Samson yab’er fire in torches, resulting in yab’er grain and grove.  While the second use could reflect the meaning of consumption/eradication (such as with Exodus 22:5-6), the first use of the word most similarly relates to our passage in question, Exodus 35:3.  Exodus 35:3 refers to “you shall not [ba'er] fire…”, while in this passage “…he [ba'er] fire…”.  Clearly, Samson did not destroy a fire or consume a fire, but he caused a fire.

-2 Chronicles 13:11 refers to the lamps of the menorah lba’er every evening.  While this passage certainly refers to questionable activities, linguistically it is of interest.  The lamps are theoretically consuming fuel, but the fuel is not directly spoken of.  It would seem that the implication of burning is definitely intended.

-Isaiah 44:15, while not a verifiable prophecy, refers to a man lba’er wood.  The man is not eating the wood, obviously, but it refers to “and it shall be to human to [ba'er], and he shall take from them and he shall be warmed…”.  The wood is being consumed, but it is being consumed in burning.

-Jeremiah 7:18 refers to “The sons [are] ones gathering wood, and the fathers [are] mba’ariym eth the fire, and the women [are] ones kneading dough…”.  The implication is certainly the burning of a fire, and “ones [ba'er] eth the fire” are the ones presumably igniting and burning it.

-Ezekiel 39:10 (once again, unverifiable prophecy) says that, “they shall not chop from the forest, that in weapon yba’aru fire…”.  The preceding verse also states that “bi’aru in them fire seven years”.  They are burning fire using the weapons as fuel.

—

Defining ba’er through analyzing contexts provides us with some interesting information.  It is certainly used to refer to eradication or consumption, and many times it is used to refer to actual burning of fire.  One person I have discussed this issue with described ba’er as a word which is very representative of what fire does:  Fire destroys, fire consumes, fire eradicates, and in its very basic sense, fire burns.

Referring back to Exodus 3:2-3, we can see two applications for the word obviously being used.  The bush bo’er in fire, and the bush not yib’ar.  The spellings of those specific forms are irrelevant to us, but instead we are concerned with their contextual usage.  If we apply “consume” as our general understanding of all cases of ba’er, we would potentially be dealing with a contradiction of meaning, as pointed out.  However, using the background information we have from many other contexts, we can see the repeated uses of the term in connection with “fire” as implying a burning.  The bush was burning, and the bush was not burned/consumed.

If we look at our passage in question, we notice very clearly that it refers to fire (“you shall not [ba'er] fire…”).  When comparing this to how ba’er is used in connection with fire elsewhere in the text, it is always relating to the fire destroying something, the fire being started, or the fire continuing to burn.  Therefore, it would seem to be most consistent with the linguistic uses of the word to understand the command as “You shall not burn fire…”.

I would even argue that the word could generally be translated as “burn” and still retain its meaning throughout contexts.  For example, as previously mentioned, we are repeatedly told to [ba'er] evil or evil people from our midst.  If we used the translation “You shall burn the evil from within you”, we would still be retaining the Hebrew meaning and implication in English, even if it might sound like an odd wording.  Its meaning is still communicated regardless of whether it is unusual.

At this point, I might add that I have encountered a claim that the command actually refers to extinguishing/eradicating a fire.  That is to say, someone has asserted that fire is not to be destroyed on the Sabbath.  In all of the examples we have in the text, and as we saw, there is not one viable example to justify such a linguistic use.  Even if we ignored all the linguistic evidence in connection with wordings about fire (esh), which is definitely necessary in order to expect it to be anything but a rendering which is contradictory to all others, we would be left with consume, remove, eradicate, or burn.  From that angle, it would therefore be completely left up to subjective interpretation, since we would be allowing for no actual examples of such a use.  We would have no examples to interpret from in that case, due to ignoring and rejecting the uses in connection with fire, which would be necessary to get to this point of interpretation.  While novel and unique interpretations are certainly not always incorrect, by any means, we should keep in mind that the novelty of an interpretation does not change whether that claim is an invalid one.

Now, in regard to the common debate on whether the command would prohibit just starting a fire (“kindling a fire”) or if it prohibits simply burning a fire all together, I would refer back again to what linguistic examples we have.  Admittedly, the full understanding of the word is not available to us, especially considering it is potentially the intensive form of the verb (which could have specific implications that are not apparent to us).  When looking at other contexts with other forms of the verb, we can notice uses that clearly imply starting a fire.  For example, Judges 15:5 refers to Samson setting the torches on fire.  The word can generally refer to burning, though, as with the examples of the mountain burning, the bush burning, and the lamps burning.  However, the command does not refer to “fire shall not be bo’er…”, which would incline me more to thinking that having a fire continuing to burn from twilight would be permissible.  Admittedly, this is unclear and is uncertain.  If one assumes that it is allowed to have a fire burning, then one might debate regarding whether adding more fuel would be allowed or not.  I might point to Leviticus 6:12 as a consideration, in that it refers to the priest bi’er wood on the altar in order to fuel it.  However, this is not a definitive example by any means, since one could argue that the priest is not [ba'er] fire (burning a fire or starting a fire), he is simply [ba'er] wood (consuming the wood on the fire).  This is admittedly an issue of uncertainty.

———-

The second phrase referred to in this command is bkol moshbotheykem, or “in all of your seats”.  I’ve witnessed this argued as implying that simply household fires would be prohibited, rather than communal type fires.  At one point I also thought something of this sort might be justifiable, but now I recognize a potential issue with that.

There are other commands which use that same Hebrew phrase.  For example, Leviticus 3:17 commands that blood and tallow not be eaten “in all of your seats”, however, Leviticus 17:12, etc, addresses it much more generally (these two examples may or may not be equated).  Leviticus 23:3 states that the seventh day is “Sabbath to YHWH in all of your seats”.  The phrase is applied similarly in Numbers 35:29 to the law of accidental manslaughter.  Now, I do not think one would argue that blood or tallow would be allowed to be eaten in a communal gathering, and it uses the same phrasing.  Likewise, it would be unreasonable to assert that the Sabbath only applies to what is going on inside your home, especially since the text refers to the Sabbath applying in plowing and harvesting time (Exodus 34:21).  Finally, the rules regarding manslaughter repeatedly refer to situations outside of cities or on roads, which would obviously seem to refer to situations outside of homes.

Based upon other uses of the term, it would seem difficult to justify starting a communal fire as being different than a fire in your tent or home.  The fire of the Tabernacle and Passover are specifically commanded, so these would be a different matter, but “in all of your seats” would seem to be much more broadly applied than simply one’s home.

———-
There is a minor point I wanted to address regarding byom hashabath, or “in day of the Sabbath”.  The term hashabath is the construction of “Sabbath” and the definite article ha (rendered “the” in English). The term shabath is exclusively applied to two holy days: The seventh day of the week and the Day of Coverings (Lev 23:32).  However, the term hashabath appears only clearly in reference to the seventh day of the week in the Torah.  So, it would seem fairly definitive that this is a command regarding the seventh day of the week.

———-
“You shall not burn fire in all of your seats in day of the Sabbath” would seem to be the most certain translation that can be arrived at with readily available knowledge, at least from my assessment.  That is, seats being applied broadly and the Sabbath being the seventh day.  As I mentioned, whether “burn” implies just kindling or starting a fire, or if it could also include fueling a fire is arguably a matter of debate.  I recognize that this question regarding kindle vs burn is generally the one that is debated on this command, but at this time I am not willing to offer a definitive judgment on that.  It is definitely clear, however, that we should not be going about starting fires on the seventh day in our dwellings.

(From prior posting on Gr. 11/5/14, updated on Gr. 2/10/15)

The Torah Commands the Tabernacle, Not a Temple

A temple, whether Solomon’s temple, the 2nd temple, Ezekiel’s temple, or any theoretical future temple, does not fit the standard set out by the Torah for the “holy-place” (miq’dash, Ex 25:8), nor does it match the blessing of obedience in Lev 26:11. We can see the instructions for the setup, design, and rituals of the holy-place explained throughout the Torah, and that holy-place is the Torah-commanded mobile Tabernacle, not any temple. Dozens of commandments explicitly state that they are to be done strictly at the Tent of Appointment, the Tabernacle, and in accordance with its arrangement and structure. Replacing or otherwise rewriting all of these commands has absolutely no legitimate precedence or allowance in the Torah. Should we, simply due to tradition and hearsay, believe these later prophets who teach to thrust us from the precise way we were commanded to walk (Dt 13:5), or should we reject them as we are commanded?

Read further in The Torah Does Not Command a Temple.

(From prior posting on Gr. 10/8/14)

The Four Books of the Law: Defining "Torah"

Among Jewish, Karaite, Messianic, and other groups, the term “Torah” has a very diverse set of meanings.  Some consider Torah to be synonymous with the “Pentateuch”, that is, the so-called “Five Books of Moses”.  Orthodox Jews include or otherwise consider the Torah to be their rabbinic traditions.  Some Karaites and certain others seem to go as far to include the entirety of the TNK (“Old Testament”) as “Torah”, while some Messianics claim the Calvinist 1647 Bible canon to be “Torah”.  Not only do these definitions exist, but many variations as well, including those who accept other non-conventional works as “Torah”, or those who only accept the Decalogue (ten commandments) as “Torah”.  Obviously, the term is defined very differently by many people, so we need to look to the text to determine how it should actually be understood and used.

The word “torah”, both in singular and in plural, is used throughout the Hebrew text, and is conventionally translated as “law”.  It appears in multiple ways, for example:

Lev 7:37 – “This [is] the law (ha-torah) for ascent, for tribute, and for wrongdoing, and for guilt, and for fillings, and for slaughter of the peaces…”

Ex 18:20 – “And you shall cause to enlighten them with the enactments and the laws (ha-toroth), and you shall cause to know to them the way they shall walk in it, and the act which they shall do.”

Dt 30:10 – “that you are listening in voice of YAHUAH your Elohim, to guard His commandments and His enactments, the being written in scroll of this law (ha-torah), that you are returning to YAHUAH your Elohim in all of your heart and in all of your soul.”

Gen 26:5 – “…inasmuch which Abraham listened in My voice, and he guarded My keeping, My commandments, My enactments, and My laws (w-thorothay)…”

While “torah” is used generally in reference to single laws or small sets of laws throughout the commandments, such as with the Lev 7:37 example, the term’s usage that we are seeking to understand is most similar to the Dt 30:10 reference.  Dt 30:10 refers to “the being written in scroll of this Torah”.  When most people today speak of “Torah”, it is a reference to the full compilation of laws given to Israel to guard and do.  As a result, seeking to understand how exactly this is defined will result in defining what is “law” and what is not, especially when considering that Dt 4:2, 12:32 forbids the addition or removal of commands.

The prophets tests of the Torah give us some indications regarding what is law and what is not.  Dt 12:32 tells us we are not allowed to add to the commandments which “I [Moses] command to you”, nor shall we diminish from it.  This is immediately followed by a prophets test, which tells us that signs and wonders are irrelevant in the case that the prophet is false, and false is indicated in Dt 13:5 as being “to cause to compel you from the way which YAHUAH your Elohim made command you to walk in it”.  Clearly, “the way which YAHUAH your Elohim made command” needs to be defined for us in order to know what qualifies as deviation, or what qualifies as addition or subtraction.  A prophet which comes after Moses (Dt 18:15-22), when actually verified to be legitimate, is to be listened to (Dt 18:19).  However, this prophet could not be violating the commandment of Dt 4:2, 12:32, nor could he be prophesying to compel others from the existing commands (Dt 13:5).  If that is the case, then prophets after Moses would not be able to give new commandments and enactments as law to the congregation, as this would be violating Dt 4:2, 12:32, and therefore would be violating Dt 13:5, since he would be thrusting one from obeying an already existing command to not add new commandments.  An example of this is in Eze 44:20 when it adds the commandment for priests to “surely trim their heads”, which is a violation of Dt 4:2, 12:32-13:5, because that command is not found among the commands of Moses.  Prophets after Moses are not permitted to create new commandments or diminish the existing ones, as required by the prophets tests.

A prophet could legitimately provide guidance from YAHUAH, such as saying the people need to return to the Torah or else curses will come upon them, or providing prophetic insight regarding who needs to be selected as king or priest, or which place should be selected for the resting of the Tabernacle, or even providing personal direction to important people regarding what they personally need to accomplish.  However, a prophet cannot add or change commandments for the congregation.  Therefore, we see that the prophets test draws an obvious line as to when the commandments of the Torah cease being given, and that would be when Moses finished delivering them in Deuteronomy.

As to when the commandments of the Torah begin to be given, a major hint is given to us in Numbers 15:22-23, which says: “And that you are erring and you are not doing all of these commandments which YAHUAH made word to Moses, all of which YAHUAH made command to you in hand of Moses, from the day which YAHUAH made command and beyond for your generations…”  We can notice here that error and wrongdoing are implicitly being defined as what was made command “in hand of Moses”, as well as further implication being given regarding the timing of the origin and application of the Torah (from the day which YAHUAH made command and beyond…).

If wrongdoing is being defined as that which was commanded through Moses, then where does this start and where does it end?  The first actual commandments for the congregation that we see begin to appear in Exodus 12, which includes the Passover and Unleavened commandments.  This continues until the end of Deuteronomy.

When defining wrongdoing in this way, it would imply a different compilation of laws than would be defined by the term “Pentateuch”.  Penta-, meaning five, refers to the supposed “Five Books of Moses”, which are considered Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.  In Genesis, we do not see Moses ever mentioned as delivering this material, and indeed, he was not yet born at the time those events were to have occurred.  Furthermore, no indication is given that he was the transmitter of that book.

There is no explicit reference to Genesis as a whole at any point in the TNK.  The first definitive reference to Adam, for example, is in 1 Chronicles, a presumably post-Babylonian captivity book (Dt 32:8 refers to “adam”, but it is not clear as to whether its use is as a name or as the word for “human”, which is how it is translated everywhere else in Ex – Dt).  The “commandments given in hand of Moses” as the standard of obedience is referenced in Joshua 23:6, Judges 3:4, 1 Kings 2:3, etc, but once again, Moses is never mentioned in Genesis.  The Garden of Eden and Noah, as another set of examples, we only see referenced explicitly in Ezekiel, Joel (Eden only), Isaiah, and 1 Chronicles (Noah only), but they never appear in the commands of Moses, nor do we see any sort of reference to the perceived commands associated with them.  The only thing that is elucidated regarding the creation/etc in the actual commandments of Moses is that the world was created in six days with the seventh day rest (Ex 20:11), but no other details about that are given.

Determining whether Genesis is considered “law” or “Torah” is an important distinction to make, since it affects the determination of right and wrong.  If Genesis was to be considered part of the “Law of Moses”, and considering Numbers 15:22-23 refers to “commandments which YAHUAH made word to Moses…”, surely if Genesis was delivered by Moses it would have been made evident in either the text of Genesis itself or in the clearly Mosaic works.  It is not, and it is only by later tradition that Genesis is considered to be from Moses.

On the other hand, one should certainly note that there is an important set of references in the commands of Moses to the Abrahamic covenant, something which is presumed to be contained in Genesis 17.  Lev 26:42 states, “and I shall remember My covenant with Jacob, and indeed, My covenant with Isaac, and indeed, My covenant with Abraham I shall remember, and I shall remember the land.”  The terms of the Abrahamic covenant include rules regarding circumcision.  However, much of these rules are cited again in the laws of Moses.  The eighth day circumcision is commanded in Lev 12:3, and circumcision of slaves or those joining the congregation is arguably commanded in Ex 12:44,48.  Enforcement of the circumcision laws are made apparent in Ex 4:25-26 as well.  The Abrahamic covenant is very explicitly indicated to be of legitimacy and importance in the actual commands of Moses, and is arguably a driving force behind them.  In this way, Genesis 17 is very much distinct from the rest of Genesis, being that the rest is never obviously referred to by Moses.

Practically speaking, however, the exclusion of much of Genesis as being considered “law” should not really affect much when dealing with matters of explicit command for the congregation.  For example, in Genesis 9, there are commands given to Noah and his children, such as with increasing and not eating blood.  Eating blood is prohibited in the Torah in Lev 3:17, and the blessing of Torah obedience in Lev 26:9 is that Israel shall be caused to be increased (though it does not appear as a command).  Genesis 32:32 references how the Israelites have a tradition of not eating the sinew of the thigh, but it says nothing about this being a commandment, nor that it was given by YAHUAH or Moses, nor that it was a term of a covenant, so ultimately this is referenced as a tradition, not a law.  This change of the way Genesis is treated largely should relate to changes of theological paradigm, rather than actual changes of presumed “command”.

Many of the problems relating to treating Genesis as “Torah” do not come from actual “commands” given in Genesis, but from the presumption of “implicit commands”.  Gen 1:29, for example, has been argued (by some that seem to hold certain personal beliefs) to be a command prohibiting eating seedless fruit, GMOs, mushrooms, etc, since it says that “vegetation seeding seed” and “fruit of tree seeding seed” are given as food.  However, yeast is obviously allowed to be eaten in the Torah (it is only prohibited during Unleavened or in certain offerings), dirt is commanded to be eaten in one case (Num 5:17-25), and meat is commanded to be eaten in the case of various sacrifices.  If one was to have such an interpretation of Gen 1:29, such that it prohibited any other sort of food than what was mentioned in that verse, and in the case this was considered law, there would certainly be contradiction with the actual Torah, and even the rest of Genesis in some cases.  Furthermore, there are other things such as honey, milk, and eggs that do not qualify as either of those mentioned in Gen 1:29, yet seem to be allowed by the Torah (and are certainly not explicitly prohibited).

Though this deviates somewhat into another subject matter, dealing with supposed “implicit commands” can result in many problems, and this is not just in the case of Genesis.  With explicit commandments, we can see obviously that “you shall do _[this]_”, or “you shall not do _[this]_”, and clearly these are meant to be commandments that the congregation is to follow (when given by Moses).  However, there is an extremely fine line between deriving an “implicit command” and adding a new commandment, which is explicitly prohibited by Dt 4:2, 12:32.  One might derive that complaining against YAHUAH is prohibited, such as with accounts in Num 14, and this could be deemed an implicit command.  In this regard, there is already an explicit commandment to fear YAHUAH in Lev 25:17, which would surely already account for this.  Indeed, that is a notably different situation from one creating a command based upon an inference or assumption that ultimately has no textual support, such as the supposed GMO prohibition (which does not exist), the assertion that one must buy their workers eye and ear protection (being stretched out of the command to build a parapet on your newly built house), or the assertion that one cannot smoke (being derived entirely from personal belief).  Furthermore, lack of mention certainly does not imply prohibition, as one could enforce a nearly infinite set of new commandments if this was the case (but it is obviously explicitly prohibited from being done, as referenced).  There is an extremely fine line between legitimately inferring a presumed “implicit command” and outright creating an entirely new command.  Simply because one perceives a vaguely worded Torah commandment as supporting their personal belief does not mean that their newly created personal command is legitimate.  One needs to distinguish between actual commandments and between commandments that one personally might want to make, since the latter is prohibited from being law or Torah in Dt 4:2, 12:32.

In regard to the traditions of the elders: The Torah was denuded to be done (Dt 29:29), is near to us to do it (Dt 30:14), and contains the commandments and enactments which were written (Dt 30:10).  If the Torah was denuded to be done, and is already near, then the argument that “one needs the traditions to know how to do things” is obviously invalid.  Furthermore, the Torah is explicitly stated as being written, as referenced in Dt 30:10, and it indicates that the return of Israel to the land of Canaan is dependent upon their obedience to that which was written.  These oral rabbinic traditions which were later compiled are certainly not Torah, and many times they amount to violations of the Torah (if for no other reason than being added commands).

In recognizing what defines the commandments of the Torah, we can readily see that new commandments after Moses are not legitimate by the standard of the prophets tests (Dt 12:32-13:5, etc).  Likewise, we can recognize the references to “in hand of Moses” (Num 15:22-23), as well as the differentiation between the explicit commandment and between the incorrect additions through the presumed inferences of others.  The relevance of the Abrahamic covenant is also made apparent, which we can refer to its account in Genesis 17.  It is for these reasons that the article is entitled “The Four Books of the Law”, as the Torah appears to be intended to be comprised by the commandments given from Exodus through Deuteronomy, with the additional recognition of the Abrahamic covenant.  It is certainly not the entire TNK or the entire 1647 canon, nor would it include supposed “implicit commands” or traditions from Genesis.  The Torah is complete in its writing, and does not require rabbinic enactments to be done.  Moses gives the beginning of the Torah and he gives the end of the Torah.  The Torah cannot be changed further.

(From prior posting on Gr. 9/14/14)

Non-Aaronic Priesthood

Can there be a new non-Levitical priesthood according to the Torah?  What does the Torah command regarding priests?

“And [the coverings] shall be on Aaron and on his sons in their entering to Tent of Appointment…enactment of forever for him and for his seed after him.” – Ex 28:43

“…and it shall be to them priesthood for enactment of forever, and you shall fill hand of Aaron and hand of his sons.” – Ex 29:9

“…and sons of Aaron, the priests, shall cause to near the blood…” – Lev 1:5

“…and he shall cause it to near to sons of Aaron, the priests…” – Lev 2:2

“…and he shall be brought to Aaron, the priest, or to one from his sons, the priests…” – Lev 13:2

“…and Aaron shall give over two of the goats lots…” – Lev 16:8

“…and the priest who is anointed, and whom he fills his hand to be priest instead of his father…” – Lev 16:32

“Say to the priests, sons of Aaron, and you shall say…” – Lev 21:1

“And sons of Aaron, the priests, shall blow in horns, and they shall be to you to enactment of forever for your generations.” – Num 10:8

“And you shall come to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge…” – Dt 17:9

“…and he shall write for him duplicate of this law on scroll from before the priests, the Levites.” – Dt 17:18

“And the priests, sons of Levi, shall near, that in them YHWH your elohim chose to minister of him and to bless in name of YHWH…” – Dt 21:5

Just as the rituals and sacrifices are oriented toward the Tabernacle, and not a temple, the commandments regarding the priesthood are oriented toward Aaron the Levite and his descendants, not any new or anticipated high priest from Judah or any other tribe.  The rewriting of commands and overriding of the actual text necessitated by the belief in a different priestly line is surely not what is expected of us in our reading and applying of the Torah.  We should expect the priests to be from Aaron, not from anyone else.

(From prior posting on Gr. 9/1/14)

The Torah Does Not Command a Temple

Considering how much emphasis has been placed upon the construction of a third temple, especially in terms of end-times theology, one would have to assume that it is either commanded by the Torah, prophesied of in the Torah, or otherwise sanctioned by the Torah in order for it to be legitimate.  However, as with many traditions, there is a definite problem when delving into what the Torah actually says regarding the subject.  We will look at the wordings of many rituals, as well as other relevant passages, in investigating this matter.

The prophecy of Deuteronomy 30:1-10 speaks regarding Israel being scattered among the nations for their disobedience, as they are today, and that Israel will recall the blessing and the curse.  They will then be gathered (v.4-5) and be made to obey all of the commandments (v.6,8), due to their return to obedience (v.10).  When this begins to occur, surely the blessings of obedience will begin to be upon Israel.  One of these blessings is written in Leviticus 26:11, which says, “I shall give My Tabernacle in your midst…”.  The blessing does not say anything about a temple, but instead it speaks of the mishkan, the Tabernacle.

Exodus 25:8 speaks regarding the commencement of the collection and construction of the Tabernacle.  It states that Israel shall make for Him a holy-place, and He shall tabernacle (shakan’thiy) in their midst.  The holy-place commanded is clearly what follows in these passages, and what comprises nearly half of the book of Exodus.  It was the holy-place that was designed by YHWH and required and commanded by Him.  There is no mention made regarding it being a temporary or otherwise insufficient holy-place, but instead it is the COMMANDED holy-place of the Torah.

Furthermore, following this passage in the Torah are a multitude of specific verses regarding the ceremonies being done with the Tabernacle specifically, as we will see shortly.  First, I will address the reference in the Torah which is commonly accepted to be a temple reference, then we will look at the ceremonial commands.

—

The passages from the Torah which are commonly interpreted to refer to a temple are from Deuteronomy, variously worded as referring to “…the place (lit. “the rising”) which YHWH your Elohim shall choose…”.  It has been argued that “the place/rising” must be a newly constructed stationary temple.  However, no where does the Torah ever actually say this, nor does it explicitly indicate that this rising/place is to be distinct from the already commanded Tabernacle.  When looking at these passages, we see a pattern of wordings which would seem to be relevant:

“But rather, to the rising which YHWH your Elohim shall select from all of your scepters to place His name there, to His tabernacling (l’shiknu) you shall inquire, and you shall come toward there.” – Dt 12:5

“And it shall be the rising which YHWH your Elohim shall select in it, to make tabernacle (l’shaken) His name there…” – Dt 12:11

“And you shall eat to faces of YHWH your Elohim in rising which He shall select to make tabernacle (l’shaken) His name there…” – Dt 14:23

Is this “place” or “rising” not the place where the Tabernacle was to come to rest?  For what reason should the place which is “His tabernacling” or “tabernacling His name” be considered as anything different than the “holy-place” with which “I shall tabernacle (shakanthiy) in their midst” in Exodus 25:8?

There are no commandments in the Torah that say anything about building something to replace the Tabernacle, but instead we see repeated explicit commandments regarding the ceremonies being done in accordance with the Tabernacle, not any other structure.

—
Since sacrifices and other ceremonies are not typically practiced today, due to the lack of a priesthood/etc, many who are otherwise concerned with the Torah seem to somewhat gloss over the specifics of all of these ceremonies, then allow their skimming of these verses to be filtered through their preexisting understanding of the ceremonial system (as did I when I once believed in the temple idea as well).  This would make sense, as learning to do a particular ceremony that is not intended to be practiced in the near future would likely not be a priority.  However, we should indeed be attending to the wordings of these passages.

When we actually attend to the specific wordings of the ceremonial commandments, one notices that these services are worded to specifically apply to the use of the Tabernacle (AKA “tent of appointment”, etc), not to any temple or other facility.  Many times, these commandments are explicitly stated to be an “enactment of forever”, and in the process they very explicitly refer to the Tabernacle.  For example, Leviticus 4:3-8 refers to the ceremony to be performed when a priest does wrong, and it states that the bull is to be brought to the “opening of the tent of appointment”, then he is to bring its blood “to tent of appointment” and spatter it before the “divider” (a part of the Tabernacle), then he is to take the blood and put some on the altar of incense “which [is] in tent of appointment”, then the rest he is to pour out at the base of the altar at the “opening of tent of appointment”.  These ceremonies are extremely specific, and they explicitly refer repeatedly to the actual arrangement and structure of the commanded Tabernacle.  Furthermore, there is no command in the Torah given regarding transferring these ceremonies to a temple or any other structure, and such a massive rewriting of the commandments, which would be required to justify such, is surely not what is expected of us.  Should we not obey according to the wordings of the commandments?
Read the following verses, and notice my emphasis.  Is not the Tabernacle/Tent of Appointment the commanded holy-place (Ex 25:8)?  Are not all of these commands in accordance with it, and it alone?

“And you shall command children of Israel, and they take to you olive oil, clear, pounded, for light, to rise up lamp continually.  In tent of appointment from outside to divider, which [is] over the witness, Aaron and his sons shall arrange it from evening until morning to faces of YHWH, enactment of forever, for their generations from children of Israel.” – Ex 27:20-21

“And make for them linen pants…And they shall be on Aaron and on his sons in their entering into tent of appointment, or in their coming close to the altar, to minister of in holy, and they shall not bear iniquity, and they shall die. Enactment of forever for him and for his seed after him.” – Ex 28:42-43

“And you shall make round of copper, and its stand copper, for laving, and you shall give it between tent of appointment and between the altar…Aaron and his sons shall lave from it their hands and their feet.  In their entering to tent of appointment they shall lave waters and they shall not die, or in their coming close to the altar to minister, to cause smoke of fire to YHWH.” – Ex 30:18-20

“And you shall make it smoking of aromatic…and you shall give from it to faces of the witness in tent of appointment which I shall meet you toward there. Holy of holies it shall be to you.” – Ex 30:35-36

“If ascent [is] his nearing, from the herd, male, perfect, he shall near it to opening of tent of appointment. He shall near it for acceptance of him to faces of YHWH.” – Lev 1:3

“And he shall slay son of the herd to faces of YHWH, and Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall near the blood and shall sprinkle the blood on the altar round-about, which [is by] opening of tent of appointment.” – Lev 1:5

“And if slaughter of peaces [is] his nearing, if it [is] from the herd…he shall support his hand on head of his nearing, and he shall slay it [at] opening of tent of appointment, and Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall sprinkle the blood on the altar round-about.” – Lev 3:1-2

“If sheep he [is] nearing, his nearing, and he shall near it to faces of YHWH.  And he shall support his hand on head of his nearing, and he shall slay it to faces of tent of appointment, and sons of Aaron shall sprinkle its blood on the altar round-about.” – Lev 3:7-8

“And if goat [is] his nearing, and he nears it to faces of YHWH,  And he shall support his hand on its head, and he shall slay it to faces of tent of appointment, and sons of Aaron shall sprinkle its blood on the altar round-about.” – Lev 3:12-13

“if the priest, the anointed, does wrong to guilt of the people…he shall bring the young bull to opening of tent of appointment to faces of YHWH, and he shall support his hand on head of the young bull, and he shall slay the young bull to faces of YHWH.  And the priest, the anointed, shall take from blood of the young bull and he shall bring it to tent of appointment.  And the priest shall dip his finger in blood and he shall spatter from the blood seven strokes to faces of YHWH, faces of divider of the holy.  And the priest shall give from the blood on horns of altar of smoking of the aroma to faces of YHWH, which [is] in tent of appointment, and all of blood of the young bull he shall spill out to foundation of the altar, the ascent, which [is at] opening of tent of appointment.” – Lev 4:3-8

“and the wrongdoing becomes known which they did wrong on it, and the assembly shall near young bull, son of herd, to wrongdoing, and they shall bring it to faces of tent of appointment…and he shall slay the young bull to faces of YHWH.  And the priest, the anointed, shall bring from blood of the young bull to tent of appointment.  And the priest shall dip his finger from the blood and he shall spatter seven strokes to faces of YHWH, faces of the divider.  And from the blood he shall give on horns of the altar which [is] to faces of YHWH, which [is] in tent of appointment, and all of the blood he shall spill out to base of altar of the ascent, which [is at] opening of tent of appointment.” – Lev 4:14-18

“And the reserve from it Aaron and his sons shall eat, unleaveneds it shall be eaten, in holy standing, in court of tent of appointment they shall eat it…Every male in children of Aaron shall eat it, enactment of forever to your generations…” – Lev 6:16-18

“The priest, the one making wrongdoing [offering], shall eat it in holy standing. It shall be eaten in court of tent of appointment.” – Lev 6:26

“Wine and intoxicant you must not drink, you and your sons with you, in your coming to tent of appointment, and you shall not die. Enactment of forever for your generations.” – Lev 10:9

“And in filling of days of her cleansing for son or for daughter she shall bring he-lamb, son of its year, to ascent, and child of yonah or tor to wrongdoing [offering], to opening of tent of appointment to the priest.” – Lev 12:6

“And the priest, the one cleaning, shall cause the man to stand, the one cleansing himself, and them, to faces of YHWH, [at] opening of tent of appointment.” – Lev 14:11

“And he shall bring them in the eighth day for his cleansing to the priest to opening of tent of appointment to faces of YHWH.” – Lev 14:23

“And in the eighth day he shall take to him two torim or two children of yonah and he shall come to faces of YHWH, to opening of tent of appointment, and he shall give them to the priest.” – Lev 15:14

“And in the eighth day she shall take to her two torim or two children of yonah, and she shall bring them to the priest to opening of tent of appointment.” – Lev 15:29

“And he shall take two of the hairies (goats), and he shall cause them to stand to faces of YHWH, [at] opening of tent of appointment.” – Lev 16:7

“And he shall make covering over the holy, from defilements of children of Israel, and from their transgressions, for all their wrongdoings, and so he shall do for tent of appointment, the one tabernacling (shoken) with them in midst of their defilements.  And any of human shall not be in tent of appointment in his entering to make covering in holy until his going, and he shall make covering about him and about his house and about all of assembly of Israel.” – Lev 16:16-17

“And Aaron shall enter to tent of appointment, and he shall spread coverings of the linen which he wrapped in his coming to the holy, and he shall leave them there.” – Lev 16:23

“And he shall make covering for holy-place of the holy and tent of appointment and the altar. He shall make covering, and over the priests and over all of people of the assembly he shall make covering.” – Lev 16:33

“Every man from house of Israel who slays bull or sheep or goat in camp, or who slays from outside to camp,  and to opening of tent of appointment he brings it not, to near nearing to YHWH, to faces of tabernacle of YHWH, blood shall be designed to that man. He poured blood, and that man shall be cut from within his peoples,  so that which children of Israel shall bring their slaughters which they [are] slaughtering on faces of the field, and they shall bring them to YHWH, to opening of tent of appointment, to the priest, and they shall slaughter them slaughters of peaces to YHWH.  And the priest shall sprinkle the blood on altar of YHWH, opening of tent of appointment, and he shall cause the fat to smoke to smell of restful to YHWH….Enactment of forever this shall be for them, for their generations.  And to them you shall say, Every man from house of Israel and from the sojourner who sojourns in their midst, who shall ascend ascent or slaughter,  and to opening of tent of appointment he shall not bring it, to do of it to YHWH, and that man shall be cut from his peoples.” – Lev 17:3-9

“And he shall bring his guilt to YHWH, to opening of tent of appointment, ram of guilt.” – Lev 19:21

“From outside of to divider of the witness, in tent of appointment, Aaron shall arrange it from evening until morning to faces of YHWH continually, enactment of forever for your generations.” – Lev 24:3

“Near rod of Levi, and stand him to faces of Aaron, the priest, and they shall minister him.  And they shall guard his keeping and keeping of all of the congregation to faces of tent of appointment, to serve service of the tabernacle.”- Num 3:6-7

“And the priest shall take holy waters in article of scratch and from the dust which is in floor of the tabernacle, and the priest shall take and he shall give to the waters,” – Num 5:17

“And in the eighth day he shall bring two of torim or two of sons of yonah to the priest, to opening of tent of appointment…

And this [is] law of the sequestration, in day to fill days of his sequestration he shall bring it to opening of tent of appointment…

And the sequestered shall shave, opening of tent of appointment, head of his sequestration, and he shall take hair of head of his sequestration, and he shall give on the fire which [is] under slaughter of the peaces.” – Num 6:10, 13, 18

“And I have given the Levites, ones being given, to Aaron and to his sons from midst of children of Israel, to serve service of children of Israel in tent of appointment, and to make covering over children of Israel, and infliction shall not be in children of Israel in coming of children of Israel to the holy-place.” – Num 8:19

“This [is] which [is] to Levites, from son of twenty five year and upward, he shall come to mass massing in service of tent of appointment,  and from son of fifty year, he shall return from mass of the service, and he shall not serve further,  and he shall minister his brothers in tent of appointment, to guard keeping, and service he shall not serve. As thus you shall do to Levites in their keepings.” – Num 8:24-26

“And YHWH said to Aaron, You and your sons and house of your father with you shall bear iniquity of the holy-place…and you and your sons with you [shall be] to faces of tent of the witness…” – Num 18:1-2

“And to sons of Levi, behold, I give all of tithe in Israel to inheritance, exchange of their service which they [are] ones serving service of tent of appointment.” – Num 18:21

“And the Levite shall serve it, service of tent of appointment, and they shall bear their iniquity, enactment of forever for your generations, and in midst of children of Israel they shall not inherit inheritance.” – Num 18:23

“And you shall eat it in any rising, you and your house, that it [is] hire for you, exchange of your service in tent of appointment.” – Num 18:31

—

The ceremonies described throughout the Torah are clearly intended to be done with the Tabernacle/Tent of Appointment, not with any temple.  A massive rewriting of the commandments would be required to justify performing these ceremonies with anything other than the commanded Tabernacle, which obviously would not be legitimate.

In fact, we see in the previously cited passage of Leviticus 17 that a temple could be deemed practically outright prohibited.  If a person slaughters an offering in or out of the camp and does not bring it to the Tabernacle (mishkan), he shall be cut from his peoples.  Bringing such a sacrifice to another place, like a temple, would surely be going against this.

All of these ceremonies have very specific practices which are to be performed in the service, and its specificity is practically made to be irrelevant if we deem that we have the ability to change these commandments.   If the commandments had been intended to refer to another place, surely there would have been a command in the Torah regarding this, but there is not. Instead, we see repeated explicit reference to performing these ceremonies with the Tabernacle, “forever”. If they are “forever”, as with any commandment of the Torah, then how would they legitimately be replaced or otherwise be made obsolete? They cannot be. Is not the giving of the Tabernacle a prophesied blessing (Lev 26:11)?

—

Within the TNK, there are repeated positive references to a temple, even in terms of prophecy. When the temple idea was first “commanded”, David gave his complaint to Nathan in 2 Samuel 7:2, saying, “…I sit in house of cedars, and container of the Elohim sits in midst of the curtain.” Obviously with David’s presumed wealth, he might have felt that the Torah-commanded Tabernacle was insufficient, and this is likely considered in comparison to the immense pagan temples that other nations were building. However, we should remember that the “holy-place” commanded by the Torah is indeed the Tabernacle, not a temple. The word “holy” (qodesh) itself implies being “set apart”, and the Tabernacle indeed is distinct and set apart from a conventional pagan temple. Should David have felt this way, that the Tabernacle was not good, considering the holy-place was already commanded to be a certain way? For what reason should he have sought to replace what the Torah commanded with something according to the imaginations of his and his son’s heart? For what reason would the commandments of the Torah be insufficient?

It is indeed true that the Torah requires that future prophets be listened to (Dt 18:15-22), but this would indeed be applicable only in the case of a legitimate true prophecy.  Regarding the validity of later prophecy, should we arbitrarily hold writings which come after Moses to be inherently inspired simply because of rabbinic or Christian tradition on the matter?  If we are commanded to test prophets which come after Moses and be skeptical of such prophets (see Dt 18:21-22), then surely blind acceptance of prophets after Moses would not be expected of us.  We are also not commanded to look at a prophetic book to “see if it the prophet claims to be pro-Torah” or “claims to have made verifying signs” to determine whether it is a true prophecy.  We can readily see what is commanded in the Torah on this matter, and part of the actual prophets test is regarding whether the commandments “…thrust you from the way which YHWH your Elohim commanded you to walk…” (Dt 13:5).  By the command of the Torah, when we look into these TNK books that sanction the replacement of the Torah-commanded Tabernacle, what source should take precedence to us? Should we try to mentally reword or otherwise rewrite the Torah to justify what a later prophet says, or should we test a later prophet according to the commandments of the Torah? Obviously, we are expected to hold the Torah as the authority on the issue, and the Torah commands the Tabernacle.

If we are to take the commandment of not adding to or taking away from the commandments seriously (Dt 4:2, 12:32), then we would not be able to add new commandments regarding new ceremonies, such as what occurs in Ezekiel 40-46. These are new ceremonies that are being prophesied of. In justifying this, it has been argued that “these are just the things we are to do when the temple is rebuilt”, and that is exactly the problem. These are not instructions given to a single person for a single point in time, these are actually explicitly said to be new laws, which by its very definition would be a violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32. If it is not, then those commandments regarding not adding to or taking away from are practically meaningless.

These future prophets, such as Nathan in 2 Samuel 7, should not be deemed as higher than the Torah. We should test them according to the Torah commandments, and we should not just be presumptuous in our emphasis on traditional theology. However, one cannot readily test an actual prophet just based upon writings (in the sense of proving such a writing to be a “true prophecy”), which is another reason why we should hold such writings with skepticism to begin with. We can, however, see if it goes against the Torah, once we are aware of what the Torah says. In this case, the Torah repeatedly commands that ceremonies should be done with the Tabernacle, and there is no expectation of anything otherwise indicated as such in the Torah. If we hold the Torah to be true, then what we should be hoping for is the rebuilding of the Tabernacle, NOT the construction of a temple.

—

Leviticus 26:3-12 lists the blessings of obedience, and among them is, “I shall give My Tabernacle in your midst…” (Lev 26:11).  The blessings of obedience to the Torah contain explicit references to “the land” (Lev 26:4-6), and considering these are blessings which are obviously relevant for the dwelling in Canaan, for what reason would “I shall give My Tabernacle” be considered a blessing in Canaan if the Tabernacle was only a temporary thing?  By the standard of tradition and later prophecies, the Tabernacle has been deemed as practically intended to be replaced, and instead, a temple has been treated as a great sign of the dominion of Israel and Israel’s obedience.  However, what we see in the actual Torah does not say this!  Instead, we see that, due to Israel’s obedience, the commanded Tabernacle will be given in their midst.  The anticipation of the “rebuilding of the temple” as being a sign of Israel’s return to the Torah is not what should be expected by the standard of the commandments, and it is not what is described in Leviticus 26:11.

Surely we should take these commandments of the Torah as they are written, and we should not seek to rewrite them for the purposes of justifying a later theology or tradition. The ceremonies of the Torah repeatedly refer to them being done in and with the Tabernacle, and they are said to be forever. We should not nullify the Torah with later theology, but we should uphold the theology of the Torah. The Tabernacle is the holy-place commanded by the Torah, and it is with this place that YHWH chooses to dwell in Israel’s midst, and that is a blessing of obedience.

(From prior posting on Gr. 8/24/14)

"We Broke the Covenant"

An argument I’ve heard repeatedly is that the Law is overridden/nullified because “we broke the covenant”.

The Law already says that after Israel has “caused to annul My covenant” that “they shall confess their iniquity” and “I will REMEMBER My covenant” (Lev 26:15, 40-45).

The covenant was indeed broken by Israel, and they were cast out of the land and caused to forget their identity, but His remembrance of that same covenant is already allowed for in the Law. The Law still applies, and the Covenant still exists.

(From prior posting on Gr. 8/15/14)

Idols vs. Other Elohim

In popular theology, the term “idol” has effectively had its meaning changed, and has been reapplied very broadly.  People sometimes talk about abstract interests or objects that are not worshiped as becoming “idols” when people prioritize incorrectly, for example, “watching TV can be an idol” or “money can be an idol”, but this is not an accurate assessment.

The distinction I intend to make is between the commands regarding not making/worshiping/possessing idols (Exodus 20:4-5, Deuteronomy 7:25-26, etc) and the commands regarding not having other elohim before Him (Exodus 20:3, Deuteronomy 5:7, etc).

In the Torah, there are multiple words that are used for “idol”, including phsiyl, phesel, and masekah.  These words etymologically are derived from the verbs for carving and casting, referring to actual physically manufactured representations.  For example, the golden calf was a casting (masekah), see Exodus 32.  The commands regarding idols often refer to “[carving], representation of any figure…”, as in items being manufactured as an image of a deity (Exodus 20:4-5, Deuteronomy 4:16-23, etc).  These things we are not to make, not to worship, and not to possess.

In regard to having other elohim on/over his face, we must first define “elohim“.  Of course, this is commonly translated as “god” or “gods”, but it is also applied in senses other than divine figures, such as in Exodus 22:9 seemingly in regard to judges.  Based upon its roots, it could potentially be translated as “powers”.

In a situation where someone’s priority is not obeying the commandments of YAHUAH, but instead that person’s priority is the accumulation of wealth, for example, then there is potentially a problem by the standard of Exodus 20:3, among others.  In this example, the person has made his master to be wealth, and this has been prioritized over YAHUAH and His commandments.  Does this have anything to do with carvings or castings?  No.  As an aside, does this mean there is anything wrong with accumulating wealth, or desiring wealth?  No.  The issue is whether the person’s master is YAHUAH.  Unless the person has made an idol that is supposed to be a representation of a money deity, then there is no actual idolatry inherently going on in this example (except in the case of possessing Abominable Coinage).  That person is making money his elohim, but that money is not an idol.

As another possible situation, one could take something that was created as a different object (an object which was not meant to be representative of any deity) and treat it as a phesel.  Someone could literally bow down to or burn incense to a TV, believing it to be a representation of their deity, in theory.  This would indeed relate to the worship of an idol.  That person’s belief in there being a certain deity, however, does not automatically make all TVs into phesel, as the actual TV itself is not an object that was manufactured as a representation of a deity (unlike with certain coins having deliberately made deity representations on them, mentioned in the previous link).  His treating of his personal TV as an representation would still be wrongdoing on his part and with that specific object.  A similar situation occurred with “the incinerating” on the pole commanded to be made in the Torah (Numbers 21:8), as we see it was later worshiped and subsequently destroyed according to 2 Kings.  At the time it was made, its purpose was as an object to be looked upon after one was bitten by a snake.  Simply looking at something is not worship.  However, if people in the camp began to sacrifice to it, pray to it, or bow down to it during the time of the wilderness, then surely Numbers would have seen another plague upon Israel and the subsequent drinking of the bronze shavings.  It was not until later that “the incinerating” was treated as phesel, or technically in this case, a masekah.

My main reason in making this clarification between “idols” and “other elohim” is mainly to provide clarity in regard to the commandments regarding representations.  Whenever one argues “anything can be an idol”, the meaning of the commandments regarding carvings/castings is diluted or even nullified in some cases.  Idols are always abominable, and they are commanded to be hated (Deuteronomy 7:26).  The issue of someone prioritizing something other than YAHUAH and His commandments as their guiding priority in life is a separate issue from this, and should be treated as such.

(From prior posting on Gr. 8/13/14)

Abominable Coinage

In the USA, there is a particular deity that has become somewhat of a national icon, possibly unintentionally.  Many people do not realize this figure is indeed an idol, that is, a representation of a deity.  Although I had realized this, it wasn’t until a year or so ago that I consciously noticed its presence on the New York state quarter.

In Exodus 20:4-5, we are first commanded regarding idolatry and the making of representations.  It could be argued that since we did not make these coins, nor did we bow down to them, that they are not technically “idols” (“carving”, phesel, or “casting”,  masekah).  This passage, however, is not the only passage of relevance.

In Deuteronomy 7:25-26, this passage refers to inhabiting Canaan and commands that any idols be burned, and that the silver and gold that might be on them is not to be desired whatsoever.  This presumably would connect with the idea of desiring the item’s value aside from it being an idol, i.e., in the case of coins, not wanting to destroy it because of desiring its money value.  An idol is very strictly considered an abominable thing (v.25) and we are commanded twice to absolutely hate them (v.26).  We are also told in that verse that bringing such an abomination into our house brings a curse upon the household itself.

Surely the abominations of Kemet and Canaan (which certainly have permeated other belief systems) are not the only images which are abominable, as images of deities in general are repeatedly prohibited.  Would Elohim hate only the idols from Canaan at the exclusion of other idols?  The command to hate such an abomination surely would extend to the images of deities present on the coins in question as well, even if the primary one in question is Roman in origin.

It has been argued that a being (specifically an image of that being) that was once worshiped can achieve a point in time where it is no longer considered a deity, assuming the worship of it is no longer popular, which would result in it either achieving a status of “art” or “symbolism”.  I do not have this perspective for a number of reasons.  For one thing, if something was created as an image of a deity, it would inherently be a “carving” or “casting”, from my understanding.  If the people become apathetic and no longer worship it, I see no precedent for that image to no longer be treated as such.  By its very definition it was made to be an image of an elohim, whether the people believe in it or not, and that god isn’t real regardless.  Second, the argument that “no one worships it” is not on any solid ground.  The most obvious idol cast into American coinage would seem to be a very real object of worship, even if people do not “know” that it is a Roman god or “worship” it in the sense of burning incense/etc.  If I recall correctly, its name is printed on every coin minted in the US and it has multiple images that are cast into coins which are not circulated (such as precious metals).

These images were originally created to be images of elohim, therefore they would be idols, even if people decide to not worship them and just treat them as “symbolic” images (which ultimately would connect with an elohim idea anyway).  They are things we are commanded to hate and not bring into our houses.

In this case, this would definitively include the New York state quarter, as well as many US silver and gold coins and older mintings of coins.  Even though that deity-image is part of a larger casting, it is indeed the cast image of a deity.  Also in question are the Pennsylvania state quarter and the NM state quarter.  The Pennsylvania state quarter has a woman statue on it that seems deity-like in its description, so I strongly question it, and NM has a religious sun symbol, though I couldn’t find much information on whether it was actually an object of worship.  I would consider those latter two to very much be “suspect”.

Ultimately, we should rid ourselves of such an abomination in our possession.  Images of deities should not be held in our possession, and we are commanded to absolutely hate them.  They should be destroyed, and we should stay away from them in the future.  It’s easy enough to ask for dimes back instead of quarters at the store, or to check your quarters when you get them.  Its value is irrelevant, and it is to be abhorred.

(From prior posting on Gr. 8/13/14)

Replacing the Tabernacle?

For what reason would "I shall give My tabernacle in your midst" (Lev 26:11) be a blessing of obedience if the tabernacle was intended to be replaced by a temple?  Possibly because it was not supposed to be replaced...

(From prior posting on Gr. 7/25/14)

Women, Inheritance, and Property Rights

Near the end of Numbers (Bamidbar), there are two incidents wherein questions are brought to Moses about the procedure for inheritance.  The commands made as a result help to elucidate both the practical transfer of the land and the role of women in the Torah society.

In Numbers 27, the daughters of Zelophehad appear before Moses regarding their inheritance.  Since their father died without any sons, his name would not have continued amongst his brethren, so they argued for the inheritance being given to them.  Verse 7 states that YHWH commanded the daughters be given a holding in the midst of their people.

However, in Numbers 36, heads of Zelophehad’s clan appear before Moses regarding that situation.  They argued that their tribe’s land will be taken from them if the daughters of Zelophehad marry outside their tribe, because the families which the daughters marry into will ultimately inherit Zelophehad’s inheritance.  In verse 6, YHWH commands that the daughters of Zelophehad may marry one who is good in their eyes, but that they shall marry within their tribe only.  This way the inheritance will not depart from their tribe.

Interestingly, these passages demonstrate rights or expectations of women.  A woman can apparently own land, since the inheritance of Zelophehad was to pass to his daughters, and a woman (at least one who is no longer in her father’s house, as was the case with this) has rights in choosing who to marry (“good in their eyes”).

While some like to assert that women had no rights in Torah society, this is clearly not the case.  They do not hold the same role as men, certainly, but they are not strictly “chattel” either.  According to the narrative in Exodus 15:20 and suggested by Numbers 12:2, Miriam was a prophet herself, which would be a significant position.  In many ways, the role of a woman can certainly be very similar to a man’s role.

When taking into account the issue of oaths, it seems that an independent woman has many of the same rights and responsibilities as any man.  If this independent woman chooses to be married, however, she does elect to cede some of those rights to her husband, just like the inheritance in this passage.

---

This was written for the reading of parashah Masei, the rabbinic Torah portion.  The actual written Torah (Exodus through Deuteronomy) does not command the parashah, nor does the calendar of the Torah necessarily coincide with the rabbinic calendar.  I do think it is productive to have a weekly reading of the actual Torah, however, and this is a tradition that is frequently followed.  Let’s get back to the true Torah, the written Torah.

(From prior posting on Gr. 7/25/14)

Cleanness/Kosher Concerns that may not be apparent

When attempting to eat biblically clean (according to what is written in the Torah, as opposed to the rabbinic traditions), especially when first coming into Torah obedience, there are many issues that may not be apparent.  Simply ordering the “beef” instead of the “ham”, for example, does not guarantee that one will not inadvertently be eating pork.  Even looking at the ingredients label alone provides no guarantees.  I have made this list to help elucidate some modern food processing issues.

Note: This listing is not meant for people who want to proceed without caution and simply “passively” “keep kosher”.  This is meant for people who actually care about what they eat and don’t want to eat things that contain unclean animal products.  

“Kosher” means “fit”, as in fit to eat, in this case.  While the word has come to imply a certain rabbinic set of standards, I use the word interchangeably with “clean”, so please bear with my wordings.  I fully recognize that the written Torah standard is not equivalent to the rabbinic standard (in some ways more strict, in some ways less strict).  However, that being said, we encourage getting foods that are certified by reputable certification agencies, as they check for things that will not be apparent to us, or that we would be unaware of (see Lubricants section below, for example).

Non-Certified Products – When one recognizes some differences between the biblical standard and the rabbinic standard of kosher, such as with mixing of meat and dairy, it can be tempting to venture off on one’s own and try to figure out what is clean simply based upon ingredients labels and our own limited awareness.  While this is reasonable in a sense, it is not necessarily possible to determine a product’s status simply by the ingredients label.  Not everything is listed on the ingredients label, such as lubricants or release agents (see section below).  Also, not every ingredient which is animal derived will explicitly indicate such (for example, magnesium stearate can be derived from pork, and the beef version might be tallow derived, see a vegan list elsewhere for more information).  Likewise, even though most people truly have no idea on how most of these ingredients are produced and processed, we might be tempted to assume that "that's just a chemical" (a chemical made from what?) or incorrectly assume that we know its origin based upon the ingredient name.  Therefore, we highly encourage going with credible certifications, with some exceptions (see Birds section, for example), rather than trying to verify a completely uncertified product.

It might be worth mentioning an incident from when I was still determining cleanness by contacting companies about "animal-derived ingredients".  When asking a specific company about such before buying their product, I was told that there were no animal-derived ingredients.  Upon purchasing their product, I noticed the ingredients listed "carmine", an insect-derived dye.  I inquired about this and was told by the same representative that (paraphrase) "I didn't think you were concerned with insects".  So, in trying to inquire from the company about these things, don't be overly trusting or presumptuous.

I know how some people get a dismissive and ignorant-sounding answer that they want to hear from a company representative and then just assume it's right.  You know who you are, even if you have yet to acknowledge it.

Plain Script “K” or Plain Script “Vegan” – Sometimes packages will have a plain script “K” or “Vegan” marking on them.  While these are supposed to imply kosher or vegan status to the product, it is unclear as to what standard is being followed (or if it is just a marketing gimmick by an unconcerned or otherwise ignorant manufacturer).  In my experience, almost all of the plain script “K”s that I have investigated have been fairly definitively NOT clean (such as using pork gelatin in the product, for example).  Likewise, the generic claims of being "Vegetarian" or "Vegan" are also questionable.

Lubricants, Release Agents, Cleaning Agents – These are NOT listed on a package’s ingredient statement.  Machine lubricant or lubricants used in preparing the food could be animal derived or contain animal derivatives, and one would never know by just checking the ingredients listing nor by calling about the "ingredients".  Credible kosher certifiers check for these things when they investigate a product, but it’s not something we can readily do without contacting the company directly about it (even then, it is difficult to get and know you have full disclosure).  Companies will likely NOT volunteer this information when you are simply asking about the “ingredients” of a product.

Sugar, Molasses – (*edit - I no longer consider bone char to be problematic) Even the most strict and credible Orthodox certification agencies certify sugar that is processed using animal bones.  We have interacted directly with companies regarding this issue, and it certainly does occur.  While the animal bones seem to typically be from cattle, the problem is that the animals, at least in some specific cases, have died of natural causes.  Consuming anything that dies (i.e., is not slaughtered) is prohibited by Deuteronomy 14:21.  However, it would seem that the char is prevented from entering the food, being insoluble and effectively filtered out of the sugar as it is processed.  Since it is not present in the food (otherwise the obtaining of the beloved American entirely white sugar would not be possible without black bits mixed in), I no longer consider it problematic.

Supermarket Meat – This is similar to the issue with lubricants/cleaners in packaged foods.  At the local butcher here that we have spoken with, meats are processed separately such that, for example, no beef will be mixed with pork, but various agents are applied to work surfaces before meat processing begins.  These are not actually cleaned off, but are allowed to dry on the preparation surfaces and inevitably come into contact with the meat as it is butchered and processed.  One chemical in question does contain gelatin which could be derived from pork.  The company who makes it has not given us any answer regarding its origin.  These procedures and even the cleaners used are likely fairly standard for butchers.  Likewise, non-certified wax paper can contain problematic ingredients and might get into the food while it is processed or while packaged.

Tallow – Beef suet could possibly be mixed in with hamburger meat.  It is also used in packing McDonald’s french fries (see “Dining Out”), and it is commonly included in medicines as well.  Just because all ingredients are "beef derived" doesn't mean it's ok.

Cheese – Cheese sometimes contains pork-derived ingredients such as pork rennet/enzymes.  There are statements circulating the Internet which assert that only certain types of cheeses have the potential to contain pork-derived ingredients, but we have found that to be FALSE.  Since Orthodox rabbis have non-biblical rules regarding cheese that are in some ways more restrictive than the actual Torah, there are few cheeses which are credibly certified and affordable.  Check with the manufacturer thoroughly regarding this and any processing agents that could be used.  I do not eat cheeses that are not credibly certified unless I made them myself.

Birds, Eggs (Chicken/Turkey/etc) – See Bird Species Identification: Is Chicken Kosher?

Produce - Fresh fruits and vegetables are oftentimes waxed, and these waxes can be unclean from my understanding.  This can even include certain items that I would not suspect, such as sweet potatoes.  I would suggest doing further research and finding a produce supplier that does not wax their products (some health food stores will sell both waxed and unwaxed).

Oil – Oil, such as olive oil, is sometimes transported in ship hulls that may have contained something unclean before.  They do NOT typically clean them out before refilling, from my understanding.  If the product is not credibly certified, these oils may have been mixed with something problematic.  One certification agency we are aware of is said to certify oils that are processed with unclean oils as well (and they are not on the list of symbols mentioned below).

Dining Out – This is often an extremely risky behavior when attempting to eat cleanly, even in the biblical sense.  There is practically no reasonable way to check every ingredient that could be used or come into contact with any given food item prepared at a restaurant or dining establishment.  It is furthermore very presumptuous to think that things are kept well separated or that foods are handled in a respectful way when they are prepared at a restaurant.  I have heard stories from those that work in food preparation about employees smearing food with pork because someone specifically requested that their order be free of pork (since the employees thought the customer was Muslim, etc).  I have also heard stories where a manager was asked about whether the beef was kept separately from the pork, had the manager say yes, then proceed to serve the beef with a potato that was fried in pig lard (without the customer’s knowledge, at least until after the fact).  Another example is that McDonald’s fries are packed in tallow.  Things tend to not be cleaned after use either, so the cooking surfaces are going to be cooking the beef and the pork together oftentimes.  Things also get mixed together, such as with pizza places adding cheese, then collecting any cheese that falls off of their pizzas and removing the pepperoni, sausage, etc, that had also fallen off, and then applying that same cheese to other pizzas later (even if you just order the “beef” pizza).  Basically, we consider it very risky and practically unreasonable to try to dine out anywhere.  There are too many factors at play, and you really do NOT know what is going on in the kitchen, nor can you reasonably know all of the ingredients without actually physically checking yourself.  The waiters/waitresses/cookstaff at these places do NOT know what they are talking about either.  Just like most people, they wouldn’t suspect that half the foods which contain animal-derived ingredients actually do.  We would also be suspicious of “kosher” or "vegan" restaurants as well, since the standards are not necessarily going to be clear or strictly held.

Certain Kosher Symbols – Many different certifying agencies use a different set of standards for their certification.  For example, some agencies certify products containing unclean insect-derived ingredients.  There are certain agencies that should probably not be trusted.  We tend to utilize the list of reputable agencies on Kosher Quest’s website, but with exceptions given on this list (such as egg or chicken ingredients).  One popular certification agency that we do NOT buy products certified by is Triangle-K due to multiple things we have read and been told.

Various Ingredients – Check a credible and thorough vegan list on the Internet for more information.  I would strongly discourage trying to assess the kosher status of a product based solely on its ingredient label, though (see Lubricants section above, etc).

Organic Certification - Oddly, some people seem to think that organic certification inherently means clean.  It does not.  This should likely be considered an entirely separate matter.

A Word on Vegan Standards - From what I have seen, when you get into the fine details of food production, many vegans seem to take the attitude of "it's impossible to avoid animal products", or that one should "avoid what is convenient" (much like how most people practice any faith).  While I might guess that vegan certification holds itself to a higher standard than this, bear in mind that generic Internet claims of things being "vegan" should be taken skeptically.  I know that I have witnessed a certain product being claimed to be vegan on Internet forums even though my contact with the manufacturer led me to believe otherwise.  Also, just like anything else, there are many ignorant people making websites about veganism which do not know what they are talking about.  So, if you are indeed looking for a vegan ingredient list, I would suggest finding one that actually details the origins of ingredients rather than one that makes generic claims with no explanation.

This is not meant to be an all-inclusive list, but is meant to demonstrate the need for investigation, as well as the potential for contamination or inclusion of unclean things.  We discourage proceeding without caution if one genuinely wants to eat things that are kosher.

(From prior posting on Gr. 7/22/14, updated Gr 9/6/15)

Man's Authority over His Women's Oaths

In Numbers (Bamidbar) 30, the Torah details commands regarding the nullification of vow (neder) and oath (shbu’ah).  Numbers 30:2 is clear that a man must do according to his word, and that he cannot deviate from what came from his mouth, and must fulfill his vows.  This seemingly is the case regardless of age or status for a man (i.e., a boy in his father’s house would be no different than an adult man living on his own).

However, for a woman, the situation is different.  If a woman is in her father’s house in her youth, her father has authority over her vows (v.5).  If a woman is married, her husband has authority over her vows (v.8).  However, if a woman was married, then becomes divorced or a widow, her bindings on her soul are not nullifiable by others (v.9), even if she returns to her father’s house.

Whether it be her father in her father’s house in her youth, or her husband, if one who has authority over the woman witnesses the woman making a vow, the text states that he can either remain silent when he hears it, thereby allowing her vow to stand (v4,7), or he can reprove her and nullify it, wherein she will be pardoned from it by YHWH (v.5,8).  Her husband may confirm it or may annul it (v.13), similarly to her father when she is in her youth in her father’s house.

In regard to defining a vow (neder) and oath (shbu’ah), we’ll refer to some other passages in the law wherein those words are used:

neder/nadar
Leviticus 7:16, 22:18-25, Numbers 15, and Deuteronomy 12 refer to voluntary slaughters/sacrifices

Leviticus 27 refers to the valuation of vows for people and animals

Numbers 6 refers to vow of Nazir (Nazarite)

Deuteronomy 23:21 requires that the vow be performed promptly

Vows are also used elsewhere in Genesis and the TNK, such as Jacob vowing that YHWH would be his Elohim if he was provided for (Genesis 28:20-21).

shbu’ah/shaba’
Exodus 13:19 refers to Joseph binding Israel to take his bones in their departure from Kemet


Exodus 22:11 and Leviticus 6 refer to swearing that one did not steal

Leviticus 5:4 refers to oaths obscured

Numbers 5:21 refers to the oath of the jealousy offering

Exodus 13:5, Exodus 32:13, Deuteronomy 7:8, etc refer to the covenantal oath of YHWH with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob

Deuteronomy 1:34-35 refers to YHWH swearing to not allow that generation to see the land

Deuteronomy 10:20 speaks of swearing by His Name

The word for “oath” also means “seven”, and is used numerically in the text as well.  Also, there are oaths in Genesis, such as Abraham having his servant swear regarding his quest for getting Isaac a wife (24:2-8).


Numbers 30 also speaks of isar, or bond, which is typically used for physically binding people or yoking animals (Genesis 39:20, Exodus 14:6).  Its use in the sense of vowing is limited in the Torah to the commands of the chapter being discussed.  Interestingly, v.13 refers to “oath of bond to humble soul”, which is similar to the wordings in the Yom Kippur/Day of Covering commands (Leviticus 16:29, Leviticus 23:27, etc), wherein one is required to humble their soul.

Returning to the nullification of vows, this has some interesting implications in the sense of the role of women by the standard of the Torah commands.  While some might refer to the time of the Torah as a “different culture”, and the differences in the status of men vs women as a cultural issue, this is simply not the case, at least in this matter, as Numbers 30:1 clearly states that these were supposed to be commands given by YHWH through Moses.  This authority and responsibility given to a man who has a daughter or has a wife is a matter of command and law.  These literal commands cannot be overturned by personal theologies derived from vague wordings elsewhere, and they certainly have implications regarding what the commanded familial structure or gender hierarchy should be.
Another passage will be relevant to the subject of women’s rights in the Torah, and this will be addressed next week.  This is the issue of women’s inheritance rights from Numbers 36.

---

This was written for the reading of parashah Matot, the rabbinic Torah portion.  The actual written Torah (Exodus through Deuteronomy) does not command the parashah, nor does the calendar of the Torah necessarily coincide with the rabbinic calendar.  I do think it is productive to have a weekly reading of the actual Torah, however, and this is a tradition that is frequently followed.  Let’s get back to the true Torah, the written Torah.

(From prior posting on Gr. 7/17/14)

Samaritan Pentateuch's Relevance

In years past I had assumed that the Samaritan Pentateuch was not worth reading, and was simply an edit to add in a command to sacrifice on Mt. Gerizim. Now I recognize that the command regarding Mt. Gerizim is not so much a "new command", but instead is practically the same as Dt 27:4-5 in the Masoretic. The main difference on that is that the Masoretic says Mt. Ebal rather than Mt. Gerizim, and that command is repeated in Ex 20 in the Samaritan Pentateuch. There are also a few other differences which are interesting as well.

I think the Samaritan type texts are worth investigating, and are relevant for study and consideration with the Torah manuscripts of the Masoretic, DSS, and LXX. Some things may be additions, some things may be more original, but that's how it tends to be with varied manuscripts.

---
Off-site link to Aleksandr's Samaritan Pentateuch translation

(From prior posting on Gr. 7/17/14)