The next move in our study of love in the Torah is to make some deliberate, practical applications. Each week at our Torah reading, we’ll pick something out of the parsha or related passages that teaches us something about love, and we’ll make it real over the following week. We’ll look for opportunities to apply the lesson, showing love to God and man in fact instead of only in theory.
Posts Tagged ‘torah portion’
On These Two Commandments…
Tuesday, April 6th, 2010Vayikra 5770 – Approaching under Cover
Saturday, March 20th, 2010Vayikra begins with a series of word plays:
Leviticus 1:1-2 And the LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock.
There are two distinct word plays that I want to talk about. Let’s look at the less obvious one first.
This Torah portion–in fact, this entire book–is named “Vayikra” which means “called” or “summoned”, but there is something missing from the English translation. This isn’t the fault of the translators necessarily because the thing that is missing could not be translated directly. The Hebrew word vayikra in verse one is spelled strangely. Although Hebrew doesn’t use capital letters like we use in English, it does use cases. It has a standard case, an upper case, a lower case, and even an inverted case. In this case, the final letter in vayikra, aleph, is in lower case, almost like a subscript. There is another instance in the Torah where vayikra is spelled strangely: “And God met Balaam.” (Numbers 23:4) This vayikra has no aleph at all. The rabbis say (and the KJV translators seem to have agreed) that this is because vayiker implies a chance encounter while vayikra is a deliberate summoning. The rabbis go on to say that Moses used a small aleph in Leviticus 1:1 because he wanted to de-emphasize the fact that God sought him out from among all his peers to lead Israel to freedom and to deliver the Torah. Balaam’s encounter with God was made inevitable by the path he and Balak had chosen. Moses’ encounter, on the other hand, was pre-ordained. The small aleph is Moses’ way of saying, “Yes, God chose me, but that doesn’t mean I’m better than anyone else.” We are all called. The questions to be answered are, how do we respond to our calling and what are we to do with it?
The second word play is more apparent, although the English translation still obscures it a little. Did you notice in the above paragraph how I used the word “case” so many times in a row that it almost became irritating? The Hebrew scriptures, especially prophecy, do this frequently. It’s a trick God uses to flag a particularly important idea or an idea that isn’t immediately clear in the plain text. The Hebrew words for “called unto”, “bring”, and “offering” all have the same root, kar, which refers to coming near. Putting the Hebrew words in, this passage looks something like this:
Leviticus 1:1-2 And the LORD vayik’ra unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you yik’rib a kar’ban unto the LORD, ye shall yik’rib your kar’ban of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock.
To make the sense even more clear in English, “YHWH told Moses to approach him and spoke to him from out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying, “Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘If anyone of you would approach God with an approaching, you will approach with an approaching from the animals of your herds and of your flocks.’”
So what is the message that is barely hidden here? It is the central theme of the entire book of Leviticus/Vayikra: drawing near to God. Although Leviticus describes a sacrificial system and priesthood that most people today view as obsolete and even barbaric, it also describes the only way that we might be restored to a close relationship with our Creator. Our restoration requires innocent blood to cover (atone for) our sins. (“Why” is another question entirely and might be beyond our understand.) We must first acknowledge our guilt and our inability to approach God on our own merits. Then we must accept the atonement that God has provided for us in his inestimable grace in the person of his Son, the Lamb of God. (Genesis 22:8 and John 1:29) The blood of Yeshua takes away our sins so that when God summons us we may draw near without being destroyed.
As in so many other cases, God has presented us with a choice. He told us to choose between life and death, blessings and cursings. In the Garden he provided the means of our destruction and on Calvary he provided the means of our salvation. We have but to choose and to surrender to the consequences.
P’kudei 5770 – If You Love Me
Saturday, March 13th, 2010…you will obey my commandments, said Yeshua. In P’kudei, Moses recorded twenty times that the Israelites did exactly as Yahweh commanded.
Twenty iterations of “They did all that Yahweh commanded Moses,” or some slight variation thereof.
They made the furniture of the Tabernacle. They wove and embroidered the curtains and the priestly garments. They erected the structure, anointed its contents and its priests, and put the various articles in their assigned places. Finally they lit the menorah, placed the bread, and burned the incense. All exactly as Yahweh had commanded.
God gives us an enormous amount of freedom in how we are to live our lives, but as anyone who has lived long enough to outgrow the fiery idealism of our youth realizes, true freedom is not possible without some rules. Neither is love. A husband cannot say to his wife, “I will show my love for you by pouring red wine on all of your white blouses.” Well, I suppose he could say it, but I don’t think she would quite get the message he intended. Or maybe he could say, “Honey, I’m thinking of a very nice anniversary card and a set of beautiful diamond earrings.” Unless he followed his imaginings with happenings, they won’t be very well received.
We frequently hear people say that it’s the thought that counts, but we all know that isn’t literally true. It’s the thought plus the deed that really counts. If the husband in the examples above had poured his wife a glass of water (not on her blouse) and bought her a card and a bouquet of roses, then his grand intentions, however humbly expressed, would have counted for much, much more.
Several things are conspicuously missing from Vayakhel and P’kudei: green, orange, and yellow threads; iron and lead ingots; cowhides; marble. I am certain that some people wanted to give these things along with their gold and silver, but God was very specific about what materials could be used in his Tabernacle. Just like the man’s wife who didn’t want wine on her clothes, God didn’t want lead in his Holy Place. I can speculate all day and night about the spiritual significance of this or that metal and color, but it really comes down to this: God knows what he wants, and he doesn’t want just anything.
You have the freedom to serve him, but you do not have the freedom to serve him in any way you choose. If you love God, you will obey his commandments. God doesn’t want us all to be missionaries to Borneo or to give him a million dollars. He wants us to give him our best, and to give him what he asks. He wants our love, and he wants it by his rules, not ours.
P.S. Some interesting observations about the twenty statements of obedience in this parsha…
- The first time, the people did according to what Moses commanded.
- The next eleven times, the people did according to what Yahweh commanded Moses.
- The next seven times, Moses did what Yahweh commanded.
- The next time, all Moses plus the Cohanim did what Yahweh commanded Moses.
- Moses completed the work.
P’kudei says twelve times that the people did what they were commanded: once by the command of Moses and twelve by the command of God delivered through Moses. Twelve is the number of God’s people. There are twelve tribes, twelve gates, and twelve disciples. Except when one of those disciples followed the commands of men instead of God.
Seven represents perfection. Creation, including the establishment of the Sabbath, was completed in seven days. There are seven lamps on the menorah, seven spirits of God, and seven churches. David reminded us over and over that God’s Torah is perfect. Moses delivered God’s Law perfectly, just as God intended it to be, and he commanded us not to alter it. Yeshua reiterated that command when he said that anyone who relaxes even the tiniest part of it will be called the least in heaven.
Psalms 19:7 The law [Hebrew: torah] of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
The final repetition doesn’t stand on its own. It is the eighth statement of Moses’ obedience, eight being the number of new beginnings, but this time, he was joined by the priests. The aim of the Torah is the Messiah who has become our High Priest. It teaches us about him and points us to him. It tells us how to recognize him, why we need him, and what he does for us. He is our Cohen Ha Gadol, our High Priest, albeit of a different order than the sons of Aaron. He is our new beginning, our rebirth, but notice that it was not the priest alone included in the eighth repetition, but Moses with him. Just as Jeremiah prophesied, the New Covenant brought by Yeshua does not leave Moses behind. In the New Covenant, the Law of Moses (aka the Torah) is to be written on our hearts and no longer on stone. God still wants his people to keep his Torah, but we are not condemned by it because we are not under its authority. We are children of the King and obey his laws because we love him, not because we are afraid of the King’s sheriff.
After all twenty statements are complete, the Torah says, “And Moses finished the work.” As James taught to the first century church, no one needs to keep the Torah in order to gain their salvation, but once a person becomes a citizen of the kingdom he would do well to begin learning and practicing its laws. (Acts 15:21)
Vayakhel 5770 – Approaching God’s Presence
Monday, March 8th, 2010Exodus 35:5-7 Take from among you an offering to YHWH. Whoever is of a willing heart, let him bring it, an offering of YHWH: gold, and silver, and bronze, (6) and blue, and purple, and scarlet, and bleached linen, and goats’ hair, (7) and rams’ skins dyed red, and badgers’ skins…
You’ll forgive me, I hope, if I engage in more speculative theology. I’d like to focus on the three coverings of the Tabernacle. They were each made of a different material: goats hair, red rams skin, and some other skin of uncertain translation. Examining the uses of these materials throughout scripture yields an interesting, albeit tenuous, pattern.
Goats hair
Goats are used for sin and burnt offerings. Jacob and Rebecca used a goat to deceive Isaac into giving Esau’s blessing to Jacob. When David’s life was threatened by Saul, his wife (and Saul’s daughter) Michal made a mock-up of his body, with a goat-hair pillow as his head, to deceive Saul’s assassins. Alexander the Great was portrayed in Daniel’s prophecy as a goat. Finally, goats were cooked as gifts for angels and for King Saul.
Red rams skins
The word for “red” in red ram skins is the same word as Adam. It is used to describe the first man, mankind as a whole, and a common man as opposed to a man of the aristocracy. It is the color of earthiness and mortality. The word for ram is elsewhere used for posts, the upright branches of a tree, the lintel of a doorway, a mighty man, and a great oak. The juxtaposition of one word that can refer to a “commoner” and another word that can refer to a “mighty man” is curious.
Badger skin?
Badger is an uncertain translation at best. It could be the skin of manatees or of some other animal. Some commentators believe it refers to a blue ram skin, as opposed to the red ram skin in the previous layer of the tabernacle covering. Whatever this material is, it was also used to make shoes, as the first covering on the Ark and the second covering on the Table, the incense altar, the various articles for the tabernacle, and the altar for burnt offerings. It’s association with the feet implies something mean and humble, and it was probably the most weatherproof of the three layers.
The tenuous pattern that I see here is a dual progression of common to uncommon. From one perspective, looking from the outside in, you will pass through the meanest element, the badger skin. Although it was probably not from a badger, other guesses are usually also unclean animals such as the manatee. This material was used to make footwear, but not much else. The next layer is ram skin dyed red. Not shani (scarlet or crimson) used elsewhere in the Tabernacle, but adam, the same word used in Isaiah 31:8 and Psalm 49:2 to describe a commoner. Shani is paired, however, with ayil (ram), which more literally refers to strength. The ram skin almost seems like a compromise between peasant and ruler, a middle class so to speak. The third layer is woven goats hair, furthest removed of the three materials from its natural state. It is associated with misdirection, sin offerings (another form of misdirection in that they cover over a sinful state), and with gifts given to those of the highest rank. It was probably decorated in some way. As the three coverings move closer to God’s presence in the Holy of Holies, they each seem to represent a higher rank or authority.
Considered from the opposite perspective, however, one sees not a descending order of glory or power, but yet another progression from common to rare. Goats hair, for example, was readily obtainable. One need not kill the animal to get its wool, but only to shave it. Next is the ram skin. Although the ram must be killed to obtain its skin, it was a fairly common animal. Easy to find, but not so easy to use. The third level, however, was difficult to gather in sufficient quantities to make such a large covering. Whatever its source, it was so uncommon that the word itself is now of uncertain meaning. Even so, this does not indicate a gain in glory as one moves further from God’s presence. To the contrary, God did not so much dwell in the Tabernacle as use it as a focus. It allowed him to dwell among his people, but it seems absurd to believe that God could be so small as to confine his person to a tent. The Ark of the Covenant is a symbol of his throne and not the thing itself. God’s actual throne, if it can be defined as an actual object, is in heaven and not on earth at all, so that the progression from goats skin to badger skin moves from common to rare materials as it approaches God’s actual throne.
The progression inward toward the Holy of Holies might correlate with authority and position, while the progression outward toward God’s true abode in heaven might correlate with more inherent qualities of character.
Please note that I am not prophesying. I am speculating. It is an interesting exercise, but whether there are deeper truths to be gained from it is only another speculation. Feel free to do with this what you will.
Update 2010-03-09. Significant edits.
Ki Tetzei 5769 – Love Her or Leave Her Alone
Tuesday, September 1st, 2009Late again. Sorry.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, (11) And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; (12) Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; (13) And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. (14) And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.
The practice of taking captive women as concubines has long been frowned upon in western cultures, and for good reason. As with marrying more than one woman, marrying a prisoner of war is a complicated and difficult proposition. A man of weak character can’t pull it off, and a man of poor character can’t do it well. On the other hand, difficult doesn’t mean sinful or impossible. In fact, in the context of the ancient near east–probably in other contexts as well–marriage was one of the best options available. It is better than killing her with the rest of her people or leaving her to be abused or enslaved by some other nation. At least as a concubine to an Israelite, she would be brought into the religion of Yahweh and enjoy the rights accorded to all wives by Torah.
Allowing a man to take such a woman back to his home also recognizes and helps to stem the harsh reality of rape in war. This law says that a man is not allowed to simply take whatever woman he wants, but knowing that he can still have her after following the proper procedure (and being reminded of that fact every year when reading Ki Tetzei in the synagogue) can serve to temper his immediate lusts. Chances are very good that after the thirty days of mourning have passed, he will have realized what a crazy idea it is to bring a pagan woman into his house, and he will allow her to leave. If not, then he would be required to begin her education in Torah and her conversion to belief in the True God before he could consummate the marriage. (See Leviticus 19:19, Deuteronomy 7:3, and Deuteronomy 22:9-11.)
If he changes his mind and allows her to leave, she will no longer be a prisoner of war but a free woman with all the rights of a stranger in Israel. Those rights were considerable indeed, especially in light of what she might face in some other land.