Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is One” Duet. 6:4. what is the meaning of the word “One” in Deuteronomy? We have an understanding that “One” in this passage is Echad. Echad can mean there is only one and not many others; it can also mean two or more things bound together to become one like the two sticks in Ezekiel, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, husband and wife, and Adam. We are familiar with these ideas. But there is another meaning to the word “One” in this passage. Echad can also mean “unique”, the one like no other. If this is the concept of the Shema, it sets God apart from all other things men call gods. It signifies that HE alone posses the attributes of deity. HIS “uniqueness” teaches us that HE is the One and Only. There can be only one God.
The earth belongs to the Lord, and all it contains;
The world and its inhabitants.
He founded it upon the seas,
and set it firm upon the flowing waters.
Who may ascend the mountain of the Lord?
Who may rise in His sanctuary?
One who has clean hands and a pure heart,
Who has not used God’s name in false oaths,
Who has not sworn deceitfully.
He shall receive a blessing from the Lord,
A just reward from the God of his deliverance.
Such are the people who seek Him,
Who long for the presence of Jacob’s God.
Lift high your heads, O you gates;
Open wide, you ancient doors!
Welcome the glorious King.
Who is the glorious King?
The Lord, with triumph and might,
The Lord, triumphant in battle.
Lift high your heads, O you gates;
Open wide, you ancient doors!
Welcome the glorious King.
Who is the glorious King?
Adonai tzeva’ot, He is the glorious King.
Psalm 24
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Saturday, August 22, 2009
From First to Last: The Righteous Will Live By Faith
Throughout the ages, the Jewish Sages attempted to group the 613 commandments into common themes to understand the major underlying principles for the worship of the LORD. According to the Talmud (Makkot 23b-24a)…
“David came and established the number of commandments at eleven, as it is written, ‘A psalm of David, LORD, who may dwell in your sanctuary? Who may live on your holy hill? He whose walk is blameless(1) and who does what is righteous(2), who speaks the truth from his heart(3) and has no slander on his tongue(4), who does his neighbor no wrong(5) and casts no slur on his fellow man(6), who despise a vile man(7) but honors those who fear the LORD(8), who keeps his oath even when it hurts(9), who leans his money without usury(10) and does not accept a bribe against the innocent(11). He who does these things will never be shaken’ (Psa 15:1-6)
Isaiah then came and established the number of commandments at six, as it is written, ‘He who walks righteously(1) and speaks what is right(2), who rejects gain from extortion(3) and keeps his hand from accepting bribes(4), who stops his ears against plots of murder(5) and shuts his eyes against contemplating evil(6)’ (Isa 33:14).
Micah then came and established the number of commandments at three, as it is written, ‘He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly(1) and to love mercy(2) and to walk humbly with your God(3)’ (Micah 6:8).
Amos then came and established the number of commandments at one, as it is written, ‘Seek the LORD and live’ (Amos 5:6).”
But the Talmudic discussion is not quite over. Rav Nachman bar Yitzhaq took exception to this citation from Amos, claiming that the divine commandment to “seek me” runs throughout the entire Torah. Rather, it is Habakkuk who came and established the number of commandments at one, as it is written, “The righteous will live by faith“ (Hab 2:4).
Therefore, according to the Jewish Sages, the entire law can be summarized in a single commandment, “The righteous will live by faith”.
Paul appeared to draw on this understanding when he wrote, "For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: 'The rigtheous will live by faith'".
(Rom 1:17)
“David came and established the number of commandments at eleven, as it is written, ‘A psalm of David, LORD, who may dwell in your sanctuary? Who may live on your holy hill? He whose walk is blameless(1) and who does what is righteous(2), who speaks the truth from his heart(3) and has no slander on his tongue(4), who does his neighbor no wrong(5) and casts no slur on his fellow man(6), who despise a vile man(7) but honors those who fear the LORD(8), who keeps his oath even when it hurts(9), who leans his money without usury(10) and does not accept a bribe against the innocent(11). He who does these things will never be shaken’ (Psa 15:1-6)
Isaiah then came and established the number of commandments at six, as it is written, ‘He who walks righteously(1) and speaks what is right(2), who rejects gain from extortion(3) and keeps his hand from accepting bribes(4), who stops his ears against plots of murder(5) and shuts his eyes against contemplating evil(6)’ (Isa 33:14).
Micah then came and established the number of commandments at three, as it is written, ‘He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly(1) and to love mercy(2) and to walk humbly with your God(3)’ (Micah 6:8).
Amos then came and established the number of commandments at one, as it is written, ‘Seek the LORD and live’ (Amos 5:6).”
But the Talmudic discussion is not quite over. Rav Nachman bar Yitzhaq took exception to this citation from Amos, claiming that the divine commandment to “seek me” runs throughout the entire Torah. Rather, it is Habakkuk who came and established the number of commandments at one, as it is written, “The righteous will live by faith“ (Hab 2:4).
Therefore, according to the Jewish Sages, the entire law can be summarized in a single commandment, “The righteous will live by faith”.
Paul appeared to draw on this understanding when he wrote, "For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: 'The rigtheous will live by faith'".
(Rom 1:17)
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Yes, It Will Be Face to Face
When a prophet of the LORD is among you, I reveal myself to him in visions, I speak to him in dreams. But this is not true of my servant Moses; he is faithful in all my house. With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the LORD. (Num 12:6-8)
In the Jewish mind, the words of Moses have the greatest authority because Moses had a unique relationship with the LORD for he spoke with Him “face to face, as a man speaks with his friend” (Ex 33:11). The Prophets wrote based on “visions and dreams” (Num 12:6-8), while the Psalmist are considered to be Godly men reflecting on the attributes of God.
In a recent discussion the question has come up, "Will believers have the ability to speak with the LORD one on one in the Kingdom and the New Jerusalem?" Now listen to the words of Paul contrasting our present situation with our future reality.
Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. (1 Cor 13:12)
Paul’s future condition of “we shall see face to face” appears to be making an analogy between the future relationship of the believer to the understood relationship that Moses had with God, “face to face, as a man speaks with his friend”. It is because of this future relationship, we will come to “know fully”.
Therefore, I believe a time is coming when the LORD will say, “Consider my servant Rich; he is faithful in all my house. With him I speak face to face as a man speaks to his friend”.
Shalom from Colorado
In the Jewish mind, the words of Moses have the greatest authority because Moses had a unique relationship with the LORD for he spoke with Him “face to face, as a man speaks with his friend” (Ex 33:11). The Prophets wrote based on “visions and dreams” (Num 12:6-8), while the Psalmist are considered to be Godly men reflecting on the attributes of God.
In a recent discussion the question has come up, "Will believers have the ability to speak with the LORD one on one in the Kingdom and the New Jerusalem?" Now listen to the words of Paul contrasting our present situation with our future reality.
Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. (1 Cor 13:12)
Paul’s future condition of “we shall see face to face” appears to be making an analogy between the future relationship of the believer to the understood relationship that Moses had with God, “face to face, as a man speaks with his friend”. It is because of this future relationship, we will come to “know fully”.
Therefore, I believe a time is coming when the LORD will say, “Consider my servant Rich; he is faithful in all my house. With him I speak face to face as a man speaks to his friend”.
Shalom from Colorado
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Blood on Who's Hands?
"All the people answered, 'Let his blood be on us and on our children!'" (Matt 27:25)
Some time ago a friend asked me if the previous passage recorded in Matthew could be seen as a request for the atoning blood of Jesus to be placed on the nation of Israel. At first appearance, such an interpretation seems feasible as it would be seen to draw a parallel to the blood sprinkled on the people for the original covenant at Mount Sinai. “Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, "This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words." (Ex 24:8).
In pondering the question, I have noticed that the Bible will often list multiple generations when a judgment or promise is given. For example, the LORD visits “the iniquity of fathers on the children and upon the children’s children to the third and fourth generations” (Ex 34:7, KJV). Further, “No one born of a forbidden marriage nor any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation” (Deut 23:2). When the LORD talks of eternal blessings the reference frequently used is “children’s children”, such as the LORD’s love to the children’s children of those who fear him (Psa 103:17) and a future return of the Jewish people to the land of Israel when the “children and their children’s children will live there forever, and David my servant will be their prince forever” (Ezek 37:25).
The proclamation “Let his blood be on us and on our children!” is found only in Matthew, which is considered the gospel account written to the Jewish people. Had the statement been a request for the blood of Jesus to be an atonement for the sins of the nation, I think it would have read something like, “Let his blood be on us, our children, and our children’s children for all generations.” As stated, the proclamation appears limited to just the generation of the crucifixion and the generation that followed.
Because this historically aligns with the destruction of the temple forty years (one generation) after the crucifixion of Jesus, it would appear to be a curse or statement of condemnation. This is why Pilate washed his hands to be “innocent of this man’s blood” (Matt 27:24) and a position the Sanhedrin avoided in the presence of Peter and John (Acts 5:28). Further, “the people” are principally believed to be the Sadducees and the Herodians, supporters of Herod and his descendants. The Sadducees (priests), ceased to exist shortly after the destruction of the temple. Caiaphas and Annas were Sadducees.
The current form of Rabbinic Judaism derives almost entirely from the Pharisees of Jesus’ day, who had developed their system of worship in Babylon to operate in the absene of a temple. Although we generally condemn the Pharisees along with the Sadducees, historically only 6 to 7 Pharisees were among the 71-members assembly of the Sanhedrin and High Priest. We know from scripture 3 of the Pharisees on the Sanhedrin, Nicodemus (John 3:1), Joseph of Arimathes (Luke 23:51), and Gamaleil (Acts 5:33), and it appears they “had not consented to their (Sanhedrin) decision and action” (Luke 23:51). Approximately 27 members of the Sanhedrin were required to have a quorum, so the condemnation of Jesus could occur with 44 members absent. Recent speculation holds that no Pharisees were present during the condemnation of Jesus.
Thoughts on passage or other observations? Looking forward to seeing everyone. Scott
Some time ago a friend asked me if the previous passage recorded in Matthew could be seen as a request for the atoning blood of Jesus to be placed on the nation of Israel. At first appearance, such an interpretation seems feasible as it would be seen to draw a parallel to the blood sprinkled on the people for the original covenant at Mount Sinai. “Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, "This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words." (Ex 24:8).
In pondering the question, I have noticed that the Bible will often list multiple generations when a judgment or promise is given. For example, the LORD visits “the iniquity of fathers on the children and upon the children’s children to the third and fourth generations” (Ex 34:7, KJV). Further, “No one born of a forbidden marriage nor any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation” (Deut 23:2). When the LORD talks of eternal blessings the reference frequently used is “children’s children”, such as the LORD’s love to the children’s children of those who fear him (Psa 103:17) and a future return of the Jewish people to the land of Israel when the “children and their children’s children will live there forever, and David my servant will be their prince forever” (Ezek 37:25).
The proclamation “Let his blood be on us and on our children!” is found only in Matthew, which is considered the gospel account written to the Jewish people. Had the statement been a request for the blood of Jesus to be an atonement for the sins of the nation, I think it would have read something like, “Let his blood be on us, our children, and our children’s children for all generations.” As stated, the proclamation appears limited to just the generation of the crucifixion and the generation that followed.
Because this historically aligns with the destruction of the temple forty years (one generation) after the crucifixion of Jesus, it would appear to be a curse or statement of condemnation. This is why Pilate washed his hands to be “innocent of this man’s blood” (Matt 27:24) and a position the Sanhedrin avoided in the presence of Peter and John (Acts 5:28). Further, “the people” are principally believed to be the Sadducees and the Herodians, supporters of Herod and his descendants. The Sadducees (priests), ceased to exist shortly after the destruction of the temple. Caiaphas and Annas were Sadducees.
The current form of Rabbinic Judaism derives almost entirely from the Pharisees of Jesus’ day, who had developed their system of worship in Babylon to operate in the absene of a temple. Although we generally condemn the Pharisees along with the Sadducees, historically only 6 to 7 Pharisees were among the 71-members assembly of the Sanhedrin and High Priest. We know from scripture 3 of the Pharisees on the Sanhedrin, Nicodemus (John 3:1), Joseph of Arimathes (Luke 23:51), and Gamaleil (Acts 5:33), and it appears they “had not consented to their (Sanhedrin) decision and action” (Luke 23:51). Approximately 27 members of the Sanhedrin were required to have a quorum, so the condemnation of Jesus could occur with 44 members absent. Recent speculation holds that no Pharisees were present during the condemnation of Jesus.
Thoughts on passage or other observations? Looking forward to seeing everyone. Scott
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Torah on the Basis of Better Promises
The following is taken from David Stern’s book Restoring The Jewishness Of The Gospel. I find it very interesting because it gives a perspective on the applicability of the Law to both the Jew and Gentile.
Page 50 includes discussion in reference to Hebrews 8:6 which reads in the NAS, “But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.” (Heb 8:6).
According to Stern, “But upon examining the Greek text I noticed that the phrase “is founded on” renders the word “nenomothetetai”, a compnound of our friend “nomos” (law, Torah) with the common verb “tithemi” (to put, place)…But in the letter to these Messianic Jews, the word “nomos”, which appears 14 times, always Torah specifically, never legislation in general. Moreover, the only other appearnace of “nenomothetetai” in the New Testament is a few verses back…where it can only refer to the giving of the Torah at Sinai…Therefore the Jewish New Testament renders Messianic Jews 8:6: ‘But now the work Yueshua has been given to do is far superior to theirs, just as the covenant he mediates is better. For this covenant has been given as Torah on the basis of better promises’. So the New Covenant has been ‘given as Torah’, which implies that Torah still exists and is to be observed in the present age – by all Jews and by all Gentiles, as we shall see…”
From his book, we can see that David Stern concludes that the new covenant is Torah founded on better promises. But if Torah, how does it apply to the Jew and Gentile. Stern makes a very interesting observation about the ruling of the Jerusalem Council. Although specific guidance was given to Gentiles, the lack of guidance to Jewish Christians implies that no change to their beliefs was required.
From page 57 in reference to the Jerusalem Counsel (Acts 15). “This (the ruling of the Jerusalem Council) teaches us that the elements of Torah which apply to Gentiles under the New Covenant are not the same as those which apply to Jews. (The Jerusalem Council made no change whatever in the Torah as it applies to Jews, so that a number of years later there could still be in Jerusalem “tens of thousands” of Messianic Jews who were “zealots for the Torah.”) It should not surprise us if New Covenant Torah specifies different commandments for Jews and Gentiles. First, the Five Books of Moses have commands which apply to some groups and not others – to the king but not to his subjects, to cohanim (“priests”) but not to other Jews, to men but not women. Second, the New Testament too has different commands for different categories of people, for example, men and woman, husbands and wives, parents and children, slaves and masters, leaders and followers, widows.
However, Acts 15 also teaches that although Gentiles were required to observe only four laws upon entering the Messianic Community, they were permitted to learn as much about Judaism as they wished and presumably to observe as many Jewish laws and customs as they wished. The only proviso added in the New Covenant (in Galatians) is that Gentiles should not suppose that their self-Judaizing will earn them “salvation points” with God…
It’s easy for many Gentile Christians to agree with the abstract statement that the Torah is still in force under the New Covenant, for they are unlikely to have a sense of how to draw out its implications…What ought to be done, and what ought not to be done in particular situations? Should one refrain form lighting fires or from driving on Shabbat? Should a man wear a kippah in a congregational meeting? Should he wear tzitziyot (tassels on the corners of his garment)?…May a Messianic Gentile be called up to read from the Torah scroll in a Messianic synagogue? May a Gentile Christian convert to Judiasm? And if so, under what auspices? How should Messianic Jews relate to the State of Israel? Should Messianic Jews immigrate to Israel? Is there halakhah concerning when a Messianic Jew might marry a Gentile Christian?…To what extent may or should Gentile members of Messianic Jewish congregations imitate or take on Jewish practices? Etcetera.”
All these are questions that we are struggling with, but to conclude requirements may be different for the Jew and for the Gentile finds some precedent in scripture. Does this prevent me from studying and participating in Jewish laws and customs? Not at all. For if “the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ” (Gal 3:24), then these instructions have much benefit because we have not arrived at a complete understanding but are on the upward path.
Page 50 includes discussion in reference to Hebrews 8:6 which reads in the NAS, “But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.” (Heb 8:6).
According to Stern, “But upon examining the Greek text I noticed that the phrase “is founded on” renders the word “nenomothetetai”, a compnound of our friend “nomos” (law, Torah) with the common verb “tithemi” (to put, place)…But in the letter to these Messianic Jews, the word “nomos”, which appears 14 times, always Torah specifically, never legislation in general. Moreover, the only other appearnace of “nenomothetetai” in the New Testament is a few verses back…where it can only refer to the giving of the Torah at Sinai…Therefore the Jewish New Testament renders Messianic Jews 8:6: ‘But now the work Yueshua has been given to do is far superior to theirs, just as the covenant he mediates is better. For this covenant has been given as Torah on the basis of better promises’. So the New Covenant has been ‘given as Torah’, which implies that Torah still exists and is to be observed in the present age – by all Jews and by all Gentiles, as we shall see…”
From his book, we can see that David Stern concludes that the new covenant is Torah founded on better promises. But if Torah, how does it apply to the Jew and Gentile. Stern makes a very interesting observation about the ruling of the Jerusalem Council. Although specific guidance was given to Gentiles, the lack of guidance to Jewish Christians implies that no change to their beliefs was required.
From page 57 in reference to the Jerusalem Counsel (Acts 15). “This (the ruling of the Jerusalem Council) teaches us that the elements of Torah which apply to Gentiles under the New Covenant are not the same as those which apply to Jews. (The Jerusalem Council made no change whatever in the Torah as it applies to Jews, so that a number of years later there could still be in Jerusalem “tens of thousands” of Messianic Jews who were “zealots for the Torah.”) It should not surprise us if New Covenant Torah specifies different commandments for Jews and Gentiles. First, the Five Books of Moses have commands which apply to some groups and not others – to the king but not to his subjects, to cohanim (“priests”) but not to other Jews, to men but not women. Second, the New Testament too has different commands for different categories of people, for example, men and woman, husbands and wives, parents and children, slaves and masters, leaders and followers, widows.
However, Acts 15 also teaches that although Gentiles were required to observe only four laws upon entering the Messianic Community, they were permitted to learn as much about Judaism as they wished and presumably to observe as many Jewish laws and customs as they wished. The only proviso added in the New Covenant (in Galatians) is that Gentiles should not suppose that their self-Judaizing will earn them “salvation points” with God…
It’s easy for many Gentile Christians to agree with the abstract statement that the Torah is still in force under the New Covenant, for they are unlikely to have a sense of how to draw out its implications…What ought to be done, and what ought not to be done in particular situations? Should one refrain form lighting fires or from driving on Shabbat? Should a man wear a kippah in a congregational meeting? Should he wear tzitziyot (tassels on the corners of his garment)?…May a Messianic Gentile be called up to read from the Torah scroll in a Messianic synagogue? May a Gentile Christian convert to Judiasm? And if so, under what auspices? How should Messianic Jews relate to the State of Israel? Should Messianic Jews immigrate to Israel? Is there halakhah concerning when a Messianic Jew might marry a Gentile Christian?…To what extent may or should Gentile members of Messianic Jewish congregations imitate or take on Jewish practices? Etcetera.”
All these are questions that we are struggling with, but to conclude requirements may be different for the Jew and for the Gentile finds some precedent in scripture. Does this prevent me from studying and participating in Jewish laws and customs? Not at all. For if “the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ” (Gal 3:24), then these instructions have much benefit because we have not arrived at a complete understanding but are on the upward path.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
More Loving -Kindness
When we were in Houston, we visited the Jewish Community Center gift shop. I bought a prayer book, Siddur Sim Shalom, one for myself and one for Teresa. This is what I learned about chesed from this book.
A disciple of Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai was lamenting the destruction of the Temple and said: “Alas, for us! The place which atoned for the sins of the people of Israel through the ritual of animal sacrifice lies in ruins!” Then Rabbi ben Zakkai spoke these words of comfort: “Be not grieved, my son. There is another way of gaining atonement even though the Temple is destroyed. We must now gain atonement through deeds of loving-kindness.” For it is written, “Loving-kindness I desire, not sacrifice.” Hosea 6:6.
Rabbi Elazar said: Whoever does deeds of charity and justice is considered as having filled the world with loving-kindness. “He loves charity and justice; the earth is filled with the loving-kindness of the Lord.” Psalm 33:5
“She opens her mouth with wisdom and the Torah of loving-kindness is on her tongue” Proverbs 31:26. What does this mean? Is there a Torah of loving-kindness and a Torah that is not loving-kindness? Torah which is studied on its own merit is a Torah of loving-kindness, but Torah studied for an ulterior motive is not a Torah of loving-kindness. Furthermore, Torah which is studied to teach is a Torah of loving-kindness, whereas Torah which is not studied in order to teach is a Torah which is not of loving-kindness.
The Torah begins and ends with deeds of loving-kindness. In the beginning, it is written, “The Lord God made for Adam and Chava garments of skins and clothed them.” (Gen 3:21) In the end, it is written, “And He buried him in the valley in the land of Moab.” (Due 34:6)
Deep is your love for us, Lord our God, boundless Your tender compassion. You taught our ancestors life giving laws. They trusted in You, our Father and King. For their sake graciously teach us. Father, merciful Father, show us mercy; grant us discernment and understanding. Then we will study Your Torah, heed its words, teach its precepts and follow its instruction, lovingly fulfilling all its teachings. Open our eyes to Your Torah, help our hearts cleave to Your mitzvot. Unite all our thoughts to love and revere You. Then shall we never be brought to shame. Trusting you awesome holiness, we will delight in Your deliverance. Bring us safely from the ends of the earth, and lead us in dignity to our holy land. You are the Source of deliverance. You have called us from peoples and tongues, constantly drawing us nearer to You, that we may lovingly offer you praise, proclaiming Your Oneness. Blessed are you, O Lord, our God, who loves His children.
Sandi
A disciple of Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai was lamenting the destruction of the Temple and said: “Alas, for us! The place which atoned for the sins of the people of Israel through the ritual of animal sacrifice lies in ruins!” Then Rabbi ben Zakkai spoke these words of comfort: “Be not grieved, my son. There is another way of gaining atonement even though the Temple is destroyed. We must now gain atonement through deeds of loving-kindness.” For it is written, “Loving-kindness I desire, not sacrifice.” Hosea 6:6.
Rabbi Elazar said: Whoever does deeds of charity and justice is considered as having filled the world with loving-kindness. “He loves charity and justice; the earth is filled with the loving-kindness of the Lord.” Psalm 33:5
“She opens her mouth with wisdom and the Torah of loving-kindness is on her tongue” Proverbs 31:26. What does this mean? Is there a Torah of loving-kindness and a Torah that is not loving-kindness? Torah which is studied on its own merit is a Torah of loving-kindness, but Torah studied for an ulterior motive is not a Torah of loving-kindness. Furthermore, Torah which is studied to teach is a Torah of loving-kindness, whereas Torah which is not studied in order to teach is a Torah which is not of loving-kindness.
The Torah begins and ends with deeds of loving-kindness. In the beginning, it is written, “The Lord God made for Adam and Chava garments of skins and clothed them.” (Gen 3:21) In the end, it is written, “And He buried him in the valley in the land of Moab.” (Due 34:6)
Deep is your love for us, Lord our God, boundless Your tender compassion. You taught our ancestors life giving laws. They trusted in You, our Father and King. For their sake graciously teach us. Father, merciful Father, show us mercy; grant us discernment and understanding. Then we will study Your Torah, heed its words, teach its precepts and follow its instruction, lovingly fulfilling all its teachings. Open our eyes to Your Torah, help our hearts cleave to Your mitzvot. Unite all our thoughts to love and revere You. Then shall we never be brought to shame. Trusting you awesome holiness, we will delight in Your deliverance. Bring us safely from the ends of the earth, and lead us in dignity to our holy land. You are the Source of deliverance. You have called us from peoples and tongues, constantly drawing us nearer to You, that we may lovingly offer you praise, proclaiming Your Oneness. Blessed are you, O Lord, our God, who loves His children.
Sandi
Thy Loving-Kindness is Better than Life
“Thy lovingkindness is better than life,” so says the Psalmist about God. That word, lovingkindness, caught my attention as I was reading. I don’t remember ever seeing it in the Greek text. And upon further research, it isn’t. Why not? It appears there is no single Greek word that completely captures the full extent of the Hebrew word, chesed. In fact, there is not a single English word that captures the whole picture so someone came up with the idea of cramming two words together—loving and kindness. Still, it seems, the picture is incomplete so translators use other words—mercy, grace, faithfulness, devotion, goodness. Those are the words we read in the Greek text.
According to Vine’s Expository Dictionary, three concepts are combined every time the word is used—strength, steadfastness, and love. So, the Psalmist says that God’s love, steadfastness, and strength expressed to us is better than life, itself—a concept we should explore further sometime.
Also according to Vine’s, chesed can only be expressed within a covenant relationship. In fact, it becomes an expression of generosity and mercy that the stronger party expresses to the lesser. Chesed requires a personal involvement in the relationship that goes “beyond the rule of law.” In other words, God’s steadfastness and commitment to us is stronger than law requires.
Hosea and Gomer’s relationship comes to mind. While Torah says to put the adulteress to death, Hosea’s chesed toward his wife supersedes Torah. Does this mean there are situations where we should NOT obey Torah? Apparently so, IF there is a covenant relationship and the offended party chooses to respond with chesed. In other words, Hosea’s response to Gomer’s infidelity demonstrates his strength of character, steadfast commitment, and unending love to the weaker party in the relationship.
Finally, according to Telushkin’s commentary on the Babylonian Talmud, “Charity is equal in importance to all the other commandments combined.” And, “One who gives charity in secret is greater than Moses.” However, given charity’s preeminence over the other mitzvah, there remains one thing greater than charity—chesed. How is chesed greater? It is greater in three ways.
Charity is done with one’s money, while lovingkindness may be done with one’s money or person [e.g. spending time with a sick person].
Charity is given only to the poor, while lovingkindness may be given both to the poor and to the rich [e.g. consoling those who are mourning or depressed].
Charity is given only to the living, while lovingkindness may be shown to both the living and the dead [e.g. by arranging burial and handling after death business].
Perhaps we should expand our understanding of at least two verses that come to mind:
Hosea 6:6 “I desire mercy [chesed], not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings. “
Galatians 5:22-23 “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.”
Shalom,
Bryan
According to Vine’s Expository Dictionary, three concepts are combined every time the word is used—strength, steadfastness, and love. So, the Psalmist says that God’s love, steadfastness, and strength expressed to us is better than life, itself—a concept we should explore further sometime.
Also according to Vine’s, chesed can only be expressed within a covenant relationship. In fact, it becomes an expression of generosity and mercy that the stronger party expresses to the lesser. Chesed requires a personal involvement in the relationship that goes “beyond the rule of law.” In other words, God’s steadfastness and commitment to us is stronger than law requires.
Hosea and Gomer’s relationship comes to mind. While Torah says to put the adulteress to death, Hosea’s chesed toward his wife supersedes Torah. Does this mean there are situations where we should NOT obey Torah? Apparently so, IF there is a covenant relationship and the offended party chooses to respond with chesed. In other words, Hosea’s response to Gomer’s infidelity demonstrates his strength of character, steadfast commitment, and unending love to the weaker party in the relationship.
Finally, according to Telushkin’s commentary on the Babylonian Talmud, “Charity is equal in importance to all the other commandments combined.” And, “One who gives charity in secret is greater than Moses.” However, given charity’s preeminence over the other mitzvah, there remains one thing greater than charity—chesed. How is chesed greater? It is greater in three ways.
Charity is done with one’s money, while lovingkindness may be done with one’s money or person [e.g. spending time with a sick person].
Charity is given only to the poor, while lovingkindness may be given both to the poor and to the rich [e.g. consoling those who are mourning or depressed].
Charity is given only to the living, while lovingkindness may be shown to both the living and the dead [e.g. by arranging burial and handling after death business].
Perhaps we should expand our understanding of at least two verses that come to mind:
Hosea 6:6 “I desire mercy [chesed], not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings. “
Galatians 5:22-23 “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.”
Shalom,
Bryan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)